I was born in England, and for 53 years have been in the Labour party, which is opposed to Scottish independence. Yet, having lived in Glasgow for 30 years, I intend to vote yes. My reasoning is that independence would free at least some poor people from the punitive welfare policies of Cameron, Osborne, Duncan Smith and their supporters.

Easterhouse in Glasgow has long been one of the most deprived areas in Scotland. Yet never so deprived as now. Jobs pay minimum wage or less, and benefits are below inflation and can be removed for up to six months for failings such as arriving late for an appointment. The shopping centre has three high-interest loan shops and a pawnshop. I meet residents who have insufficient money for food in a society with a growing number of millionaires.

The Scottish National party has issued its Scotland's Future document. Two ideas stand out. One is equality. After decrying the inequality in Britain, it states: "Social justice and equality are objectives that should be pursued for their own sake in a civilised society. They are also important aspects of improved economic performance."

The other is social investment. The coalition government portrays welfare as shameful and a burden on others. Scotland's Future sees it as an investment in a person's future: "Benefits work hand-in-hand with programmes designed to help people find work." Once in employment, the worker pays taxes, which help the economy. Free childcare, which the SNP promises to rapidly expand, enables parents to work and prepares children for the future.

So, how will a better society be achieved? First, by rejecting present welfare legislation. The abolition of the bedroom tax would save 82,000 households from being moved out of their homes or losing an average of £50 a month from benefits. The rollout of universal credit would be halted to ensure no one is made worse off by it.

Second, by increasing benefits, tax credit and the minimum wage in line with inflation so as "to avoid the poorest families falling further behind", says the SNP.

Third, the promotion of a living wage set above the poverty line.

Fourth, a different taxation policy from that of the coalition: "Taxation is the main means to consider the distribution of income and wealth across society."

Alex Salmond is no socialist and the extent of equality to be achieved is not stated. His deputy and probable successor, Nicola Sturgeon, is much further to the left. What can be said is that an independent Scotland led by the SNP would greatly reduce welfare poverty and narrow the gap between rich and poor.

Scotland already has devolved powers over health and education. However, advances in these areas require taking action to reduce poverty. This can only be achieved with the powers that will accompany independence.

I have no intention of leaving the Labour party. I realise that if Labour no longer has a substantial number of MPs from Scottish constituencies then its prospects at the general election will be diminished. But a Labour government would do little for poor people in Scotland, as it supports Osborne's welfare cuts. My hope is that radical advances in Scotland would persuade Labour, dare I say it, to adopt a socialist programme.

Opponents of independence say Scotland could not afford the reforms. But financial experts disagree. Scotland's Future explains that Scotland has contributed more tax per head than down south. "In 2011-12, Scotland generated £10,700 of tax revenues per head compared with £9,000 for the UK," says the white paper. The rejection of Trident would also save millions. I want a society without poverty and nuclear weapons. I vote for independence.

• Bob Holman is the author of Keir Hardie: Labour's Greatest Hero? (Lion Hudson, 2010).