Can you explain why?

If that was the case, there would be far fewer people in Scotland looking to vote yes, and the leaders of the three primary parties would not be offering the Scottish parliament significantly more powers. As it stands, the devolved parliament holds much less power than you suggest, requires Westminster approval for any further powers, and can also be dissolved at the whim of Westminster without any legal argument against it. Yes, the current situation for Scotland does have some advantages, but it does not have the best of both worlds by some significant measure.

The aging population is no longer true since a few years now, since the last 5years or so our population has been growing. And I don't see how a population of only 8million is so bad since alot of country is even lower.

If these english speakers feel so intimidated by a strong french culture and refuse to assimilate themselves to the point where theyd rather leave, so be it. Montréal is already filled with english speakers that refuse to speak or learn french despite the french majority. They see themselves above ''the indigenous'' to learn our language, forcing the majority around them to speak their language. I would'nt mind seeing these ppl go. And these are not at all every english speakers that are this way, a minority of them, but these are the majority that would leave. Also, lots of them talk about it, it's easy to talk about threatening of leaving, but if québec would really become independant and it would be time to turn these threats into actions, most of them would'nt bother.

The federal government does'nt ''give'' us money. We the people of Québec pay federal taxs, that's what those taxs are for. Federal taxs that we would stop paying if we were independant. Probably we would'nt pay less taxs since we would probably still pay the same amount but this time to the province. The difference is that instead of paying that federal tax that partly goes back to us, but a big part also goes to oil sands, submarines and other things that quebecers don't care about, that federal tax would entirely go to us.

I think as we speak, our bigest trade partner are the USA but I'm not sure enough to call it a fact since I could be wrong, we sell them alot of hydro electricity and Québec has so many ressources to trade. We have hydro electricity, tons of minerals in the north, apples, diary farms etc.

That's not quite correct.  It is Westminster politicians that back the No campaign that have ruled out a currency union, not the Bank of England.

On a more general point, of all the reasons Scots will have for voting Yes or No, no-one will be doing so because they don't like the Welsh, or the English, or the Northern Irish.  They will be making their decision based on what they feel is best for them and their family.

Kowenicki - I'm not sure when you feel your independence was taken away from you, but it sounds like you hold the Scots responsible.  I don't know why but if you want to petition your MP for an independence vote for England I'd be happy to support you, as would most Scots.  We don't want to deny anybody else their liberty, we are just exercising the opportunity we have been given to choose the path that is right for us.

I hope you and the rest of the UK remain our good friends and neighbours whatever the outcome.

Edit - Oh, and thank you for facepalming the scotch reference. :)

This is wrong. I'm not sure if you have it so wrong because of the media you consume, or because you have an inherent bias against Scottish motivations.

I feel this shows how little you are truly aware of the debate in Scotland just now. Almost every voter I've spoken to, both Yes and No, is voting with the economy forefront in their mind. I don't think many Yes voters believe they will be individually better off (although, of course, some do, and sometimes for good reason), but most do believe the society as a whole could be considerably richer, largely because the matters that are most important to Scots will be catered to, rather than being side-lined as they often are currently. There are many ways of being 'better off'.

Insert 'devolved rule' where you say 'independence', and we have the same argument that was deployed against the devolved Scottish parliament. However, talk to anyone up here, and even those originally strongly against the devolved parliament now agree it was for the best. After all, all our pensioners have free bus passes to travel anywhere in Scotland, all prescriptions in Scotland are free, our university education is free, and so much more.

There is a reason many Scots are voting for SNP these days (and, as an aside, I've never voted for their party) -- when in power they have, broadly speaking, delivered on their promises. That's kinda rare in politics.

Not true on both counts. The Bank of England has not said 'no chance', only politicians have done that. It isn't the Bank of England's decision, after all. Mark Carney did say that he believed some sovereign powers would have to be relinquished if Scotland were to join a currency union, something the SNP, of course, denied would have to be the case. This Guardian article nicely sums that debate up (and is a useful reference as the article originally falsely claimed the Mark Carney claimed a currency union would be 'unworkable', but was edited later): Clicky click. 

As for the Euro: there is nobody seriously saying Scotland 'would have to apply' to join the Euro. The Euro is not currently on the table at all.

I'm interested to read why you think that.

The first half is extraordinarily offensive. The second half, though, I do agree with, it will likely be a no vote.

A lot of leftist Scots i've spoken to (TVTropes, my other forum, leans heavily to the left in its off-topic section) seem to feel that it's a lot about breaking away from right-leaning Westminster.

Whilst I agree that it's odd that anything over 50% wins the vote, even 50.001%, it's what the Edinburgh Agreement states, and is what the British and Scottish parliaments agreed with each other. If it does end like that, it will be very much the loser's fault that the result stands.

It *can* be dissolved by Westminster, just like Westminster *can* pass "Bills of Attainder" or *can* re-establish the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but it's not going to do any of those things.

Scotland now is a bit like Puerto Rico, except the Scots get full representation in Parliament as well as a wide range of self-rule options at home and the benefits of being integrated into a larger, more dynamic economy, with a strong currency which the country is in full control of.

That's the general consensus of both Yes and No voters in Scotland. Few doubt that Scotland would be fine by itself. That's not really an issue anyone engages with significantly up here. It's taken as a given. I forget just how many times I've watched No supports saying they're proud Scots that have no doubt Scotland could go it alone. They just doubt that they want to be separated in the first place. Why bother? Things are fine as they are, even if they are not perfect.

Others, of course, disagree.