We awoke in our household today to a pretty startling scene. One of our little boys, aged six, came running into our bedroom with only one thing on his mind: The Vote.
Seven hours earlier, at midnight, I had lifted him for his night-time pee, during which we had 30 seconds of referendum chat.
"You've got to vote No, Dad," he told me while sitting on the pan. "The man on the telly said it was 51 to 49, that only two more votes were needed. So you better vote No."
This brief chat had obviously preyed on my wee boy's mind through the night because, come 7am, and walking solemnly into our room, he looked fit to burst into tears.
In fact, he did burst into tears. "You've got to vote No!" he implored his mum and me. "It's 49-51, I heard it on the telly. Please, please vote no." Heartily greeting, he then added: "I want us to be Team GB."
Amazingly, when we outlined the various options for Yes and No, the good and bad arguments on both sides, he howled in further dismay, burying his tear-stained face in a pillow.
I was gobsmacked. What conceivable implications of this referendum day in Scotland could so prey on the mind of a six-year-old? "Robbie, you're a future politician," his mum told him.
Two hours later, on a crisp, beautiful, autumnal morning in Ayrshire I was on my bike, my ballot card tucked in my back pocket, making my way into our local village to cast my vote.
On the way I passed ripe, juicy brambles hanging in lip-smacking bunches, and vowed to come back later for them.
Once at the village hall, there was no going back. This was it. Despite being "for the Union" all my life, in recent weeks, like thousands of Scots, I had thought anew about the Yes and No arguments, and found my position shifting somewhat.
I've been one of Scotland's estimated 350,000 "waiverers", although I'm not sure I would quite use that term. More to the point, I'd been happy to calmly go through the issues, weighing them up right up until polling day. Amid all this revision I'd set myself until this very morning to reach a clear, firm voting intention.
Outside the polling booth, in a scene surely replicated right across Scotland, men and women were gathered in discussion, both "sides" being represented by stickers, hats and flags, urging you either Yes or No as you walked in.
There was no gauntlet about it. It was convivial and friendly, save for one brief outburst when someone shouted at someone else: "What you are asking us to do is betray our heritage…that's what you are doing!"
On the 10-minute bike ride into the village I had gone through the main arguments one more time in my head: the economic debate, the principle of social justice, the weighty matter of political divorce from the rest of the UK.
I duly parked my bike and went into the hall to vote, feeling quite a sense of excitement. My two wee lads had cycled in with me, and wanted to be there to witness the historic moment.
"Are wee kids allowed into the booth with you?" I asked the friendly woman behind the desk.
"Why, certainly, of course they can!" she said with a smile.
Here were the key questions for me:
*Could a competent, talented Scotland go it alone politically?
*Was there really some law of the universe which says that, while other small countries can make a success of themselves, Scotland for some reason cannot?
*The Union has worked pretty well, and at times heroically, for over 300 years…was it worth disrupting that?
Over recent weeks, I had slowly reached this conclusion: Scotland is full of strong, able, talented, compassionate people, with generations more coming through. It cannot fail.
I picked up my ballot paper and put a large, reinforced X in the appropriate box. "Look at this guys…I've done it!" I said excitedly to my wee lads.
"Is that the right box, Dad, you sure?" Robbie said to me earnestly. "That's the right box, son," I re-assured him.
Have to say, it was a thrilling moment for me. And I went later for my brambles.
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