This article stems from a speech made by Nick Clegg, or rather a part of that speech where he seems to call nationalists (and those who favour total unionism [presumably Forsyth supporters]), "extremists".
What it appears Clegg actually said, although I have not heard the speech myself, was that both the above categories of Scots are at the extreme ends of opinion. Well, that's a bit obvious, if overstated, isn't it? The middle is the status quo, the other two are at the extremes, or ends...
But it's not a word I would have used, and I don't have years of political training, nor am I the leader of a UK party, much less the Britain's deputy prime minister. So maybe it wasn't the brightest thing for a person who has, and is, all that to have said, but The Scotsman, well known for being a chip wrapper first and journal second, appears to have made of it something which it was not.
So of course nationalists are on one side of the argument but I'm not in the least an extremist. That takes far too much fire and passion.
I want Scotland to be independent not because I think our mountains are nicer than their hills, our burns nicer than their brooks, our lochs more lovely than their lakes, or indeed our fowk nicer than their people.
Some people do have that misty eyed, bagpipeish, Brigadoonian vignette notion of what Scotland is. Not me. For scenery, beautiful though Scotland is, there are plenty of other places just as lovely, and for the folk, I've found that they are much the same the world over, good and bad.
I'm a nationalist because I believe we are badly served being ruled from London, and frequently by a political party for which we didn't vote.
I doubt our people are any nicer than the English, but we do seem to have some sort of "common weel" as Alex Salmond would have it. Maybe the English have that too under another name (Noblesse Oblige??), and maybe it's because we have always been poorer than the English, and have felt the need to band together for protection, that we have preferred a more centre left government. When we say our government is based on 'society', we don't mean Royal Ascot and Wimbledon
And there's financial motivation for me too. I look across the sea to Norway unencumbered by a large "world power" status, with all the spending commitment that that incurs.
I see what they have done with their share of North Sea Oil, and I despair of poverty of our lives here, and of a British future, while our soldiers put the world to rights, according to the needs of American Presidents to whom all UK prime ministers seem in thrall.
I don't blame the English for our plight. The greatest needs of the UK are where the bulk of the population lives. And that is in the South East of England. I blame the Scots. It is in our hands to do something about our plight.
Even the devolution that was wished upon us by Labour was so very badly done: 'a parish council', said Tony Blair, before it had starter plotting how to control, at least the mainland countries. 'A wee pretendy parliament', said Billy Connelly sneeringly. Leaving the Westminster parliament to serve as English and UK parliament, simply reinforced the fact (previously demonstrated by the Celtic secretaries of state), that England was central and the small nations, mere satellites, or counties.
But for all that I don't want to "rip up" or "tear apart" up anything. And opposition parties' use of emotive language is not helpful to a grown up debate. Separation is inaccurate. Independence instead of dependence is what we seek.
Scotland could easily have good neighbourly relations with the rest of the UK and share many facilities and friendly co-operative relations. and even at the heights of the troubles there were no border guards in Ireland, so why would we want them now?