THIS column was written yesterday while Scotland was at the polls.

Even if it had been composed this morning after the result was known, I still would not have given my thoughts about what the future may hold for Scotland.

When the referendum date was announced I pledged this column might occasionally mention the forthcoming event but there would be no hint of what my own feelings might be about the best way forward for the country. I stuck by that pledge. Most voters will have been aware that the referendum would have major implications for Scotland but many people I spoke to were utterly scunnered by the whole business.

Never in my life have I come across so many citizens not knowing whether to believe what politicians from both sides of the argument were telling them.

Complex rules and regulations had to be put in place before the referendum could go ahead.

I thought one important opportunity was missed.

When the referendum agreements were being drawn up, there should have been a clause that stated the winning side would have exactly one year to demonstrate that promises they made were starting to be delivered.

During that first year the country would be in a sort of limbo albeit every-day parliamentary and local government business would go on. If the winning side in the referendum failed to deliver promises they would be legally bound to forfeit their victory.

I concede that my suggestion would never have worked for two principal reasons. First, it would be an affront to democracy if voters who gave one side a majority in the referendum had their wishes cast aside. Second, while I could be wrong about this, I am unaware of politicians ever agreeing to be legally bound to carry out everything — or, say, 75 per cent of everything — they had promised prior to an election or referendum.

What happened yesterday has happened. We have to live with it.

We each have to hope that we get what we voted for. And we have to heal divisions and make Scotland a better place.