You can't assuage the basic question, though...because that's democracy for you, starchief. The majority trumps the minority, and if the majority is in one wee part of anywhere, then that is where the main focus will be. In the UK, it is London and the South..........in Scotland it will be the Central Belt. However, any party in Scotland which wants to be re-elected can't afford to ignore large swathes of the country...while Westminster parties don't need Scottish votes to be re-elected, not even NuLabour....so can ignore us with impunity.
We have utterly flawed "democracy" in Westminster, which the UK appears happy to keep.... the Inverness and Nairn constituency voted against removing the undemocratic FPTP system, as did the rest of the Highlands and Islands, after all...so being a tiny gog in a ginormous wheel appears to suit the Scots voter even better than being a slightly bigger cog in a much smaller wheel (which would assuage the basic question, if assuage, in your mind, means making less intense...as in mitigating the effects) ....though I guess the FPTP system helps maintain the chip supported by the UK security blanket round Scottish shoulders.
I really can't see any logic in saying that it is more beneficial to Inverness and area (Highlands and Islands) to have 1.08% (7) of 100% (650) MPs or 13.6%(7) of 9.07% (59) of 100% (650) than 11.6%(15) of 100% (129)....particularly in a Scottish Parliament which, even with the current PR system, is unlikely to have many majority Governments and will usually require a measure of compromise to pass bills.
Much as I dislike the EU, (being an EFTA fan)...equally, I can see no logic in the notion that 6 EU MPs, elected by Scotland, out of a total of 73 representing mainly UK interests, are more beneficial to Scotland's interests than a dedicated Scottish representative in every EU committee from the EU Commission downwards and at least as many EU MPs as the likes of Denmark (13).
With direct Scottish representation, Scottish farmers would at least do better out of CAP, if nothing else, rather than receiving currently at the third lowest CAP level in the EU. As a whole entity, the UK has a smaller agricultural sector than the likes of France, hence the UK rebate, but Scotland, within the UK, has a per-capita agricultural sector much larger than that of the UK as a whole...but does not receive the benefits it would be due..and does not get those lost benefits made up from the rebate, which goes direct to Westminster.
I hope that some political party will give us a vote on EU membership at some stage.....but I'd be reluctant to say "no thanks" to EU membership right now, before negotiations are completed and benefits (or otherwise) are felt. We can't judge the effects of the EU in an Independent Scotland on how the UK deals with it/benefits(or otherwise) from it. It's a bit like the "nay-sayers" trumpeting that we can't afford to do this, that or the other because they assume we will follow slavishly all the policies currently in train in the UK, and spend our income on exactly the same bloated levels of incompetence and uselessness as we are forced to by dint of having the bulk of our UK input spent "on our behalf".