Shouting at the telly. I know it’s the third sign of madness, but I still do it.

On Monday, for the debate on the Scottish referendum, there was lots of shouting in my front room, at Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish Nationalists. Some I know are persuaded by his arguments.

I’m the reverse.

The more I hear his shrill, hectoring tones, and the threadbare case he makes, the less convincing I find him.

“California” was the word I shouted the most on Monday.

It was my answer to Mr Salmond’s sedulous claims that Scotland could easily go it alone as a separate country.

He used to compare Scotland’s prospects to Iceland, and Ireland – part of an “ark of prosperity” he claimed. Since Iceland, and Ireland’s economies completely bombed in the 2008 financial crisis, he’s moved on to other small countries.

It’s certainly true that, with its 5.3 million population, and income per head like the rest of the UK’s, Scotland would still exist if it went independent.

What I simply don’t understand if why any Scot would want this. They may have less than one tenth of the UK’s population but over the last three centuries they have been able to use their undoubted talents to magnify their power and influence across the United Kingdom, and across the rest of the world.

There are Scots everywhere (East Lancashire included).

Why, then, with this achievement, try to diminish your country, and your heritage?

Take a look at California.

It’s the largest state of the USA. With 38 million people, an economy which is larger than Russia, Italy, or Spain’s, the internet centre of the world. It could easily prosper if it went independent (it was once, briefly).

There are plenty of arguments the separatists could use – not least that California’s abundance subsidises poorer parts of the US.

But it realises it benefits massively by being part of a much bigger whole. California thinks big. So has Scotland. Why try to shrink your country, Mr Salmond? That’s no ambition at all.