Nicola Sturgeon began a national roadshow in Edinburgh this week, with further events planned in Dumfries, Dundee, Inverness, Aberdeen and Glasgow, where she is set to speak in front of a capacity crowd of 12,000 at the SSE Hydro.

Meanwhile the “victors” of the independence referendum have embarked on a new paroxysm of internal feuding, as the disastrous fallout to the Labour party’s commitment to the austerity union continues to unfold.

John McTernan believes that the SNP has already been “routed” and is “in danger of irrelevance in Scotland at the next general election”. But with Scottish sub-samples in the 12 Populus polls conducted since the referendum finding the following support: SNP 37% (+17%), Lab 28% (-14%), that’s some rout. In fact, a new poll from Mori today has the SNP on 52% and Labour on 23%, meaning only four Labour MPs would survive, and the SNP would have 54.

This is self-delusion at a grand scale, emboldened by the no vote. Now, stepping into the ring in a potentially damaging (or cathartic) process are the MSPs Sarah Boyack and Neil Findlay (shadow health secretary) and MP Jim Murphy, who have declared they will stand for the leadership of the Scottish Labour party.

But this branch of the Better Together continuity group are not happy campers. Malcolm Chisholm has said that if a Westminster MP is head of the Scottish Labour party “a crisis would become a catastrophe”. Former first minister Jack McConnell has also weighed in, saying: “She [Johann Lamont] was completely undermined by the decision to remove the head of the party organisation in Scotland. We have to resolve that issue [of control] before the next leader can properly carry out the job.” The trouble is that Lamont’s diagnosis of Labour’s problem – that Scotland is treated as a regional branch of the UK party – is precisely the argument for yes she’s been denying. It makes them look at best ridiculous and at worst deeply deceitful.

But Labour’s woes are the least of Scotland’s concerns right now, including its strangely quiet no voters. The famous silent majority is hushed and somnolent. The paradox is that, as they “own the media” in the words of Alan Bissett’s The Pure the Dead and the Brilliant, we don’t know what no voters think at all. In the absence of any credible alternative media we are left to speculate what they think about the raft of announcements that confirm pretty much all that was said by the yes camp during the campaign. The unionist media, that was used to hush the nationalist voice, now silences the silent.

The idea that democracy in Scotland would be undermining and destabilising seems odd now as the battle cry for EU exit becomes a full-scale home counties shriek. Just four (out of 52) Westminster constituencies in the whole of Scotland have a majority of voters who want to leave the EU. Edinburgh North and Leith charts at just 22.74%, and Edinburgh South at 23.8%. Meanwhile, in England, most constituencies back leaving. Support for the move soars above 75% in Clacton. Who are the separatists now?

The endless narrative about the collapse of North Sea oil reserves seems equally strange as oil giant BP and European energy conglomerate GDF-Suez announce a massive new oil discovery in the North Sea which they say could yield 50m barrels. If diminishing oil was a stick with which to beat yes optimism, a bright orange carrot was surely about British banks and economic stability. Yet the Lloyds Banking Group has announced plans to slash its workforce by 9,000. This is a state-backed group which is to close 200 branches, of which there are 293 in Scotland, employing 16,000 people. I wonder if they voted no?

Finally we hear from Unicef, which this week stated that one in four children in the UK are living in poverty and the number is rising sharply because of the government’s harsh austerity measures – a government that Scotland didn’t elect. So what do no voters think about all this?

Nobody knows. The 55% held no public celebrations in the aftermath of their win, and this ongoing quietism, deference and inability to articulate a political aspiration is unsettling. Maybe it was motivated by a core of late-Thatcherite individualism. Maybe clinging to the wreckage of the British state and the scraps of British identity is enough in itself, whatever the consequences. Maybe they have faith in Miliband. Maybe economic uncertainty and poverty are things they have never encountered, and doubt they ever will.

As someone who is ashamed to live in a country that doesn’t want to govern itself, I’d like to know what they think now.