The Sunday Times has launched a debate on the political future of Scotland, which we want Times Online readers to join in. Below, the Scottish opposition leader argues for giving greater powers to the country, but staying devolved rather than moving to full independence.

Throughout my adult life, I have believed in home rule for Scotland. I believe in it in principle because we Scots are a recognisable nation with our own culture, legal system and view of the world.

And as a democrat it has always seemed self-evident to me that Scotland should have democratic control over its domestic affairs. After a decade of devolution, who would argue that it has not been a success? Even its sternest critics now admit that.

If anyone had said 11 years ago that we would have created 200,000 more jobs in Scotland, creating the highest level of employment at any point in our history, the critics would not have believed it.

Likewise, we have doubled investment in hospitals, schools, transport and in policing, and it has been achieved by Holyrood working together with the Labour government at Westminster.

In Labour, we know we achieve much more together than we do alone. Most people in Scotland know this, too. Most Scots also recognise that we live in an interdependent age. Climate change does not stop at passport check-in.

Terrorism is no respecter of border controls, and a global financial contagion won't pause politely at Gretna Green and choose to give Scotland a pass. What these challenges have in common is that we will never solve them on our own - there is no “Scotland only” answer.

Nevertheless, there are still some who say we'd be better off separate, that Westminster is the problem, that the Union diminishes Scotland. But with Scotland's membership of the Union, we can carry our voice to the most powerful tables in the world.

And let us remember where our voice rang loudest across the world, at the G8 Gleneagles summit. The poorest communities on Earth asked: “Who will stand with us?” And Scots, together with the other people of Britain, answered: “We will.”

On climate change, Britain has led the world. This year, we will become the first country to pass legislation creating legally binding limits on our carbon emissions. As part of the fifth-biggest economy in the world, this will make a difference that is incomparable with what Scotland could do alone.

It is through the Union that the Scottish imagination can paint its dreams on the broadest canvas, because by working together and sharing the risk and resources, we are better able to manage a volatile world.

This partnership of the peoples of these islands is what has sustained the Union for three centuries. It is a remarkably enduring enterprise. What message would the split-up of the UK send out to a world struggling to live together in peace and harmony?

We also have an influence born from leading by example. Britain does not just talk on the world stage about multi-state solutions - it is a multi-state solution. Our vitality stems directly from the unique intermingling of the people of these isles, with our distinct cultures and different outlooks, in which the best ideas and talents have been able to flourish.

Scots are rightly proud of their contribution to the modern world - the telephone, television, penicillin. But our national pride can sometimes blind us to the fact that it was Scotland's position in the United Kingdom that enabled such inventiveness to realise its full potential.

Together, in partnership, the achievements of the nations in the United Kingdom have been far greater than each could have managed individually. Historically, we can look back to the abolition of the slave trade, the construction of an empire spanning the globe, and the crushing of fascist evil in Europe. No one part of the United Kingdom could have fulfilled these things alone.

And domestically there is the National Health Service, conceived by William Beveridge, an English Liberal, given practical expression by Tom Johnston of Scottish Labour, and implemented nationally by Aneurin Bevan of Welsh Labour. There is no better example of what can be achieved through the partnership of the British people for the benefit of all in the United Kingdom.

Here in Scotland today, there are myriad examples of how we still need and make use of that United Kingdom in ways that bring enormous benefits to our country. The Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland became even more successful and much bigger British banks through takeovers and mergers with English banks. From that position of strength, born out of the stability of the United Kingdom economy and its lack of internal barriers, RBS, in particular, has gone on to become a major force in global finance.

Meantime, the people of Scotland know that in any partnership, there will be good times and bad times. And when one partner is down, the others reach out a helping hand. Throughout the three centuries of the United Kingdom partnership, this has been the case, and the reason why it has survived and prospered.

Political and economic arguments may continue about whether Scotland, with or without oil, would be worse off if it were dependent on its own revenue base. For me, all the available evidence indicates that even in times of high oil prices, Scotland would struggle to maintain existing levels of public services.

That, however, is not really the point. At various times since 1707, Scotland has been a net contributor to, or a net beneficiary from, the overall stability and financial wellbeing of the United Kingdom. And at no point have politicians from elsewhere in Britain set out consciously to damage the economic prospects of Scotland or, indeed, vice versa.

Instead, it is the co-operation of all the parts of the Union that has been one of the biggest factors that made it the most economically successful country in the world, and which continues to maintain it as a leading member of the G8 today.

A prospectus based on optimistic predictions of the long-term price and longevity of supply of one commodity - oil - is never likely to pass that test of benefit to Scotland. I believe that all the component parts of the UK would be the losers should we split up an enduring and successful Union.

The people of Scotland know this. That is why a steady majority have always rejected nationalism in a world of uncertainty where other countries look to share revenue and resources. The majority of us also feel that being Scottish and British does not diminish us. Indeed, the Union is woven into the very fabric of family life of so many Scots: cousins from Liverpool, a sister moved to London, an English father, friends coming up from Manchester.

It is in the family ties and private homes of Scotland that perhaps the strongest reason of all can be found to explain why, time and again, the majority of Scots reject the notion of splitting up the United Kingdom.

Devolution gets the balance right. We are able to step out of the shadow of our bigger sister, while benefiting from the uniqueness of our UK relationship. Scots do not want to walk out of the Union, but they do want to walk tall within the Union.

Now have your say in our online debate

Times Recommends

• Paralysed while the Hamas hydra lives
• Wanted: a superhero to save America
• Blind faith in experts fails justice