Your explanation of the psychology of Remain and Leave totally ignores how sharply Scotland-England leads to different outcomes in opinion. In Scotland every social, ethnic, and age demographic is anti-Brexit, not just Bourgeois paradises like Edinburgh.
You've got your economically disadvantaged post-industrial Glasgow, your wee oil-and-gas haven Aberdeen, bland grey council-estate shitholes in the middle of nowhere across the central belt, and your arch-Tory borderlands.
More than economic circumstance, the driving force of Brexit is a psychological need to make some symbolic gesture of autonomy - we've went in the last 100 years has went from global hegemony to being one of several powerful but not dominating forces in the world.
For Scotland, in which people have come to identify more as Scottish than British, it's an easy transition to make psychologically. Scottishness as a backup identity to Britishness means there's no difficulty in going from the mindset of world power, to the mindset of being one nation among many similarly-influential peers. Scottish people actually want to be thought of as a peer to similar countries like Ireland, Norway, etc.
For England, there is no backup identity. Englishness has always been basically interchangeable with Britishness, and British people have never thought of themselves as one of a group of nations. We were always either different and mostly uninterested in getting involved, like in the 18th century, or superior and able to dictate the terms of our relations, like in the 19th and early 20th Century.
The last 70-80 years has basically been the only period in our history when we've been forced to work-out how to live in a world where we have to cooperate with lots of countries on an equal footing, and several who are far superior to us. We've done an alright job of it. Some horrendous blunders, sure, but we got ourselves a pretty cushty position. We were closely connected with our closest equals and natural allies in Europe, whilst also operating in a privileged position of reduced commitment. We had a good relationship with the greatest military power in history, without being too exposed to any negative economic or legal influences from them.
Sadly, the skills needed to gain this position - multi-lateral cooperation, and relations-management with a superior power - are disgusting to the pre-1945 British mindset, which has survived long past its day in the British cultural fabric.
People in their 50s in Britain think as if they personally fought in WW2. Much of our senior journalistic establishment still hasn't seriously come to terms with Ireland being a separate country. People live in a Bridge Too Far, Dads Army wonderland where we don't need to admit Suez ever happened.
We've never developed the maturity needed to exist in a world in which we aren't special. We think we can go bargain with America as a fellow great-power like it's 1920, when it's 2019 and they just look at us as another helpless vassal.
We think we can create a special relationship with our ex colonies like Canada or India, when to them we are just one of the several larger European countries trying to set up our stall.
We think we register a significant partner/opponent to China, when to them we are barely more significant than a country like the Netherlands or Poland.
Nobody has ever sat the British public down and explained this to them. And so, when we hit a period of slowing growth and growing poverty, it became all-too easy to blame our problems on our failure to exercise our huge influence properly - rather than consider the real, internal causes of our problems.
Delusions of national grandeur are a great opiate for the poor, and a great shield for the rich.
And by the way when I said "Lib Dem melts" I actually did mean to say that I consider all Lib-Dems to be melts.