IN a week when the people of Scotland face the biggest decision of their lives the Evening Times six columnists will put forward their final arguments.

Today it is the turn of Scottish Conservative Leader RUTH DAVIDSON and Co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party PATRICK HARVIE

RUTH DAVIDSON:

This is the biggest vote in Scotland's history - it's as simple as that.

When you go to the ballot box on Thursday, you will not have taken part in a more significant vote before, and nor will you again.

Bu this isn't about the next five years, or even the next fifty. What we decide will affect all of our lives, and those of our children, grandchildren and generations to come.

My vision for Scotland is clear - a stronger Scottish Parliament, with further devolved powers, backed up by the strength, security and stability of the United Kingdom.

Last week I stood shoulder to shoulder with my Labour and Liberal Democrat colleagues to reiterate that a No vote isn't a vote for no change.

There will be further devolution of taxes and welfare payments, and this will be delivered quickly, with work starting on September 19.

Real change that will boost the power of the Scottish Parliament and that will make it more accountable to the people it represents.

Since 1999, no MSP has had to look Scottish taxpayers in the eye and justify the revenue the Parliament spends.

We cannot continue with this system - a pocket-money Parliament - which gets its allowance from Westminster and then spends it as it pleases.

We need a more mature Scottish Parliament that justifies its spending.

We do not need to break up the United Kingdom in order to do this.

With enhanced devolution, we get the best of both worlds. That's what's a No vote offers, and we should grasp it.

We know that a separate Scotland would face a £6 billion black hole in its public finances; that big, important companies - Standard Life, RBS, Lloyds - are busy weighing up how independence would affect them; and we've already seen how market opinion can wipe billions from the value of some of our biggest businesses.

This is real world stuff and Alex Salmond can't dismiss it - no matter how hard he might try.

When people say they want the facts, they are saying that they want to know what currency an independent Scotland would use, how its public services would be funded, on what terms it would have to join the EU.

On all of these points, and many others besides, the Yes campaign has come up short.

But when I - and hundreds of thousands of other No voters - enter the polling booth on Thursday, we won't just be voting with our heads, we'll be voting with our hearts too.

Quite simply, Britain is a force for good and we should not be afraid to celebrate this.

The world over, we are viewed not just as one of the leading economies - with a vast trading network and vibrant financial sector - we are seen as one of the good guys, a generous giver of aid, a beacon of freedom, a land of tolerance and respect.

A place where hard work is rewarded and where all cultures and faiths live together as one.

So on Thursday I won't just be saying No Thanks to independence, I'll be casting a positive vote in favour of Scotland remaining a proud and integral member of the United Kingdom.

I hope you feel able to do the same.

PATRICK HARVIE:

SO here it is. After the highs and lows, argument and analysis, serious debate and low-life insults, the referendum is finally upon us.

Many of you will already have voted by post, but this week the polling stations will be busier than they have been for decades.

You have to go back to 1951 to see a turnout above 80%, which many people expect the referendum to exceed.

We all know that this time we're making a meaningful choice of direction for the country, not just replacing the cast in an unconvincing drama that few people watch. Some campaigners on both sides have tried to make this all about Alex Salmond.

Of course that's not the case.

No politician's name is on this ballot paper, only one question: Should Scotland be an independent country?

The First Minister and his party have no monopoly on the future direction an independent Scotland could take.

We've seen a rich diversity of ideas coming forward, from the campaigners in Radical Independence and the Common Weal, to Women for Independence, Business for Scotland and a host of others.

The Green Yes campaign has been one such distinctive voice.

We've challenged the idea that another 40 years of oil and gas addiction is either desirable or possible, and we've set out alternatives to show that far more people could share the benefits of a renewable energy system instead.

We've offered ideas for a better banking system in Scotland, with a rich diversity of small, local, municipal and mutual banks that invest in the real economy, instead of a handful of corrupt megabanks gambling in the global casino economy.

We've proposed a Citizens' Income as the basis for a modern welfare state; one that's worthy of the name instead of the brutal and humiliating set-up the UK benefits system has become.

And we've highlighted some under-examined issues too, like how to make security and intelligence services democratically accountable, and the increasing importance of protecting people's digital rights in the age of mass surveillance by governments and corporations.

Throughout it all we've done our best to show that it's possible to have this debate in a spirit of respect, remembering that whichever choice the voters make it'll be down to all of us to accept it, move on, and do our best to make it work.

But beyond the diversity of voices, the obsession some people have with Salmond also misses a deeper truth about this campaign.

The reason it has taken off and become such a creative and dynamic debate is that it's gone way beyond traditional party lines.

We're seeing a democratic renewal that's long overdue.

Whether it's Yes or No, Scotland will end this debate with an electorate that's more involved and informed than we've had for generations.

We can't afford to let politics retreat once more into its safety zone, only to emerge at election times.

The referendum campaign has been important, but what comes next, in either outcome, is much more so.