It’s a dream many have had for centuries: independence for Scotland. A nation which could set out its own vision for the future, with its own Parliament and Head of State - perhaps even an elected President - a symbolic figure which would appear on the notes and coins of its new currency. For a start, it would be a new country, making its own decisions, with its own welfare system.

Yet today, Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland, will unveil a blueprint for his country which does not actually promise to make much of an impact. His vision for the new independent Scotland would have the same Queen on the same old pound note, the same hit shows on TV, and pensions remaining at the same level as now. There would be some changes of course, with more generous benefits as well as lower business taxes, lower energy bills, and an elimination of nuclear weapons. However, a Salmond-led Scottish National Party (SNP) government is not everyone’s cup of tea. Critics may say that if Scotland becomes independent, the UK may no longer agree to let them keep using the pound.

Shadow Scotland secretary Margaret Curran warns that independence would give the Scottish people even less power over sterling than they already have. “On the basis of the SNP’s model of independence, Scottish people would have less influence than they currently have. We would be in a currency union that is determined by the Bank of England set within the framework of the UK government in which we would have no political representation.”

How big a change would independence mean? What are the costs? As legendary hero William Wallace once said, “What will you do without freedom?” The question is: how much freedom are we really talking about here?