So, it's the eve of the biggest day in Scotland's recent history. As most important things do it seemed to be taking an age to happen, but then suddenly is upon us.

Since the referendum was announced, I've never wavered from being a committed Yes voter, but the reasons I have for making that choice have changed, or at least their relative importance to me has changed.

Two years ago I would have voted for independence on the basis of my pride in my country. Scotland is a wonderful country, full of ingenious, generous, and decent people. For decades we've punched below our weight as the small northern region of a London centric union. We fail to provide great opportunities for our best people, and we perpetually have a chip on our shoulder where we allow oursleves to blame 'the other' for our problems. I'd have voted yes to set Scotland free, and to strip us of our victim complex.

I'm a political centrist, I'd call myself a pragmatist. I like some conservative policies; I believe firmly in meritocracy and entrepeneurship. But I also believe that we're all born equal, and should have broadly equal opportunities. However I've completely lost faith in our current politics. Our adversarial model of ya-boo, dumbed-down, superficial debate is not serving us well. Indeed, it's a pantomime designed to distract us while the real decision making happens behind closed doors, by a self-serving political cabal. What decent, talented person would chose to stand for office in this current state? Why would you subject yourself and your family to that level of invasive scrutiny and vitriol? Politcal parties have destroyed democracy in this country by whipping their acolytes into dogmatic obedience. I fear that Westminster is beyond redemption; it's still in denial that this is even a problem. I strongly believe that an independent Scotland can build a more mature, consensual politics and that we can engage all citizens in creating a written constitution that enshrines that politics. (Incidentally, politics, 'n': "of, for, or relating to citizens")

I stumbled upon the Common Weal when I was looking for a new style of politics. I'd hoped for a better way to organise democracy which would give us better stewardship and enable decent, capable and experienced people to contribute to running our society. Instead I found a deeply compelling vision for a much more socially just nation. To a large degree, we're wealthy because of our geographical position and the wealth of the land that we call home. That wealth should be shared by all those who live on it. It's inconceivable to me that a nation as wealthy as ours can tolerate our fellow citizens living without shelter, or needing to use food-banks to feed their children. An independent Scotland could give a constitutional guaranteee of shelter and basic sustenance to its citizens. I'm fortunate enough to earn well, as does my wife, so a more balanced, socially just Scotland is likely to cost us personally. I'm comfortable with that.

Two years ago Trident was a non-issue to me. On balance, I'd rather not have needed nuclear weapons, but I tolerated their necessity. Today, I can only think of one thing worse than squandering £200bn to retain weapons of mass distruction that we never use. That one thing is to actually use them. Proponents would say that it's the threat that counts. But I'm now clear, never in my name should my country annihilate tens of thousands of civilians in another country. Not under any circumstances. In any case our enemies in this modern world cannot be targetted by weapons of mass distruction. Independent Scotland would not perpetuate the Nuclear arms race.

A free, impartial and tenacious media is about as important an asset to a democratic society as can be conceived of. In general the British media is beneath contempt. There is no pretence at objectivity, no sense of decency and no respect for people's humanity. I'm not sure that we can change that with independence, but I think we aspire to. I don't detect any real desire to address this at the UK level.

In the last weeks of this campaign I've also been shocked at the complacent, entitled arrogance that the Westminster parties have shown to Scotland. They took the result as a foregone conclusion, they failed to plan for a 'Yes' scenario, they have failed to express the case for Union in anything other than the most basic fear-laden terms. To me independence is our natural state. I surrender some autonomy to my wife because we're better together. I surrender (a little ;-) autonomy to my employer and share in the communal benefits. I haven't heard one convincing argument as to the benefits of Scotland surrendering some of her autonomy to the UK. Had 'Devo-max' been on the ballot paper, I could probably have been swayed. I think the vast majority of Scots would have been. But we were forced to a straight yes/no decision. And to hear the UK party leaders making desparate but vague, eleventh hour promises further reinforces my conviction that we're not better together. I have no confidence that those promises would be carried to fruition following a 'No' vote. I don't believe they're made in good faith, and I don't have confidence in the party leaders ability to deliver them even should they try.

Finally, the campaigns can be distilled in an over-simplified way to this: hope versus fear. The Yes campaign offers a promise of hope, of a better future, of hydrocarbon billions and renewable zillions fueling a highly just and progressive society. The No campaign offers doom, gloom, and threats of armageddon. I've loved seeing the diversity of groups under the Yes umbrella. I love Poles for Yes, Asians for Yes, Italians for Yes. To describe this as a racist, nationalistic or zenophobic campaign is to do it a great injustiuce. I love seeing Labour for yes explaining how independence gives them an opportunity to build a party true to their values. I love the idea that a new Scottish conservative party can emerge espousing that decent, family oriented, financial prudence which was theirs before Thatcher. I'm depressed (but not moved) when Gordon Brown talks of British brothers in arms spinning under Flanders field when we shed the Union they fought for. Why not go back to Culloden, or Bannockburn and consider the Scots that died to prevent this union. That's nihilism, and in both cases we deserve better from our leaders. Better to consider the privilege we have to be voting peacefully and bloodlessly for our nationhood.

It's much more complex than Hope versus Fear, but where there's hope there's risk. Indeed nothing worth having was ever gained without risk and uncertainty. When push comes to shove, you'll always find me on the side of hope, embracing the risk and striving heart, mind and sinew to make that hope our new reality.

But Stanley Odd says it better, and certainly more concisely:

Son, I just wrote this,

I thought you might like to know.

I chose to vote 'Yes'

Cause a 'Yes' vote provided hope.