Why should I vote No in IndyRef 2?

During the Scottish Independence referendum the Yes Movement, perfectly reasonably, were required to account for their position. They offered some evidence and arguments which ultimately failed to persuade the majority of the electorate, who voted No by a margin of 55% to 45%.

This result was based, at least in part, on the prospectus offered by the No campaign. In addition to basic continuity, this prospectus included the rather vague "Vow" and some other more specific items such as guaranteed EU membership and use of Sterling as a currency. Some of this is no longer deliverable.

If the advocates of a Yes vote had to account for themselves in detail back then, those who argued for a No vote must answer for themselves now, given we are now experiencing the consequences of voting No, and are likely to be presented with a second referendum at some point in the next few years.

For example, if exiting the EU means we should stay in the UK now, why was it necessary to emphasise remaining an EU member back then?

It seems to me the only argument that is both consistent and acceptable would surely be that EU membership is utterly immaterial, which is not the case that was made then. The unacceptable but equally consistent alternative, of course, would be that the UK is effectively an abusive relationship, and we should remain in the UK because, in effect, "nobody else would have us," but I don't expect anyone to make that argument if they want to be taken seriously.

How has the currency argument been affected by the volatility of Sterling? At the moment exports have gone up due to the cheap pound, but in the longer term more expensive imports will cause inflation while wages denominated in Sterling remain static, reducing what our salaries are worth. This ultimately devalues our labour, driving us further down the road of a low wage, low productivity economy. Would other currency options be worth considering now?

Oil price volatility was also presented as a liability. Does that situation remain unchanged? Why is oil price volatility important if currency volatility is not?

There were other arguments unrelated to short term economic performance - social justice, workers' solidarity, environmental concerns, and so on - which were decisive for many. What is now the best vehicle for achieving these objectives?

So if there was a second referendum tomorrow, why should I vote No? Under these changed circumstances I am genuinely interested in the arguments and open to persuasion. How are the arguments of two years ago altered? What remains valid? What are the new arguments, if any?