First off, a declaration of my own position: I am Scottish, living in Scotland. I have a vote, and have a settled intention to vote Yes for independence.

It's a mistake to equate the support for independence to unqualified adherence to the Scottish National Party (SNP) or for Alex Salmond. I have had several conversations with "Yes" supporters who declare a dislike for Salmond, but they all know that Scottish Parliament elections will take place in 2016, and they can then vote according to their political preferences. This is often summed up as: "Voting No because you hate the SNP is like not buying your dream house because you don't like the wallpaper". Support for independence is increasingly cross-party, and across the political spectrum. The most recent figures suggest something like 30% of Scottish labour supporters intend to vote Yes, against the expressed position of the Scottish Labour Party.

Jim McLean wasn't complaining about the Westminster Parliament being dominated by English MPs. It's obvious that in any country, geographically, some areas or regions will have differing political persuasions from others. So national assemblies reflect that variety. However, Scots for the most part don't see themselves as belonging to a "region", but a separate nation, a distinct country-within-a-country. So the democratic deficit Jim mentions is not just normal regional swings-and-roundabouts, it's something that people see a chance to end.

The arguments against independence focus a lot on finance, the economy and security. The underlying theme is - there are so many reasons that this could be difficult, unpleasant, uncomfortable - why would we put ourselves through this? It's easy to conclude that Yes supporters foresee a socialist utopia that Brian McNeill warns against: "We'll all live on the oil/ and the whisky by and by/ Free heavy beer! Pie suppers in the sky!". But actually we don't believe that. It will be massively challenging, of course, but is anyone really telling us that we're too poor, too small, or too stupid to run our own country?

The hugely positive aspect of the referendum process has been the way that it has energised political conversation across the whole of the country, in a way that I can't recall. For the most part, away from the televised shouting matches that have been passed off as "debate" between our political representatives, the discourse has been respectful and civilised, and this has allowed undecided voters to be persuaded to a choice, has permitted supporters of "No" to change to "undecided" and then to "Yes" - and there have probably been some who have made the journey the other way.

Voting for "No" accepts the status quo of the Union. However that's not a vote for No Change, but a vote for continuing the journey that the UK is already embarked on - continued austerity, privatisation and destruction of the NHS, demonisation of the disadvantaged and those on benefits, xenophobia, withdrawal from the European Union, UKIP, more Middle East adventurism, Cameron/Osborne, and the looming possibility of Boris Johnson as PM, a national Labour party which is virtually indistinguishable in policy from the Con/Dem coalition government.

A vote for "Yes"is a vote for hope and possibility, for my children and grandchildren. It is a vote for change, making our own choices, for a different future.