There is only one real Team Scotland

Nothing would suit Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, better than to turn the entire debate on the referendum into a battle between Team Westminster and Team Scotland: ignore the difficult issues at stake in this referendum campaign; don't explain how Scotland on its own can improve social justice, fund its public services and pensions or increase employment opportunities; and, even worse, try to turn the democratically elected House of Commons, including 59 Scottish MPs, into the enemy of the Scottish people.

The Scottish MPs are as proudly patriotic as any nationalist. Many have fought for social justice against the Tories and the nationalist MPs all their political lives. To try to box them into an anti-Scottish corner is dishonest.

Mr Salmond knows as well as anyone how Westminster works, and he enjoyed it well enough to go twice. And he knows he is wrong to say it works against the interests of Scottish people. Also, it is quite sensible to assume that public services in Scotland are safer and more secure backed by the broad shoulders of the UK.

Do voters in Scotland not deserve better? Is it right to make the referendum debate a battle between head and heart? Next week's vote will be quite different from any decision made in a general election. There will be no going back. It is not a trial separation. When faced with the historic option of breaking up a politically and economically successful model, voters should be presented with the facts. If hearts prevail over heads, disappointment looms. And who will get the blame then?

Mr Salmond either has answers and is keeping them to himself or he doesn't have the answers and has no idea what will happen if Scotland does vote Yes. Either way it is not satisfactory.

Prominent nationalists still insist a Yes vote would mean all the decisions affecting Scotland would be made in Scotland. Does that mean they have given up the notion of a currency union, having heeded Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, who said this week that it would be unworkable? Does it mean they have decided to go it alone at the same time as preparing to renege on Scotland's fair share of debt? Scottish voters should be told because it will impact on every aspect of Scottish life.

Interest rates on mortgages and any other forms of debt would rise dramatically, costs would rise and the choice would be massive tax hikes or draconian cuts in public services. If voters are told the possible consequences of their decisions, that's fair enough but, if not, they are bound to feel conned if reality does not meet their expectations in the future.

On the day leading businessmen send out dire warnings about Scotland's future in the event of a Yes vote, should Mr Salmond's every political sinew not strain to tackle the arguments and tell us exactly what would happen if companies such as Standard Life disappear over the Border?

Any uncertainty is bad for business, and it is beyond the bounds of credibility to suggest senior figures like David Nish, Standard Life's chief executive, and Sir Ian Wood, the leading expert on North Sea oil, are playing fast and loose, or even playing politics, with such economic dynamite.

It does not make pleasant reading but, if companies such as Standard Life are making plans to transfer their Scottish business to England in the event of a Yes vote, and Sir Ian Wood says Scots owe it to themselves, their children and their grandchildren to fully understand the economic consequences of breaking away from the UK, they should not be lightly dismissed.

Scotland already has an ageing population so the tax burden would fall on ever fewer shoulders if the country breaks away. The 64,000 dollar question is: where would the money come from? We should be told. Lynsey Sharp, who won silver in the women's 800m at the Commonwealth Games and is a leading light of the real Team Scotland, gets it. She is voting No on September 18.