Independence Referendum

[Rod Paradise]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

[Kmac84]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

[ripple11]

So did anyone actually have a lump on the yes when the odds suggested there was no chance?

Yep - sadly not as much as I would have liked - bike expenses got in the way.

Details tbc but I'm sure the Osborne bribe will just do enough to keep daylight between the camps.

[OverTheBorder]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

Surely 2014 was a must as it had to be in this parliament?  Salmond is quoted saying "He said that 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments""

I think the British establishment are masters in the dark arts of politics. The yes campaigns blind belief that there will be no downside to independence is exactly the same as the negativity of better together. Both parties are pitching polar arguments as they cannot be seen to concede on any point as this is grabbed by the alternate spin machine.

An informed individual should be able to pick through both sets of propaganda and decide what is best for them and their family and to an extent their country.  The ill informed will be swayed by who shouts the loudest which is why the tactics of both sides are annoying to me.  To say you have a balanced view having read all your posts on here is just wrong.  

I wish you the best for the 18 th the strength of the campaign seems already to have won us greater devolved powers. If you win, we can decide in 5 years who can say "I told you so"

[arbboy]

So did anyone actually have a lump on the yes when the odds suggested there was no chance?

I had a lump on no when the odds suggested there was no chance of yes winning. If I hadn't had such a big lump I would very tempted to go in again at the current price even bigger than I did originally.

[Kmac84]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

Surely 2014 was a must as it had to be in this parliament?  Salmond is quoted saying "He said that 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments""

I think the British establishment are masters in the dark arts of politics. The yes campaigns blind belief that there will be no downside to independence is exactly the same as the negativity of better together. Both parties are pitching polar arguments as they cannot be seen to concede on any point as this is grabbed by the alternate spin machine.

An informed individual should be able to pick through both sets of propaganda and decide what is best for them and their family and to an extent their country.  The ill informed will be swayed by who shouts the loudest which is why the tactics of both sides are annoying to me.  To say you have a balanced view having read all your posts on here is just wrong.  

I wish you the best for the 18 th the strength of the campaign seems already to have won us greater devolved powers. If you win, we can decide in 5 years who can say "I told you so"

Where is the blind faith?  I certainly don't have it.  I have yet to speak to any serious campaigner who has blind faith that wake up on the 19th and think yes this is amazing, that's when the real work starts. 

[OverTheBorder]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

Surely 2014 was a must as it had to be in this parliament?  Salmond is quoted saying "He said that 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments""

I think the British establishment are masters in the dark arts of politics. The yes campaigns blind belief that there will be no downside to independence is exactly the same as the negativity of better together. Both parties are pitching polar arguments as they cannot be seen to concede on any point as this is grabbed by the alternate spin machine.

An informed individual should be able to pick through both sets of propaganda and decide what is best for them and their family and to an extent their country.  The ill informed will be swayed by who shouts the loudest which is why the tactics of both sides are annoying to me.  To say you have a balanced view having read all your posts on here is just wrong.  

I wish you the best for the 18 th the strength of the campaign seems already to have won us greater devolved powers. If you win, we can decide in 5 years who can say "I told you so"

Where is the blind faith?  I certainly don't have it.  I have yet to speak to any serious campaigner who has blind faith that wake up on the 19th and think yes this is amazing, that's when the real work starts. 

I gave you 5 years to prove me wrong, not one day. Tell me one negative about independent scotland, if you cannot then you cannot be seriously impartial

[arbboy]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

Good rational analysis of the risk/reward situation with no axe to grind either way Dan.

I was trying to describe the risk reward thing to a poker player this morning and compared it to a staked poker mtt player who is in a stable of players and is gtd to continue to keep being staked forever under his present deal making a good steady living ( ie staying in the union) He then binks the world (akin to Scotland having North Sea oil) by winning a large mtt and has a sufficient short term bank roll to go it alone and give it a shot at the big time but also with the downside of if he leaves the stable he is not ever allowed back in to be staked in the future and has to make a living purely on his own money and his own money alone.  What would most rational poker players choose to do in this situation?

[china mug]

i don't know a lot about politics ,but i would guess that this Scottish issue is a bit like a bank sell of where after its a done deal the ones that were shouting the loudest that they will all be better off and its all a win win situation ,suddenly find out that things are in a worse state than they were led to believe and after floundering about for a period of time they need bailing out all of which they could not have forseen in there stampede into a narrow ravine but if the tax payers would like to bend over a bit further and assume the position .......

[Kmac84]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

Surely 2014 was a must as it had to be in this parliament?  Salmond is quoted saying "He said that 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments""

I think the British establishment are masters in the dark arts of politics. The yes campaigns blind belief that there will be no downside to independence is exactly the same as the negativity of better together. Both parties are pitching polar arguments as they cannot be seen to concede on any point as this is grabbed by the alternate spin machine.

An informed individual should be able to pick through both sets of propaganda and decide what is best for them and their family and to an extent their country.  The ill informed will be swayed by who shouts the loudest which is why the tactics of both sides are annoying to me.  To say you have a balanced view having read all your posts on here is just wrong.  

I wish you the best for the 18 th the strength of the campaign seems already to have won us greater devolved powers. If you win, we can decide in 5 years who can say "I told you so"

Where is the blind faith?  I certainly don't have it.  I have yet to speak to any serious campaigner who has blind faith that wake up on the 19th and think yes this is amazing, that's when the real work starts. 

I gave you 5 years to prove me wrong, not one day. Tell me one negative about independent scotland, if you cannot then you cannot be seriously impartial

For me the biggest negative is doing actually doing it, its like moving out the house for the first tiime.  But that is also one of the exciting things. 

Another negative is the negotiating team, right now we don't know who that is going to be. 

I would also say the unknown of what parties will develop in an independent Scotland could be a negative.

Additionally, the UK gov might just be stubborn and not allow a currency union, that could create some uncertainty.  I don't think that will happen but there is a very slim chance that Osbourne/Balls/alexander have boxed themselves into a corner on that one.  My personal preference would be a form of sterlingisation and membershp of EFTA rather than the EU. 

That said, I have more fears about staying within the UK especially with the next general election in 2016, I know the betting has Labour in front but I don't think they can win.  They are, imo unelectable.  Especially with that moron Milleband in charge.  They are almost certainly finished in Scotland. My fear is more cuts, more debt, privitisation of the NHS, further unnecessary wars. 

[Kmac84]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

Good rational analysis of the risk/reward situation with no axe to grind either way Dan.

I was trying to describe the risk reward thing to a poker player this morning and compared it to a staked poker mtt player who is in a stable of players and is gtd to continue to keep being staked forever under his present deal making a good steady living ( ie staying in the union) He then binks the world (akin to Scotland having North Sea oil) by winning a large mtt and has a sufficient short term bank roll to go it alone and give it a shot at the big time but also with the downside of if he leaves the stable he is not ever allowed back in to be staked in the future and has to make a living purely on his own money and his own money alone.  What would most rational poker players choose to do in this situation?

We al know that the North Sea Oil is running out but we still have about 35 - 40 years worth left depending on who you believe.   In addition to that there is further oil to be found off the West Cost when Trident is removed.   There is also the Clair Ridge project.  But that is all a bonus.  Its been estimated by many leading industry experts that the next big boom is going to be renewables and its estimated that 25% of Europes Renewables will be generated in Scotland. 

Surely you acknowledge that North Sea Oil has been mismanaged since it was first discovered?  By both Labour and Tory Governments. 

[OverTheBorder]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

Surely 2014 was a must as it had to be in this parliament?  Salmond is quoted saying "He said that 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments""

I think the British establishment are masters in the dark arts of politics. The yes campaigns blind belief that there will be no downside to independence is exactly the same as the negativity of better together. Both parties are pitching polar arguments as they cannot be seen to concede on any point as this is grabbed by the alternate spin machine.

An informed individual should be able to pick through both sets of propaganda and decide what is best for them and their family and to an extent their country.  The ill informed will be swayed by who shouts the loudest which is why the tactics of both sides are annoying to me.  To say you have a balanced view having read all your posts on here is just wrong.  

I wish you the best for the 18 th the strength of the campaign seems already to have won us greater devolved powers. If you win, we can decide in 5 years who can say "I told you so"

Where is the blind faith?  I certainly don't have it.  I have yet to speak to any serious campaigner who has blind faith that wake up on the 19th and think yes this is amazing, that's when the real work starts. 

I gave you 5 years to prove me wrong, not one day. Tell me one negative about independent scotland, if you cannot then you cannot be seriously impartial

For me the biggest negative is doing actually doing it, its like moving out the house for the first tiime.  But that is also one of the exciting things. 

Another negative is the negotiating team, right now we don't know who that is going to be. 

I would also say the unknown of what parties will develop in an independent Scotland could be a negative.

Additionally, the UK gov might just be stubborn and not allow a currency union, that could create some uncertainty.  I don't think that will happen but there is a very slim chance that Osbourne/Balls/alexander have boxed themselves into a corner on that one.  My personal preference would be a form of sterlingisation and membershp of EFTA rather than the EU. 

That said, I have more fears about staying within the UK especially with the next general election in 2016, I know the betting has Labour in front but I don't think they can win.  They are, imo unelectable.  Especially with that moron Milleband in charge.  They are almost certainly finished in Scotland. My fear is more cuts, more debt, privitisation of the NHS, further unnecessary wars. 

Haha fair play, you said more than I expected, although it strikes me as the "what are your negatives in a job application?" You pick a negative you can turn into a positive.

Does your potential negatives not strike you as similar to the reasons you have been shouting down? The stock people put in each is dependant on personal choice.  As I said, good luck, we won't be changing each other's minds

[Kmac84]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

Surely 2014 was a must as it had to be in this parliament?  Salmond is quoted saying "He said that 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments""

I think the British establishment are masters in the dark arts of politics. The yes campaigns blind belief that there will be no downside to independence is exactly the same as the negativity of better together. Both parties are pitching polar arguments as they cannot be seen to concede on any point as this is grabbed by the alternate spin machine.

An informed individual should be able to pick through both sets of propaganda and decide what is best for them and their family and to an extent their country.  The ill informed will be swayed by who shouts the loudest which is why the tactics of both sides are annoying to me.  To say you have a balanced view having read all your posts on here is just wrong.  

I wish you the best for the 18 th the strength of the campaign seems already to have won us greater devolved powers. If you win, we can decide in 5 years who can say "I told you so"

Where is the blind faith?  I certainly don't have it.  I have yet to speak to any serious campaigner who has blind faith that wake up on the 19th and think yes this is amazing, that's when the real work starts. 

I gave you 5 years to prove me wrong, not one day. Tell me one negative about independent scotland, if you cannot then you cannot be seriously impartial

For me the biggest negative is doing actually doing it, its like moving out the house for the first tiime.  But that is also one of the exciting things. 

Another negative is the negotiating team, right now we don't know who that is going to be. 

I would also say the unknown of what parties will develop in an independent Scotland could be a negative.

Additionally, the UK gov might just be stubborn and not allow a currency union, that could create some uncertainty.  I don't think that will happen but there is a very slim chance that Osbourne/Balls/alexander have boxed themselves into a corner on that one.  My personal preference would be a form of sterlingisation and membershp of EFTA rather than the EU. 

That said, I have more fears about staying within the UK especially with the next general election in 2016, I know the betting has Labour in front but I don't think they can win.  They are, imo unelectable.  Especially with that moron Milleband in charge.  They are almost certainly finished in Scotland. My fear is more cuts, more debt, privitisation of the NHS, further unnecessary wars. 

Does your potential negatives not strike you as similar to the reasons you have been shouting down? The stock people put in each is dependant on personal choice.  As I said, good luck, we won't be changing each other's minds

Not really what I have been mostly shouting down is the myth that we rely solely on North Sea Oil and that we are subsidy junkies, that we're too poor, too wee and too stupid.  The rest of it, and although I site them as negatives are just political posturing.  I 100% believe that Scotland will be in the EU, as I said and although I detest UKIP and everything they stand for, my personal preference would be for membership of EFTA, something I think has already been agreed in principle between the countries.   

I don't buy into the SNP's vision for Scotland but people like Robin McAlpine have put forward very strong cases for financial models post indy and there is some fantastic ideas in his work.  Jim Sillars has some very good ideas about raising money and inward investment and given his background should be part of any negotiating team.  Patrick Harvie has put the greens into the forefront of many peoples minds with his progressive politics.  I see many positves outwith the SNP.  One of the biggest things for me, and I haven't joined yet because I want to see what course they take post indy is Labour For Indy.  They have been tennacious, disciplined and creative.  If they rejoin the main Labour Party post indy I seriously couldn't join unless every sitting MSP and MP were expelled from the new Scottish Party.   But I was a Labour member from 14 till half way through Blair's term.  I come from a very Labur orientated family. 

[arbboy]

Its the argument that the rest of the world views the UK as homogeneous blob therefore Scotland needs independence to have a strong national identity and reap greater trade benefits that this would bring that gets me. I haven't witnessed a single example of this 'Englands kid brother' mentality and in my experience Scotland has a very strong national identity, no less than England.

When we're starting to emerge from the biggest global downturn in history it feels like the UKs graph is just starting to upswing a little, obviously the gains in term of GDP take time to filter through to employment and wage growth but it feels like the Yes campaign have just draw a horizontal line and said right, well things can't possibly get any worse staying in the UK, and we think that we can do better on our own so lets go.

The Yes campaign call it scaremongering but any rational person can see that there is at least the potential for this to go really very badly and with not a huge amount of upside to becoming a smaller fish in the same big pond in the current economic climate.

I don't really recognise that argument, haven't seen it much that I can recall. It's more we need away from Westminster's type of politics.

The timing is purely down to the fact that the SNP achieved what the electoral system for Holyrood was designed to avoid, a majority, on a platform of a referendum. Naturally we'll look at the situation as it is, but if we take it back as far as the 1979 referendum it doesn't make any prettier a picture.

The timimg was actually instigated this time around by the UK Gov. My understanding is that the SNP's desired date was 2016 but Cameron forced Salmond's hand. 

As to Dan's? point.  I do recognize that arguement but it in an arguement put about by the Better Together Campaign.  They have twisted it, very much like the anti-English sentiment they have created. 

I also agree vey much with Rod's points. 

Further it should be added, that the British establishment are masters in the black art of propogands and disinformation.   Much of what we are seeing now was done in 1979, just ask many of the people around back then.  That is why, I am surprised that a large demographic of 30+ year olds back then, haven't seen through this and that now many of those over 60 are in the NO camp this time having been duped by the same misinformation. 

Surely 2014 was a must as it had to be in this parliament?  Salmond is quoted saying "He said that 2014 "was the date that allows everything to be put in a proper manner on the most important decision in Scotland for 300 years. That date will allow the Scottish people to hear all the arguments""

I think the British establishment are masters in the dark arts of politics. The yes campaigns blind belief that there will be no downside to independence is exactly the same as the negativity of better together. Both parties are pitching polar arguments as they cannot be seen to concede on any point as this is grabbed by the alternate spin machine.

An informed individual should be able to pick through both sets of propaganda and decide what is best for them and their family and to an extent their country.  The ill informed will be swayed by who shouts the loudest which is why the tactics of both sides are annoying to me.  To say you have a balanced view having read all your posts on here is just wrong.  

I wish you the best for the 18 th the strength of the campaign seems already to have won us greater devolved powers. If you win, we can decide in 5 years who can say "I told you so"

Where is the blind faith?  I certainly don't have it.  I have yet to speak to any serious campaigner who has blind faith that wake up on the 19th and think yes this is amazing, that's when the real work starts. 

I gave you 5 years to prove me wrong, not one day. Tell me one negative about independent scotland, if you cannot then you cannot be seriously impartial

For me the biggest negative is doing actually doing it, its like moving out the house for the first tiime.  But that is also one of the exciting things. 

Another negative is the negotiating team, right now we don't know who that is going to be. 

I would also say the unknown of what parties will develop in an independent Scotland could be a negative.

Additionally, the UK gov might just be stubborn and not allow a currency union, that could create some uncertainty.  I don't think that will happen but there is a very slim chance that Osbourne/Balls/alexander have boxed themselves into a corner on that one.  My personal preference would be a form of sterlingisation and membershp of EFTA rather than the EU. 

That said, I have more fears about staying within the UK especially with the next general election in 2016, I know the betting has Labour in front but I don't think they can win.  They are, imo unelectable.  Especially with that moron Milleband in charge.  They are almost certainly finished in Scotland. My fear is more cuts, more debt, privitisation of the NHS, further unnecessary wars. 

Does your potential negatives not strike you as similar to the reasons you have been shouting down? The stock people put in each is dependant on personal choice.  As I said, good luck, we won't be changing each other's minds

Not really what I have been mostly shouting down is the myth that we rely solely on North Sea Oil and that we are subsidy junkies, that we're too poor, too wee and too stupid.  The rest of it, and although I site them as negatives are just political posturing.  I 100% believe that Scotland will be in the EU, as I said and although I detest UKIP and everything they stand for, my personal preference would be for membership of EFTA, something I think has already been agreed in principle between the countries.   

I don't buy into the SNP's vision for Scotland but people like Robin McAlpine have put forward very strong cases for financial models post indy and there is some fantastic ideas in his work.  Jim Sillars has some very good ideas about raising money and inward investment and given his background should be part of any negotiating team.  Patrick Harvie has put the greens into the forefront of many peoples minds with his progressive politics.  I see many positves outwith the SNP.  One of the biggest things for me, and I haven't joined yet because I want to see what course they take post indy is Labour For Indy.  They have been tennacious, disciplined and creative.  If they rejoin the main Labour Party post indy I seriously couldn't join unless every sitting MSP and MP were expelled from the new Scottish Party.   But I was a Labour member from 14 till half way through Blair's term.  I come from a very Labur orientated family. 

No shit here was me thinking you were a closet thatcher groupie like me!

[curnow]

Additionally, the UK gov might just be stubborn and not allow a currency union, that could create some uncertainty.  I don't think that will happen but there is a very slim chance that Osbourne/Balls/alexander have boxed themselves into a corner on that one.  My personal preference would be a form of sterlingisation and membershp of EFTA rather than the EU. 

if you had any basic understanding of economics you would know they cant agree a currency union , you cant have currency union without political union , its the same for the euro & it will never work without a federal europe

Scotland can keep the pound but not have any control over the UK pound & just keep it linked like Denmark does with the euro & alot of countries in Asia follows the $ , fat Alex just keeps telling lies & hope the yes vote wins but only down side is we will be stuck with a tory goverment