Westminster governmental control is undemocratic.

In accordance with the Act of the Union the UK is a single entity, and follows the basic tenet of democracy in that each person is allowed 1 vote and that the majority rules. Any attempt to give Scottish votes more weight to compensate for a smaller population would be the very definition of undemocratic. Nevertheless, Scotland has more MPs per capita than the rest of the UK so a single vote in Scotland has a greater impact. Scotland's MSPs/MPs also gain increased influence by being able to vote on devolved Scottish matters in Scottish parliament, whilst still being able to vote on matters that do not affect Scotland but only the rest of the UK at Westminster. In spite of its small population, Scotland has also affected election results before - Including the 2010 General Election which would have produced a Conservative majority if Scotland's votes were not considered. To add to the above, if you feel that, as you << put it "Westminister government control is undemocratic" then that is an argument for constitutional reform of some sort, not separation. To say that Scotland has no influence in the union, however, is factually incorrect. Much of this "Westminister is undemocratic" argument is based on the fact that Scotland normally votes for left-wing parties but gets right-wing governments. At least, that has been the case in recent years. But consider the following facts: 1) Up until the 2010 general election, there was a Labour government for over a decade. The majority of Scoltand voted Labour and got it. 2) Up until the 2010 general election, the last two Prime Ministers and the last two Chancellors were both Scottish. 3) Britain has not had a majority Conservative government since 1997. 4) Under the Scotland Act 1998 many important matters are devolved to the Scottish parliament*, including health, education, local government, justice, agriculture, tourism, and internal transport. The Scottish parliament can also vary the standard rate of income tax by up to 3p in the pound. More recently, Westminister has also given Scotland more borrowing powers. 5) It is precisely because Scotland does not vote Conservative that the 2010 general election resulted in a coalition government. 6) Due to the fact that the majority of England vote Conservative, but hasn't had a Conservative majority for over a decade, many English voters feel aggrieved. 7) The West Lothian Question has still not been addressed. It asks why it is right that a Scottish MP at Westminister can vote on matters such as education that affect England only - but that the same MP does not vote on the same matter in their local constituency because it is devolved to the Scottish parliament. It is clear that no matter what the outcome of the referendum, there will be constitutional reform, and both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have said Scotland will get more powers if it remains in the union. And there are good arguments for it. Firstly, because Scotland is more left-wing, if its parliament had more power it could tailor more policies to the Scottish people than Westminister can (assuming a right-wing government). Secondly, Scotland is the second largest economy in the UK after England and so there is an economic case for devolving more financial powers to the country. And thirdly because of the West Lothian Question, English people have a decent argument for some sort of reform. For some nationalists minimising the chances of ever getting a Conservative government is a good enough reason to justify their cause. But it is a pretty weak argument if the main reason for separation is for political gain when it will make your country worse off. As the Economist newspaper recently argued, if Scots wish to keep their social model then they are best voting to stay in the UK.