I WAS out with my toddlers on my local high street the other day when I was stopped by a lady manning a stand for the Yes campaign.

She handed the girls little saltires.

A polite exchange followed and as I turned to leave she asked: "Do you know unless Scotland becomes independent you may have to start paying for prescriptions?"

"But that's not true," I replied, surprised.

"They might privatise more of the health service," she persisted.

"No, that's not right."

With my arms being tugged in two different directions, I admit, my responses were somewhat brief - it wasn't the best time for me to stand and debate. But I would have liked to ask her the basis for her claims.

I dare say it is possible to argue that a budget dictated by Westminster makes benefits such as free prescriptions more vulnerable than a tax-and-spend regime run entirely in Scotland. But to suggest there is any immediate threat to free prescriptions, which were introduced under devolution by the SNP, is totally misleading.

As to privatising the NHS - where could that come from? In January this year a press release issued on behalf of Scottish Health Secretary Alex Neil said all significant private-sector spend in future years will need to be agreed by the Scottish Government. The emphasis was on reducing private sector use, regardless of the outcome in September.

Perhaps scenarios can be hypothesised where the current constitutional arrangements pose a threat to the NHS as we know it - but there's a much bigger threat looming straight towards it on both sides of the Border and that is the growing elderly population. If we are going to talk to the public on the streets about the NHS, let's focus on the real problems, not hypothetical ones. Let's get a sense of how the majority would like to prioritise spending - quicker waiting times for treatment, better community care for the frail, free prescriptions - and share the truth that we can't have it all and more besides.

While Scotland is locked in this debate about its constitutional future, I fear progress towards addressing the unanswered question about how we pay for the standard of care we want for a soaring number of octogenarians moves at snail's pace.

I'm not writing this to express a view on which way the vote should go on ballot day, nor because I would like to attract online abuse. The opportunities to address entrenched ill health in Scotland's poorest communities are almost certainly greater if the government controls taxation and welfare - although, of course, it depends what they do with these tools.

If a Better Together campaigner stops me and argues that independence will be detrimental to patients waiting for a transplant because the current donor system works across the UK, I will also speak up. I am told the existing set up can continue - there are already cross-border transplant pools elsewhere in Europe.

When it comes to the future of the NHS, we need honesty, not spin or spurious allegations: Surely everyone would vote yes to that?