THE wall of opinion from economists, businesses and journalists is not some orchestrated dose of fear from Westminster or "the Establishment", nor is it bullying, scaremongering or an attempt to tell the Scottish people what to think.

It is rational people looking at plain facts and concluding that the case has not been made for independence.

It's about looking at two potential courses for Scotland over the next five, 10 and 30-plus years and realising that a world of higher interest rates, higher prices, smaller global stature, and an addiction to a volatile fossil fuel is not better than the continuation of one of the greatest political unions in world history.

Yes Alex Salmond and his successors would have more power than they currently do, and the prospect of a Tory government would be off the agenda for the next few years (although given how enthusiastically Scotland voted for the Conservative Party for a large part of the 20th century they will doubtless make a return at some point). But in contrast to the rosy picture painted by the separatist campaign, independence is not a magic wand that will make Scotland's problems disappear. In contrast, it will very likely usher in an era of economic volatility on a par with the darkest days of the post-2008 financial crisis that we are only just recovering from, only this time it will be entirely self-inflicted. I just hope those who are planning to vote Yes are ready for that struggle and believe so passionately that Scotland must go it alone to justify it.

There are reasons to vote Yes, but the majority of them rest on either optimistic assumptions, a very short-term view of the political landscape, or a naive perspective on global affairs and the challenges of living in a volatile world. In contrast, the reasons to vote No are numerous, much more quantifiable, and potentially hugely damaging to the wealth of our nation.

Nationalism is rarely the answer to anyone's problems, and has rather been a source of enormous turmoil and conflict throughout modern history. Just because someone lives to the north of Hadrian's Wall shouldn't mean their plight matters more to you than someone living south of it. Union is about being consensual and sharing our burdens as well as our successes. This is not the time to turn inwards and turn our backs on our neighbours, but a time to embrace the system we have and seek to change it in a way that benefits everyone, whether Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish.

This is the most important day in Scotland for several generations, and will be for generations to come.

If you have a vote, I urge you to join me in voting No.

Peter Meiklejohn,

Dirleton, East Lothian.

AFTER living in Scotland for 42 years, with a maternal grandfather from Aberdeenshire whose ancestry can be traced back past 1660, and with sons through a sound state education, I do not feel exactly English any more, although born in the Black Country.

I have watched with dismay the loss of heavy industry as the entire UK failed to take note and act as other countries modernised and built better quality and more innovative products faster and at lower cost. The UK abandoned its nuclear prowess. Goodbye north-east England, Scotland's central belt and Clydeside, the English Midlands, South Wales, Merseyside, Northern Ireland, until the entire UK became a screwdriver country for Japanese, German, French, US, and Dutch enterprises. Even renewable energy required non-UK expertise and equipment.

Financial services dominated economic activities, although technological progress in electronics, for example, backed by the UK's and especially Scotland's fine education and training was encouraging. Energy companies like Shell and BP, defence contractors like BAe, metal bashers like GKN, did remain UK-oriented and good little earners.

Areas of Scotland suffered disproportionately from the industrial clear-out; there was no attempt to ask the skilled workforce to move to public works in infrastructure, a stupidity. Instead, public revenues from oil were spent on benefits rather than on productive and socially-sound activities.

Things have turned round a lot since then, much because the non-UK (and non-Scottish) incoming enterprises have blossomed, and enterprising Scottish firms like the Weir and Wood groups have built themselves up with skill and hard work. Nonetheless, it is of deep concern that even nuclear power may now have to involve Chinese expertise.

It's too late to claw back what has been lost. I feel that recovery has been partial to date, but Scotland and the UK as a whole have pursued education and training to the high level essential for the future. Scotland's abandoning the UK is thus a retrograde step. The Union is better kept intact because those global forces which undermined our industries while the Government sleep-walked are still pressing on us, and our combined strength will achieve more.

Then there are the global terror threats which require combatting for a long time from a common base. Sundering apart an effective Union will weaken responses. I thus believe Scotland will stay better off staying in the UK, not just because of economic concerns but from mutual interest in liaising with the EU and Nato and the UN, for example. One thing the independence referendum has done is reveal the mutual affection not normally evident between England's and Scotland's citizens - at least for most, although Yes supporters reportedly intimidating BBC employees without outright condemnation rather wrecks hope of future effective mutual co-operation.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Cullicudden, Dingwall.

WHEN they enter the polling booth, each voter in Scotland will choose the option that they believe is best for their country, their family and themselves. We can ask no more from anyone, whether they are a Yes or a No supporter. As a Yes supporter myself, I would be very disappointed if our momentous vote goes against my wishes but I would accept that as part of what living in a democracy means. I have found the arguments from Yes to be more convincing than those from No but I hope I never become so arrogant that I pour bile and scorn onto people who, after having considered the issues, disagree with me.

I was therefore saddened to read Richard Mowbray's statement (Letters, September 16) that he "cannot easily forgive friends who are voting Yes".

Mr Mowbray's friends have thought about the issues and have come to a decision but he expresses outrage that their decisions contradict his. Is this not arrogance? It is definitely intolerance. The fact that Martin McGuinness can state that with the death of Dr Ian Paisley he had lost a friend, is the best current example I can think of which shows that people with very different views can still respect each other's humanity, and work together for the common good.

Good friends are often not that easily acquired so they should be valued and not discarded because they do not agree with you. I hope that Mr Mowbray reconsiders his possibly-hasty outburst, as bitterness is almost always destructive and usually eats at and diminishes a person.

If I am disappointed on Friday, I do not intend to bear any grudges against No supporters as that would be an affront to democracy. As we go forward as a nation, in whatever direction we choose, we will need to work together to obtain the fair, just and prosperous society that we all want. Bitterness and intolerance are the last things we need to accompany us on that journey.

Sean McGarvey,

29 Myretoungate, Alva.

I NOTE with interest that up until the last minute we are being threatened or blackmailed to say No to independence by a combination of politicians, bankers and fat cats from big business whom I am sure we all hold in high regard for their honesty and integrity over the past few years. Could it possibly be they do not actually have the wellbeing of Scotland and its people uppermost in their minds, but rather self-interest in the form of continued political power, minimising of risk or a simple wish to take the easy path thus avoiding a whole load of extra work?

Surely as a nation we have the intellectual wit, positive work ethic and courage to decide on our own destiny and future and not be subservient to those who have served us so poorly in the recent past. George Osborne and his political cronies have taken it upon themselves to threaten us with financial difficulties should we separate. These financial difficulties would not come about by some universal law of nature that cannot be altered like physics, mathematics or chemistry; they will come about by the application of a range of social sciences and negotiated agreement (hopefully on a win-win basis).

Separation does not necessarily equate to a divorce where one party withdraws the credit card from the other, but should be an amicable parting like that of a son or daughter leaving home where friendship and support and recognition of increased maturity is the nature of the new relationship.

I have already used my postal vote and am on holiday in Turkey, where I am sure Kemal Attaturk would turn in his grave if he thought we would squander this opportunity to develop a country that is economically stable, bursting with good ideas, socially just and not in awe of undeserved privilege or power and not controlled by the kind of people mentioned above.

Tom Moore,

22 Newton of Barr,

Lochwinnoch.