It appears to me that this is principally about mational pride and a sense of nationhood, both of which the Scots already have in spades. In terms of government, they already control most matters, including the NHS which Salmond claims is under such threat from Westminster. The impression is being given that this is simply a re-badging exercise, with nothing much changing except Scotland's legal status, everything else will be business as usual. However that's not true. Separation will tear down all the structures which currently underpin Scottish prosperity. They will have to be built up from scratch, and more importantly paid for.

Scotland will inevitably remain economically tied to its larger neighbour, but will have lost all influence over it. If it succeeds in joining the EU (still a big if) it will cede much control to Brussels. Is that independence?

I understand the emotional case. I describe myself as 'British' but I feel 'English', and I understand why Scots have such a sense of their own identity. However whenever I visit Scotland I am left in no doubt of that. Would independence increase that sense of identity?

Scotland already runs 90% of its own affairs. What is so important about the remaining few matters which aren't already devolved? Could an independent Scottish government actually deliver on these? It strikes me odd that a supposedly socialist country doesn't understand that 'unity is strength'.

It's an emotional argument against a logical one, so they're never going to come together. The 'Yes' responses to the logical claims are either 'we don't believe you' or 'we don't care'. Perhaps that's enough to build a new state with. If the vote is "Yes", I sincerely hope it is.