As Alex Salmond said, Scots [those in favour of independence, that is] want freedom, not wealth. Pretty much destroys all arguments based on whether an independent Scotland can or can not afford to leave the UK!

But can it? Why not. I wonder. Ireland left the Union and prospered, so why not Scotland? Look at Iceland - a nation the size of a small British city, that can survive a banking crisis and repair an broken economy. Ireland, which also suffered in the 2008 crash is now emerging from a severe depression and beginning to prosper once more. Sure, had Scotland been independent back then, it would have suffered as badly, too. RBS would have been Scotland's Kaupžing: BoS its Glitnir. And just as Ireland and Iceland have, so, too would Scotland have recovered. It is facile to say otherwise.

And it must be remembered that the whole UK itself got to within a hair's breadth of having to ask the EU for support, and it isn't even part of the Eurozone! Britain's recovery, by the way, is just beginning to become visible.

As a Unionist, I believe that a move to a more federal arrangement would be the best way forward, but the Westminster Government has deprived the Scots of that option by insisting on an "in" or "out" vote only - "devo-max" is not an option, though it should be. Westminster calculates (rightly, I think) that Scots will, with that choice only, vote to remain in the Union.

But if the English get too snidey about how much they support the Scots and how little Scots give back, that could change the outcome considerably. Scots can be a bloody-minded lot when the fancy takes them. And England will be diminished too if Scotland does take the road to independence.