THE SNP Government's case for independence begins with a simple idea - it will "make life better" for Scots.
It seeks to convince Scottish minds by declaring Scotland would be wealthy enough to go it alone that thanks to natural resources like North Sea oil, and to stir Scottish hearts by insisting that a Yes vote next September would be a "resounding statement of national self-confidence".
But while there is an understandably high level of positive gloss, there is also a high degree of assertion.
To begin with, it argues that independence will address Scotland's so-called democratic deficit. The paper points out that for 34 out of 68 years since the Second World War, the nation has been governed by governments in Westminster that have had no majority here.
Scotland has been of "peripheral concern" to Westminster, which has imposed policies against the will of Scottish voters, it says.
Independence would change all that, it says, with Scotland able to make all its own choices such as guaranteeing personal care and free tuition fees and getting rid of Trident, which would save the Scottish Exchequer £500 million a year.
The paper highlights Scandinavia, saying its countries have used their "independence bonus" to create a fairer society and produce a higher quality of life for their citizens. Had Scotland's growth matched them between 1997 and 2007, Scots would be each £900 better off. It does not clarify why this particular timescale was chosen.
"With independence we can create a social nation; a country that acts and feels like a community, a vibrant society where we know the benefits of looking out for each other."
The first chapter setting out the case for independence also explains how the SNP Government sees the transition process from a Yes vote next September to Independence Day in March 2016.
The 18-month period is realistic to make "all of the preparations" needed for Holyrood to take full control, it says.
But Whitehall sources have made clear the such a tight timetable is a hostage to fortune for the Scottish Government. "We can just sit on our hands and delay things," said one Coalition insider.
Alex Salmond would lead the Scottish Government's negotiation team with the UK Government and other bodies.
The paper points to the Edinburgh Agreement and how the two governments pledged to "work together constructively in light of the outcome of the referendum in the best interests of the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK" and insists post-referendum negotiations should be conducted in this spirit.
It says it would be in the interests of both governments to make "rapid and constructive progress" and that it would also help if talks took place prior to the poll. But the UK Government has made clear it would not pre-negotiate as this would imply a Yes vote.
Soon after a Yes vote both parliaments would need to pass legislation to give Holyrood power to "declare independent statehood for Scotland in the name of the sovereign people of Scotland" and to extend the powers of the Scots Parliament and Government.
The paper asserts: "Scotland will take our place amongst the member states of the EU and the United Nations."
It refers to negotiations with Brussels to agree terms of an independent Scotland's "continuing membership". It says the UK and EU will have a "shared interest" in working together to realise Scotland's membership. But Commission sources have made clear even a fast-track process for an independent Scotland could take "at least two years".
Self-interest could also prove a stumbling block. Spain, for example, might look unfavourably on Scotland's application given its concerns about the demands for independence from Catalonia.
The first chapter suggests talks would be needed not only about the terms of Scotland's but "indeed the rest of the UK's" membership of other international bodies such as the UN and Nato. Whitehall lawyers have concluded the UK would be the continuing state and so would not need any renegotiation.
The proposal is that on independence Scotland would become a Non-Nuclear Weapons State even though it will have Trident for several more years.
There is also the insistence that on independence Scotland would succeed to international treaties by sending "notifications of succession" to organisations and other countries, which, it insists, is "in line with normal international practice".
But the idea that all such processes would go swimmingly, given the plethora of international treaties, might be a tad optimistic.
The paper also sets out the envisaged constitutional situation. An independent Scotland would have the Queen as head of state and would remain a constitutional monarchy "for as long as the people of Scotland wish us to be so".
Current institutions would continue such as the 129-member Parliament, which would replace the "costly, remote and unrepresentative" Westminster, saving the nation £50m a year.
The first general election would be on May 5 2016 using the current PR system. The new parliament would set up a constitutional convention to write a written constitution.
The make-up of the first government of an independent Scotland would be along the lines of the current administration, with nine Cabinet ministers and supporting ministers.
The Inland Revenue would be based in East Kilbride, the benefits HQ in Glasgow and the military at Faslane. The paper makes clear the over-riding priority would be the "seamless delivery of public services".
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