The Unionist message to England - love the Scots; the Nationalist message from Scotland - it is not your love we want but the freedom to make our own choices.
This is a crude summary of the referendum debate, which took place amid the medieval stone and wood surroundings of London's great Guildhall, the 600-year-old cauldron of the City's historic wealth.
The turnout was high, nearly 1,000, which might not come as much of a surprise given London has an estimated 100,000 Scots. The event was hosted by the London Evening Standard.
Amid the logical propositions of Yes and No, emotion was never far away.
Rory Stewart, the Scottish Tory who represents Penrith and the Border, conceded how the pro-independence campaign could rely on the great power of the word Yes and its sense of optimism and possibility.
But he insisted it was the "wrong kind of Yes", which based itself on pessimism, fear and introspection.
The backbencher, who later this month will try to get 100,000 Brits from either side of the border to hold hands in a symbolic kumbaya gesture of solidarity, declared: "We need to say we love you. We value Scotland. We respect Scotland. We're committed to Scotland."
But Stewart Hosie, the SNP's numbers man at Westminster, rolled his eyes at Mr Stewart's expression of love.
"I don't want," he made clear, "the love of Rory's ragtag army. I want the decisions of the Scottish people to be respected and Unionist politicians to stop telling Scotland what it can and can't do..."
Helena Kennedy, the pro-Union QC, also spoke passionately about how the contribution of Scots had not been talked about enough and that a "love letter" needed to be sent northwards to bring the two nations together.
Michelle Thomson, the pro-independence businesswoman, insisted the UK was broken. "It is indeed corrupt. It must change. Scotland has this opportunity and that is why I'm going to take it; not because I'm a Nationalist but because I'm a realist. We can do things better."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article