But Salmond/Cameron isn't the choice - the choice is between self-determination or remaining a small part of a big union. It's not about party politics! Both of them will be gone in a few years - this decision is for the long-term.
For the poster who said there was no argument for independence other than anti-Englishness - this is about the right to democratic self-determination. The politics of Westminster are very different to what the people of Scotland vote for (e.g., 1 Tory MP in the whole of Scotland), and that is simply a poor way to run a country - e.g., 80% of Scottish politicians voted against the bedroom tax, and yet it is still implement. There is a never-ending list of similar examples. One of the really big things in the discussion is social justice, which has always been important in Scottish politics, and which people in Scotland (as well as other parts of the UK) don't feel is being done by Westminster.
Obviously, you could make this argument at any level - maybe the north of England should be independent, maybe my village should be more independent - it would be more democratic. But you have to draw the line at somewhere that makes sense. Scotland has a population of 5 million, which correlates well with some of the most successful countries in the world - Norway, Switzerland, Singapore, for example, and has quite a different culture to the rest of the UK, has been administering itself for centuries in many ways (legal system, education, etc., always separate to the UK) and has been running much of its politics very successful since devolution - Holyrood is overwhelmingly more popular and trusted than Westminster in Scotland. But many of the things Scots care about most - welfare (though luckily our NHS is separate and thus not partly privatised), nuclear weapons, immigration policy, etc., are decided by Westminster. Plus, because Scottish taxes go to Westminster not Holyrood, this makes policy making very hard for the Scottish government. For example, they want to increase state-funded childcare, and believe they could afford to do this because it will free up more parents to go back to work and become tax payers. But the tax they pay goes to Westminster, with only 9.3% coming back to Holyrood, whereas all the costs come from Holyrood, so under devolution this is not feasible. And, of course, a power devolved is a power retained - devolved powers can be removed at any point by Westminster without the agreement of the Scottish government.
It's well established by all sorts of figures (some more or less reliable, but the 9.9% of UK tax put in by Scotland vs 9.3% of UK tax spent in Scotland are HM Treasury figures) that Scotland pays more tax than it gets back and has done for 30 years. The traditional socialist belief, still common in Scotland, is that this is ok - if we have the wealth, it is appropriate that we share it with less well-off parts of the country. But there is such a strong feeling that this is not what happens, that so much tax goes to London, tax breaks for the rich and the military whilst millions of Scots (and other UK residents) are in poverty that this becomes a weak argument. Now a lot of left-wing people believe that because an independent Scotland would prioritise social justice much higher than any conceivable Westminster government (now the Labour Party has moved so far from any form of socialism), this would actually help the cause of social justice in the rest of the UK much more than trying to work together within the UK, which really doesn't seem to be helping.
We want different things, we've proved we can govern ourselves effectively and we have the finances to do it - why not! There are certainly a lot of anti-Westminster arguments, but hear very little anti-English sentiment. Of course there is some (though markedly less than the anti-Scottish sentiment in the UK media and many forums) but it's really not a central part of the argument, and never a part of the official Yes campaign.