THERE was so much to read in The National on Monday. I had just about recovered from Saturday and Pat Kane’s article, followed by Sunday’s edition! Challenging, all of it, and I’m not referring to quantity, but rather, the ideas and comments: stimulating and yes, very thought-provoking.

I’ve made up my mind about independence. I want it. It’s only natural to live in a self-determining and self-governing country. But I haven’t made up my mind about the name for our currency post-independence. Most definitely, I don’t want the Bank of England in charge, lording over us, and very particularly in charge of “my” money. I remember wakening up to the horrors of the banking scandals in the early 2000s and the furore around both BoS and RBS, so the thought of their “descendants” being in charge is an anathema.

READ MORE: The National View: This is why we're backing the First Minister's currency plan

Why should we be tied to the Bank of England’s monetary policies when in all probability rUK would by then be out of the EU, and governed by a far-right government with practices such as privatisation of public services, health et al, restrictive migration policies and the likes? In other words, a socio-economic model differing from the one that we favour.

Scotland would be a fiscal afterthought, and we already know what that feels like. I’ve made up my mind so I most definitely don’t agree with the recommendation of Andrew Wilson and the Sustainable Growth Commission for some sort of “Annual Solidarity Payment”. What’s to like about that, after the way Scotland has been treated, mis-treated, and deprived of its dues in incomes and revenues since the creation of the unequal Union?

I could just see rUK media and politicians mangling such a payment into some form of “reparation” for “overpayments” received by us over the years, such as a far-too-generous Barnett Formula. It may take some while to identify and agree the sharing of assets post-independence, but that, and the creation of our own central bank and our own currency are part of life after we’ve won indyref2.

I’m coming to the conclusion that such procedures have to be carried out by the politicians we vote in, but only after open, transparent debate with society as a whole and not just party members. Those debates should be happening now, or are we too feart to go to the people and rekindle that fervour we had in 2014? Are we too feart that Unionists will exploit debate and discussion as weaknesses, or provide them with pre-emptive opportunities to diss the prospects of an independent Scotland? But don’t they do that already? We have to be able to hold the “45” – not as tired, dependable voting fodder, but as the immovable bedrock, whether coming from passion, single-mindedness or yes, a party political standpoint.

To draw in more than the “45”, we need to create not just the debates around divergent topics, but the environment for “safe” debates to flourish. Without acknowledging the likes of demographic changes affecting us now whilst planning for the future, without addressing the concerns of our younger generations, their life chances and prospects, without being able to consider the challenges of the global environment, where are the opportunities to debate, listen, learn and consider topics that in the round will inspire new Yes voters to dare to believe that an indy Scotland can deliver for them?

I dare to say that the energising and involvement of individuals, families and communities that came in the lead-up to September 2014 didn’t come from politicians, their parties and policies, but from grassroots action: everyday people, looking to create a Scotland of their making. And that is what we need again.

Selma Rahman