Don't get me wrong, my grandfather was a Scotsman and I like a lot of things about the Scots and their land.
But frankly, who cares what they do?
Although I can empathise with their argument that they are fed up with being ruled by rich, Tory toffs in Westminster that they haven't voted for, it isn't an argument for independence.
That's simply an argument for a change of government.
Anybody living elsewhere in the British Isles that didn't vote Tory could say that, but I don't see Labour held Cities seeking independence.
Seeking independence of an entire nation on the basis that you don't like the Government of the day, seems a little OTT.
And unfortunately, we live in a democracy, where majority rules.
I mean, how far do you want to split it down?
I'm sure that in many Cities that are held by the Tories, many electoral wards did not vote for them. And within those wards that did, there would be areas that didn't.
There are whole areas of England that did not vote Tory.
That's just the way it is with the area of Scotland, but on a larger scale.
However, there are just a few things that bother me in this debacle.
Far a start, why is it that everyone says it's for the Scots to decide? How so? They might vote no and the English might have voted yes, if we had a vote.
It affects us all, so why does no one else get a say?
The Scots moan that they don't want to be governed by the English, yet there are plenty of Scottish MP's in the Houses of Parliament voting on laws to govern England.
Has no one thought that the English don't want to be governed by the Scots?
Subsequently, can the English have a vote to leave Scotland?
I haven't got a problem with a yes vote, but let’s call a spade a spade here.
If they want independence, then they should get it with all that that entails.
So, there should be a full, manned border crossing where passports would be produced and full immigration and security checks done.
As Sterling is the currency of a political union (I.E. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and since Scotland would no longer be a part of that union, they shouldn't be able to use the Pound. Obviously.
The same logic would also be applied to Scottish membership of the E.E.C.
Obviously, as they would no longer form part of Great Britain which (regrettably) is a part of it, they would have to apply to join.
All military bases should be closed and relocated within the remainder of the (British) country and any contracts for defence build/maintenance should be cancelled.
Obviously, defence of the realm cannot be dependent upon foreign countries supplying us.
All Civil Service offices and jobs with a remit pertaining to the rest of the (British) country should also be closed, obviously. We can't have our tax offices and crown buildings in a foreign country; that would simply be ridiculous.
The amount of money owed, pro-rata of the national debt, needs to be calculated and left with the Scottish Government. No argument.
And if it all goes t**s up, then it's tough. We shouldn't bail them out, as we have done in the past (check your history).
But of course, none of that will happen; they want their cake and to eat it.
The spineless, wishy washy liberal elite that pose today as politicians in Westminster, will simply crumble and allow the Scots to carry on, virtually as before; partly because of their own vested interests and partly because they're clueless.
You do have to note some inherent inconsistencies within the independence argument.
The most glaringly obvious and most ridiculous of these being the nonsensical notion of leaving one union, only to wish to submerge oneself into another union, only bigger. So you would be an even smaller player.
So, to leave the United Kingdom, having argued you don't want to be controlled by a remote elite in Westminster who have nothing in common with you, to being told what to do and controlled by.........
Funnily enough, a remote elite who have nothing in common with you.
The only difference (apart from the fact that they actually are foreign) is that they are based in Brussels.
Oh and they're unelected, so that's bang on for the democracy part of the independent argument. Not.
The second biggest nonsensical point in independence is the proposal to use a foreign country's (I.E. Britain) currency.
We've all seen what happens where countries share a currency which has it's interest rate and fiscal policies governed by one country for all.
That's simply because the country setting it, sets it for itself funnily enough.
That's precisely why the pro-federalist Euro brigade want a full political union for Europe.
You simply don't have independence without your own currency.
Aside from that, you do have to laugh at the hypocrisy of some of the proponents of independence.
Given that, as part of the argument goes at least, the Scots want a fairer, more equitable society (which I'm sure we all do), I do wonder how certain wealthy Scottish individuals, who run large businesses can be the best standard bearer for that.
Surely these people represent the very elite that the yes campaigners claim are manifestly unfair.
These people could simply practice what they preach and pay higher wages, offer far higher terms and conditions of employment and thus help spread wealth and create a more equitable society.
Why doesn't the boss of Stagecoach put wages and pensions up for his staff for example? They're not the highest paid in their industry.
He could do that and improve the lot of many.
No doubt lots of these people have benefitted from operating in England, either by way of subsidies/incentives/soft government contracts or simply lower corporation taxes and a lax tax enforcement approach from Westminster and no doubt help get them where they are, but they conveniently forget this.
One thing is obvious, if the SNP doesn't win now, they never will.
Alex Salmond has done his utmost to align every possible advantageous factor his way, timing this vote to perfection.
Cashing in on the back of the Commonwealth games, the unpopularity of the Tory government and the austerity budgets.
Oh, not forgetting to let children vote this time either.
I say children advisedly, as you're not classed as an adult until you're 18.
This was on the pretence of democracy blah-blah, but we all know that it's simply because they think this group is more likely to vote yes.
I mean, you can't buy fireworks or beer and you can't even watch certain movies legally; I'm not even sure they'd sell you glue and you can't sit on a jury, but you can vote?
I don't know how you qualify to vote in the referendum but I find it very strange and indeed, quite worrying really, that foreign nationals appear able to vote.
Reference, Newsnight and newspaper reports/pictures of several eastern European and other foreign nationals who happen to be living in Scotland displaying 'yes' (in foreign) banners.
How does that work?
Just add to this a couple of year’s notice of the vote in which to brainwash people by going over and over the same thing again and again..... And hey presto.
We all know if you repeat something enough times it will become fact, no matter how abstract the idea.
I've always found the notion that you need to make an 'informed decision' somewhat bizarre.
What's wrong with just voting on principle?
If you were going to buy a car, you could rule out in principle say, a diesel powered model for any reason; you don't need to be 'informed' to make that decision.
It's a matter of principle in which there's no wrong or right answer, it's simply your belief or what you want.
If I wanted a holiday in the sun, I could rule out certain countries in principle; informing me about Iceland isn't going to help if I want a beach holiday.
Indeed, if I asked the wife if she wanted to go on holiday, she could object in principle, without knowing where to.
They (yes campaign) all claim to espouse 'tolerance' and be multi-national-faith welcoming, yet it's funny how when Nigel Farage visits they all go barmy and say he's not welcome. Charming!
So much for 'Scotland welcomes all'.
Apparently, unless they disagree with your point of view.
Anybody would think he's expressing a view to murder new born babies, as opposed to simply saying he doesn't want to be governed by Europe and he doesn't agree with unlimited immigration.
A perfectly rational, calm, measured and legitimate view I would think many, many people with any common sense whatsoever, would agree with.
My view on yes or no........
Well, I think ultimately they would fail, financially at least.
But if they want to be in Europe whatever, then seeing as Scotland only accounts for about 8% of the total population in Britain and yet has roughly 30% of the land available, then I suggest they go independent.
They would then be free to have all the immigrants from Europe and the rest of the world, that decides on a whim to travel through Europe to get here, that they want.
It would be win, because if Scotland flourished, they would no doubt attract all the hangers on and relieve the pressure from the rest of Britain that, as one of the most densely populated places in the world, can't move.
And they have the land so they would also gain from a building boom created by the demand for new housing for the influx of immigrants which if you believe, would doubtless come to contribute to and help the new Scottish nation in their droves.
Otherwise I hope they vote no.
I genuinely do not wish to see the break-up of Great Britain, however I have to admit that there is one ulterior motive in wanting a no vote.
Without the Labour MP's from Scotland, the rest of Britain would have a permanent Tory government and it would perhaps be true to say that England was irretrievably Tory.
Not only would that simply be bad news, but I believe would be dangerous for the future of the rest of Britain.