The theories sprouting in the thick loam of social media came in two varietals, Scoti paranoidius and Salmond contumeliam. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with the third in line to the throne, Prince George, during their visit to Australia this year. Credit:Getty Images The conspiracy theory first: it's more fun. A new YouGov survey, commissioned by Buzzfeed, found that one in four Scots believe MI5 is "working with the UK government to try to stop independence". Even if it seems unlikely that MI5 could have engineered a rush royal pregnancy, you can still find room for the idea that the timing of the announcement – unusually early in the pregnancy – was chosen by the Palace or Downing Street or both for maximum impact on the Scottish vote.

This is a great conspiracy theory, being almost impossible to prove. The alternative explanation, that just like last time the timing of the announcement was forced on the couple by the Duchess' illness, is as dull as it is likely. Under pressure: British Prime Minister David Cameron. Credit:AFP But forget all this. Timing aside, is this royal bub going to be enough to tip Scotland to vote 'No' next Thursday? This was certainly the view of several wishful thinkers in the Union camp, including Rupert Myers in the London Telegraph. The unborn prince or princess would sap the Yes momentum, he said, though using more words. It could be true, though having a baby is traditionally not the wisest way to save a marriage. Anyway, as one Twitterer said in response to this theory, "I don't think you realise how republican Scotland is".

Susie Boniface in The Mirror pointed out the news of another far-away prince to potentially rule over them could just as easily fire up the Yes vote. In a typical bet each way, Scotland's first minister Alex Salmond drew attention to the couple's links to Scotland on Twitter. The current plan, as Mr Salmond has maintained all along, is that on independence Scotland would be a constitutional monarchy, continuing the Union of the Crowns that dates back to 1603. Scotland and England had the same monarch more than 100 years before they had the same parliament.

The independence white paper launched last year points out that 16 members of the Commonwealth – including, it hardly needs to be pointed out, Australia – have the Queen as their head of state. However a poll on the weekend found that 46 per cent of supporters of separation also believe the country should break its links with the monarchy. Whether this will motivate the Queen herself to get involved is hard to say. She doesn't give press conferences and is prevented by strong tradition including some fairly heavy constitutional bonds from intervening. She has an established hinting mechanism. The palace still leaks. But because leaks are never commented on, this also gives the media free reign to make up what they think the Queen is thinking and report it as fact. So: some media reports had the Queen "horrified" at the prospect of Scotland separating, and a handful of MPs and public figures have called on her to make a statement calling for unity. And there is mounting pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron to involve her in the last push to maintain the Union.

However the official line from the palace is that "the referendum is a matter for the people of Scotland: the Queen remains strictly neutral on this, as she does on all political issues". It is unlikely she will change her mind, publicly at least.