Already worried about the money in their pockets, many Scots will be understandably concerned about claims that price rises from major UK retailers could make matters worse in the event of independence.

Some business leaders have already warned family budgets could be further stretched north of the Border if there is a Yes vote. The argument is that it can cost more to operate in some parts of Scotland and that, in the past, such differentials have been absorbed by a UK-wide pricing policy.

Post-independence, the argument goes, any such costs are more likely to be borne by Scottish customers. Asda and John Lewis have issued warnings, while other retail owners are reported to be preparing to publish a joint letter warning independence could usher in prices increase for Scots shoppers.

But would they? Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was dismissive. Supermarkets are a highly competitive sector, she pointed out, and she does not believe price rises are likely.

This is the position one might expect her to take. But it is also reasonably persuasive. Even accepting the argument about greater costs (and for most parts of Scotland operating costs would be little different from those in Cornwall or Cumbria, for instance) passing them on would be a tactical decision.

Would a supermarket benefit more by making a virtue of the fact that it was keeping prices identical across the UK and see its share of the market improve as a result? Would shoppers boycott stores if they felt they were "punishing" Scotland for leaving the Union?

There is also the stance of other retailers to consider. The budget supermarket chains Lidl and Aldi have no plans to change pricing and they operate across borders, all over Europe. Aldi insists its pricing policy will not change and neither will its buying policy of sourcing local products, stating that its commitment to Scotland will remain as strong as in the 17 other countries in which it operates. Lidl is more cautious but also declines to suggest prices would rise.

Tim Martin, chairman of pub group Wetherspoons, insists there is "no sensible reason in the world," why the price of a pint should go up and speaks positively about Scotland's prospects.

Meanwhile, the response by Tesco to Better Together claims about different prices in its stores in Ireland and the UK is probably fairly reliable. Such claims were "entirely speculative", it said.There is reason to believe market forces would help balance out any pressures some retailers feel as they would probably fear that price rises might hand an advantage to competitors. That does not mean the argument will not concern many people as they make their choice at the ballot box.

For a minority, such as those dependent on food banks, the argument must seem rather irrelevant. But for the so-called squeezed middle, under pressure from rising food, petrol and fuel bills, any added impetus to the cost-of-living crisis would be unwelcome. Women voters, more sceptical than men about voting Yes according to the polls, may remain sceptical as the responsibility for managing domestic budgets often falls on them.

As with so much of this debate, it is difficult to be certain of the veracity of claims on both sides. Voters will need to decide whether they believe major retailers have been leaned on to make these pronouncements and whether they have a vested interest; or, indeed, whether businesses are a useful impartial barometer, interested not in politics but only in the bottom line.