Nobody wants "an in-depth historic profiling" hopefully, because we are looking ahead and hopefully mature enough to put historical wrongs behind us so that we can work together.
Tt'sAll - the moral case for a no vote is that we are a small part of the uk, which (clearances and battles aside) has resulted in a prosperous, democratic nation. The island (+N.I) (and the little islands) have worked together and shared our resources - instead of competing with each other over who gets what.. Scotland is not an impoverished, oppressed nation. Until recently the standard of living has improved for the vast majority of the UK population. UK society has become more tolerant of individual differences and (rightly) passed legislation to give minority groups such as lesbian and gay adults rights, improve access for disabled people etc.
Scotland discovered oil, but a couple of decades later despite it, the standard of living seems to be going down. And there is (justifiable) unhappiness with WM policies. So instead of working to change the policies of WM and improve the lot of UK (some) Scottish people feel that Scotland can afford to go it alone and/or have a more just and fair society than we would have in UK. So they are campaigning to walk out on the UK, leaving it to pursue its unfair policies, grabbing the oil revenue and working for the perceived good of Scotland, regardless of the interests of UK.
I have just been talking to a very nice (English) lady who was leafleting my home - save the NHS in Scotland (never mind the NHS in rUK) - who told me that her reason for voting yes is to come out of the militaristic UK and make a stand against the US international policies, which UK seems to follow usually. I have the utmost respect for that. She feels that an inde Scotland would be able to set an example to UK and the rest of the world.
But I think it's better to work to have the UK behave responsibly and fairly than come out of it when the going has got tough. Partly because I don't think the actions of an independent Scotland would influence rUK. Not only that, but leaving UK would assist WM governments to pursue policies that are unpopular in scotland as the moderating effect of scottish mps in WM would be gone. And even if the removal of trident were to force unilateral disarmament, trident is just a drop in the ocean of the global nuclear weapons.
I have some sympathy for the view that a weakened UK might ultimately be a good thing internationally if it were to have less influence internationally, but who will replace it?
So I say, don't put your efforts into setting up a tiny state. Spend the time that would have gone on figuring out how to get as much as possible for Scotland through timetaking negotiations with rUK and getting into competiton with rUK - spend that time on working within the UK for the good of the UK and to influence the UK to be a good example to the rest of the world. Build on the good things we already have and work to change the unjust practices.