From the moment the first ballot box was opened, it was apparent it was a No vote and the only issue at stake was by how much.

It turned out to be a lot.

In November 2004, I watched the count unfold on creating an elected North-East Assembly.

Afterwards, John Prescott gave a brief press conference and the next day everything went back to normal.

In the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum, however, it was clear this was never going to be the case.

The result was close enough that the clamour for change couldn’t be dismissed as leaders of all parties cobbled together a tentative ‘devo-max’ plan to shore up the No vote when polls started to waver.

But south of the border, there is demand for change too with calls for more devolution within England from councils, think-tanks and business groups.

Since devolution to Scotland was first introduced, many in the North-East have looked enviously across the border.

Scotland can tailor policies to its own circumstances, make decisions quickly, and has an advantageous funding settlement.

All have paid dividends with a growth rate that’s outstripped large parts of the UK.

Since the 2004 referendum, the North-East has had a selection of different institutions with no great transfer in powers, confused leadership structures, and paltry spending levels on crucial economic functions.

Businesses in the region have performed phenomenally to put our economy in the strongest position it has ever been – but the gap with the rest of the UK has barely moved.

Fundamentally, policies for the North-East have remained largely set by Westminster, usually tailored to conditions 250 miles south.

The ‘vow’ made by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband – to increase Scotland’s powers while retaining the Barnett Formula – looked inequitable.

In fact, it looked like a poor economic strategy from the perspective of UK plc.

The North-East has huge potential as an engine of growth, which at present has been under-utilised.

At a time when there is a drive for export-led growth, our businesses perform better than anyone.

With energy security one of the biggest long-term issue affecting the country, our resources and expertise are vital.

With parts of the country facing major congestion problems, our capacity for growth is essential, the list goes on and on.

Nevertheless, a series of changes are mooted with the potential to shift investment away from our region and land a few miles to the north – hardly an efficient way to run a national economy.

If Scotland makes a reduction in corporation tax, could that prompt a few firms to move up the A1?

If it reduces income tax, will some skilled people favour Dumfries over Durham?

If it cuts air passenger duty or subsidises ports, will exporters find international transport routes north of the border?

It’s hard to begrudge Scotland these measures if they have the opportunity.

But it would be bizarre for Westminster politicians to allow that to happen when it would be bad for the North-East and UK as a whole.

Make the whole cake bigger, rather than just giving Scotland extra cherries, all of the country must be enabled to reach its potential.

Most business leaders are ambivalent about how that happens.

If Whitehall can deliver it, then great – though the record of the last half century fails to inspire confidence.

On the other hand, a re-run of the 2004 assembly vote seems unlikely.

But the notion that economic policies in place several hundred miles north of London need to be tailored to local circumstances is now rightly beyond question when it comes to Scotland.

It is hard to argue that a different logic applies in Galashiels to South Shields.

Ross Smith, is director of policy at the North East Chamber of Commerce