What is it that makes a nation a nation? A flag? A symbol? A sports team? Turn on American cable news and you would be led to believe that the supporters of Scottish independence are on a “Braveheart”-inspired crusade to recapture national identity, and that this has been a campaign engaged in the pursuit of division. Yet my country already has a flag — the Saltire. We already have a national animal — the unicorn, the only such symbol that appears to have been picked after five whiskies. We already have sports teams — albeit bravely average ones — in every non-Olympic sport. So the argument for independence is not based on pride in what we have, but a desire for something more.

In the current political set-up, vastly important issues such as pensions, foreign policy and 85 percent of taxation, are controlled by the British Government at Westminster, which is currently led by a prime minister whose party holds only one seat in Scotland. In a democracy, you cannot always get the government that you vote for. Yet this democratic deficit takes on a very real form when you consider the fact that Trident nuclear submarines are docked 40 miles from Scotland’s largest city and the program will be renewed with billions of pounds of our tax money by this government, despite a majority of Scots being opposed to nuclear weapons entirely. The misuse of Scots tax revenue is, in fact, a matter of life and death — the average life expectancy of a Scot is four years less than the average Londoner, despite Scotland contributing more in tax overall to the treasury than it receives back. Regardless of the party in power, there is an institutionalized sickness that ails Westminster. It is a system where an unelected House of Lords, which by default includes 26 clergymen, can still delay bills from the House of Commons, which is itself a swamp of patronage that seems designed to mire any prospect of change. The full force of the Westminster institution has been leveled at Scotland, in an operation titled by a leaked Better Together campaign internal memo as Project Fear.

From day one, the No campaign has done all they can to exploit the long-running and unfathomable self-esteem issues of the Scottish people. The very same politicians, experts and bankers who failed to predict the largest recession in recent memory have told us that we risk another financial collapse by going it alone. They have told us that our economy would be too poor — ignoring that Scotland’s oil reserves, untapped renewable energy and booming export businesses would make us the14th richest country in the world by GDP per head of population. We have been told that we could not defend ourselves from outside attack, despite being a peaceful nation — the only wars of my generation being ones that the U.K. government dragged us into, over the overwhelming opposition of not only the vast majority of Scots, but also Britons.

In all, Better Together has proved more “Wizard of Oz” than Nostradamus, and the fraying curtain is finally being lifted for all to see. Now the polls have swung from showing a No landslide to a completely unpredictable outcome. The response from the leaders of the main U.K. parties has been staggering in its panic and unsophistication. They have vowed to devolve more power to Scotland in the event of a No vote — a pledge that mentions no specifics and contains no draft bill. This uncertainty is compounded by members of the prime minister’s own party saying they will block these plans and the fact that the last pledge his deputy and coalition partner put his name to was broken within six months. It is simply too little, too late and too unlikely — the people of Scotland should not be swayed.

So why should the Scots have their own nation? Is it just about economics, foreign policy and democracy? In part, yes. But it is also about a wider sense of a belief in social justice. Scots are not unique in our egalitarian leanings, we are no more liberal than many of our individual English brothers and sisters, but we are bound as a nation by our belief in these values in a profoundly universal way that the rest of the U.K. is not. I believe that Scots should rule Scotland, because I believe when we see one in five children being born into poverty and have the power to change it, we will. I also believe that when we look out upon the world and see injustice and oppression, and have a voice on the world stage, we will lead the fight against it in a way that Britain has failed to do.

In essence, the result of this referendum will come down to whether Scots desire an order that is profoundly unfair but offers the comfort of familiarity, or a future where we will likely make mistakes but will reap the benefits of holding our destiny in our own hands. Indeed, it reflects the very choice that will soon face our generation as a whole — whether to emulate the patterns of the past, avoid risk and write a history of mediocrities, or to step out from the gray twilight of our troubled times and hazard being beaten by the occasional storm in order to strive for something greater. As I look homeward, I dream of seeing not just a new country, but a better country rise into the hall of nations. We look forward to sharing a dram with you there.

A version of this article appeared in the Thursday, Sept. 18 print issue. Email Séamus Andrew McGuigan at [email protected].