THERE is something wrong with Scotland. This is a country with abundant natural resources. It has talented, ambitious people. It has been at the forefront of research, scientific prowess and technical inventiveness. Yet Scotland endures depths of poverty, glaring health and educational inequalities, and persistent problems of alcoholism and violence.

Why the potholes? Why the dirty streets? Why the children pasty with undernutrition, the low-wage precarious jobs, the mould growing in the corner of the waiting room of my NHS surgery, the unpicked litter and broken bottles in the park? Why does the whole add up to so much less than the sum of its parts?

This question – why some countries flourish while others languish – has been a staple of development studies for decades. From the journalistic takes of P J O’Rourke’s Eat the Rich and All the Trouble in the World to serious scholarly enquires such as The Fix by Jonathan Tepperman and Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, certain consistent answers emerge.

Countries that have been extracted from – whether by colonial rulers or by their own corrupt elites – remain poor. Those that take charge of their own development and manage resources for the public interest have the opportunity to thrive.

Going into the election, the Unionist parties will try to say that independence solves nothing, and that constitution-mongering is merely a distraction from practical, “mince-n-tatties” issues. They are half right.

Independence alone solves nothing. Many countries have become independent, only to see their resources absorbed and siphoned-off by a small clique, or wasted through extravagant vanity spending that leaves the country worse off than before. There are many cases where independence – if not accompanied by resilient and inclusive democratic institutions – has been a profound disappointment.

READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Scotland is no 'banana republic' – but Holyrood could do better

On the other hand, nothing can be solved without independence. Scotland has for three centuries been a peripheral province. It has suffered from extractive economics and chronic under-development. Its land has been used as a shooting range and a playpark. It has supplied troops, coal and oil – and technical expertise and skills too – but at no point has it been able to take charge of its own future or shape its own economic development.

To constitute something is to put it together. Scotland, an unconstituted country, has never pulled itself together. This has not only scarred the landscape, and blighted the cities, but also stunted the national psyche. It has engendered a lack of confidence, a lack of initiative and a lack of aspiration – not at the individual level, where folks have had to be canny to get on, but nationally.

The “Caledonian cringe” is real, and you see it in the dirty streets, the abysmal roads, and the grey damp squalor of a country where the national interest has long been neglected.

Yet, while independence alone is not the answer, none of this can be turned around without independence. Some think independence is all about national pride. It is nothing of the sort. If there is one thing that distinguishes those who support independence, in my experience, from those who are sceptical of it, it is a sense not of pride but conviction. The gap between what Scotland is, and what it could be and should be, convicts our consciences.

“Scotland’s shite!” is the correct response to desolate shop fronts on an empty high street, ill-fed weans in damp houses, empty docks and barren hillsides where once whole villages stood. It is shite, right enough. But this is not an expression of alienated fatalistic resignation. It is a rallying cry for action. We cannot settle for this. It is not good enough. Tuck your shirt in and roll your selves up, we’ve got a country to build!

That “can do” attitude must be reflected in a “can do” state. To develop Scotland in ways that will bring tangible advantages to ordinary people requires a “developmental state”: a capable state committed to transformative national development.

The current Scottish Government has made a start with the National Performance Framework. However, such a development plan cannot be left to the government, because governments come and go.

READ MORE: George Kerevan: Could the Tories have blocked Scotland's powers on Covid response?

Instead – this is where it gets constitutional – there should be an independent constitutionally mandated body (let us call it the National Planning and Development Authority), that it can set long-term goals and allocate resources over the electoral horizon. It should have a constitutional duty to devise a strategic National Development Plan, combining infrastructure investment, industrial policy, rural development, and educational and employment policies over a generational timespan.

Democratic oversight is vital. The plan must be rooted in broad cross-party and cross-sectoral support, and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. However, it should be at arm’s length from Ministers, protecting it from political inference and enabling it to keep progress on track.

Chronic underdevelopment does not have easy solutions. A planning authority is not a magic bullet. It is however a useful tool in the box of national reconstruction.

Professor Allan Kennedy is the next guest on the TNT show. Join us on Wednesday at 7pm