Einstein called nationalism "the measles of the human race". Orwell saw the self-delusion in it; for the nationalist, "certain facts, though in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible".

There is a core question at the heart of this referendum, which is seldom articulated. Is politics based on national identity, or pride, good and progressive, or bad and destructive? Some, certainly, will be thinking of voting yes on Thursday, not from nationalism, but in the hope of social change. Yet they will not get it, because, like it or not, they are voting for a nationalist outcome.

Nationalist politics is, by definition, a zero-sum game. You say to your neighbour: "We're going it alone, putting ourselves first, everyone else second." The neighbour, inevitably, is forced to reply: "Well then, we must look to what our interests would be if you went." And in rUK all are agreed, given the failures of the euro, that a currency union with independent Scotland, which the nationalists want, would not be in their interests. That leaves Scotland with the options of creating an independent currency, which, being new and untested, would result in huge interest rates on government borrowing. Or joining the euro, which would bring even greater austerity. Or – and this seems, though nothing is ever quite clear with the SNP, to be their favoured second option –sterlingisation – using the pound without Bank of England backing. This was always possible – and it enables the nationalists to say, with a good dose of puffed-up brio: "It's our pound too."

In fact, as has been pointed out, this is an economic policy which, abandoning any state control over monetary policy and interest rates, is far to the right of anything Thatcher considered at her wildest.

These are Orwell's inadmissible facts: any of the yes side's economic options will bring serious economic trouble. As always, it is the poorest who will suffer most. Is that really a price worth paying for the ability to "run our own affairs" – as though any country can do that alone in the modern world?

I beg people not to underestimate the sheer dangerous power of populist nationalism, which ruined Europe between 1900 and 1945 and is rising again all over the continent, turning neighbours into "others" and blaming them for all domestic ills. It is so easy and seductive. It brings the rise of extremists, like the xenophobic Cybernats, or those who disrupted Jim Murphy's talks with screams of "traitor". Einstein's "measles" is horribly infectious. And the SNP, who will be the victors and negotiators of Scotland's future, are not socialist, but classic populists who over the years have swithered around the political spectrum to gain votes for nationalism. If they wanted radical social policies they would have raised taxes during their years in office, using existing Scottish government powers, and would be promising tax rises now. They are not. And there are those on the economic right who hope that with independence they can use nationalism to resuscitate hardline free-market policies as "enterprise with a Scottish face", divorced from associations with Thatcherism.

After a "Yes" vote, negotiations with the UK and Europe would be long and sour, dominating Scottish policy for years to come, at the expense of issues that matter.Please, vote no. If you vote yes you will get a Scotland based on nationalism. Please, bring some of the energy that has been thrown into the referendum into a genuine movement for social change. Please, let Scotland be the first country in Europe to stand against the rising nationalist tide and say: "No, we're not having that, not here."

Or vote yes and inevitably consolidate in power the SNP, a group of politicians who believe only in my country right or wrong, rich or poor. Things are economically bad, and unjust, all over Europe. Anger is understandable, and right. But please, don't vote for people who will make things even worse.

• AL Kennedy: voting yes is just the start