A complex and emotional issue. I am not a Scot, nor do I live in Scotland so I do not have a say, only opinions. So a series of observations from a UK citizen:
This is a democratic process and the will of the people should prevail.
Economically, an independent Scotland (iS) faces significant uncertainties. Uncertainty and financial markets are a potent mix and on balance the calculating head says that a 'yes' vote carries just too much risk. But, for the brave, there is money to be made out of uncertainty too and iS could thrive on freedom if it embraces an open for business attitude and works its little tartan socks off. Nobody owes it a living. Independence may be a prized objective but will not of itself mean automatic success. The buck will stop at Holyrood. Independence brings the freedom and the opportunity to get it right or to get it wrong. Whichever it may be, either revel in it or suck it up.
The carve up of resources and assets is still to be agreed, so, while I have no vote on 18 September, I do have a vote in the general election next year. If Scotland goes its own way, I expect to hold my elected representatives accountable for ensuring that not one penny more of my taxes and share of UK assets is transferred to iS than absolutely has to be.
Pensions earned before the break up will still be backed by rUK; after independence rights earned would be paid and backed by iS. How iS will deal with the practicalities of payment of rUK pensions is an unknown but should just be a mechanical issue. How currency exchange issues will be dealt with is unclear, just as iS future currency is an unknown. So too is the extent to which anyone can rely on a financial promise backed by a Scottish government. I don't say that vindictively but there is just no history on which to base a decision. When faced with uncertainty over a sizeable proportion of my life savings a few years back, I could either rely on comforting words but no guarantees, or act to give myself certainty, albeit at a small loss. I cut and ran as I figured that with my livelihood at stake, there was only one person with my interests truly at heart. To those now faced with a similar dilemma, good luck. It's a very uncomfortable situation to find yourself in. I hope whichever call you make works for you.
I cannot see why Mr Salmond is so passionate about independence yet so wedded to the £. He's desperate to free Scotland from the shackles of 'Westminster/Tories/England' - but at the same time insistent on ceding fiscal authority for Scotland's currency to the same people. Just does not compute to me, any more than publicly promising to renege on debt as among the first acts of a fledgling country if he doesn't get his way. Very, very unwise in my view. It might play to the emotions of the masses but the boys and girls in the financial markets are an unemotional bunch who worship only at the altar of profitability, and will extract retribution in their own way.
Defence. Well, iS needs an SDSR to determine a force structure in line with it's objectives. Priorities should probably be the protection of its greatest wealth-producing offshore assets. So small fast patrol vessels, marines, helicopters, and an MPA might be more appropriate than a dozen Typhoons and a T45 destroyer for example. But what it would inherit are assets aligned to the UK's objectives, so there is a mismatch that would take years to unwind. Yet the two countries will have many shared interests, and co-operation would be sensible on any number of things. For example, air defences, north sea rigs, cyber threats, terrorist threats. There could even yet be room for negotiation regarding Trident. Current world events suggest that if ever there was a time to abandon these weapons, now is not it. The nuclear debate is a whole detour round the moral maze in itself but I can only think that those nuclear states who would wish us ill would be strengthened by any diminution in the UK's deterrent. ('Us' is rUK or iS; it makes no difference, as neither blast nor fallout stops at a line on a map). Reckless in my view.
An iS will need to quickly draw up its fiscal plan - how much it will raise in tax and borrowings, and how much it will spend. While oil still flows from the NS (and assuming oil assets are split geographically), generous social spending is affordable. When oil slows and stops it won't be. Investing some of the proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund now is therefore a vital promise the Scottish electorate must hold their government to for the long-term financial health of the country. Not something the UK can trumpet about frankly but its larger economy is more capable of bridging the gap than could iS. I can't think of any country that has taxed its way to prosperity, so having a way to finance social spending without hamstringing your productive economy is a unique opportunity. Blink and its gone.
But the rub is, if the Scots feel passionately about freedom then any amount of dry old cautious arguments count for nothing. Many may vote with their hearts and if it's a 'yes' then so be it. Salmond could be content to go down in history as the man who lead Scotland to freedom, and if that is his raison d'etre, he may care less about the credibility of some of his campaigning promises than saying what is necessary to get over the finishing line. I can't think that any leader of a party called the Scottish National Party has a bigger key objective in his job specification than Scottish independence. A big tick in that box and job done. After that, well, it could later fall to someone else to have to face up to reality, but Scotland would still be independent.
But if the Scots feel they are better off outside, then there is no point in rUk trying to bribe them to stay. It's pitiful that our weak leadership in Westminster is now panicked into doing that. They should take a leaf from the book of a famous son of Scotland, Alex Ferguson. However valuable a member of the team may be, once they want to go, or don't put the team first, it's better for everyone that they depart.
Frankly there has been much more vigour and energy from the 'Yes' contingent. Mr Salmond's has run political rings around the 'No' establishment which has looked pedestrian at best. As a campaign to achieve a single objective, it has gathered support while leaving its opposition struggling to keep up and looking a little ridiculous at times. By ridiculing his opponents, he has successfully deflected attention away from the many gaping holes in his plans. He is a clever politician, which is more an acknowledgement than a plaudit.
So if Scotland votes 'Yes', good luck. We all just have to deal with it. And I would be much saddened if the reported animosity spilled over into what would still need to be a partnership of many shared interests. There are plenty of other people around the world who wish us ill without making a difficult transition harder than it already is.
LF