Independence Referendum

[Teacake]

It is indeed hard to believe that there is no credible plan ahead of the vote.

It should have been stated clearly what the plan was (with Westminster approval) both in terms of currency, assets and debt.   At that point the voters can decide.  I'm pretty sure this would have given some of the "no" voters the confidence to vote differently as well.

What rational person would risk the value of their house/savings/pensions etc etc by voting yes with so little upside yet so much potential downside when such fundamental policies are not cast in stone before the vote?  Just makes no sense at all.  Maybe the value of Tennant's super is more important than these issues to the yes crew!

I know you find it hard to believe mark but there is more to life(and this vote) than economics and money.  Self determination is very important and not everybody wants things like the lowest taxes, they value things like education, healthcare  and community and given independence they will be able to determine those priorities for themselves democratically rather than be lumped in with a country which, for a large part votes for parties that are eroding all of those things on a daily basis.

Nailed it.

[Kmac84]

Sometimes the Daily Mail gets it right.

[Kmac84]

great post Red

Anything that lessens the position of Cameron is a good thing by me after what he has subjected certain sections of society to so far

:-)

[redarmi]

It is indeed hard to believe that there is no credible plan ahead of the vote.

It should have been stated clearly what the plan was (with Westminster approval) both in terms of currency, assets and debt.   At that point the voters can decide.  I'm pretty sure this would have given some of the "no" voters the confidence to vote differently as well.

What rational person would risk the value of their house/savings/pensions etc etc by voting yes with so little upside yet so much potential downside when such fundamental policies are not cast in stone before the vote?  Just makes no sense at all.  Maybe the value of Tennant's super is more important than these issues to the yes crew!

I know you find it hard to believe mark but there is more to life(and this vote) than economics and money.  Self determination is very important and not everybody wants things like the lowest taxes, they value things like education, healthcare  and community and given independence they will be able to determine those priorities for themselves democratically rather than be lumped in with a country which, for a large part votes for parties that are eroding all of those things on a daily basis.

I appreciate this but at what price are you willing to risk your personal wealth to get this and the uncertainty it brings?  The Scottish are well known as being more risk averse/tight/canny than your average nation with their money (whether this is just a myth or not that's up for debate elsewhere) so i just find it amazing how they are willing to take such financial risks personally and collectively to get this.  I have no problem if they want to gamble the bank on it good luck to them.

Huge parts of the Scottish electorate have no personal wealth and they are seeing their rights, benefits and opportunities eroded at the expense of protecting the wealth of what is basically a minority of middle class, English (mainly) swing voters that Cameron and the Coalition (and also Milliband, Blair, new Labour etc) pander to in order to win elections.

[Kmac84]

John Major tells @BBCr4today he's spoken to "a Labour MP recently who said I'm going to vote Yes" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026dflt

[Kmac84]

It is indeed hard to believe that there is no credible plan ahead of the vote.

It should have been stated clearly what the plan was (with Westminster approval) both in terms of currency, assets and debt.   At that point the voters can decide.  I'm pretty sure this would have given some of the "no" voters the confidence to vote differently as well.

What rational person would risk the value of their house/savings/pensions etc etc by voting yes with so little upside yet so much potential downside when such fundamental policies are not cast in stone before the vote?  Just makes no sense at all.  Maybe the value of Tennant's super is more important than these issues to the yes crew!

I know you find it hard to believe mark but there is more to life(and this vote) than economics and money.  Self determination is very important and not everybody wants things like the lowest taxes, they value things like education, healthcare  and community and given independence they will be able to determine those priorities for themselves democratically rather than be lumped in with a country which, for a large part votes for parties that are eroding all of those things on a daily basis.

I appreciate this but at what price are you willing to risk your personal wealth to get this and the uncertainty it brings?  The Scottish are well known as being more risk averse/tight/canny than your average nation with their money (whether this is just a myth or not that's up for debate elsewhere) so i just find it amazing how they are willing to take such financial risks personally and collectively to get this.  I have no problem if they want to gamble the bank on it good luck to them.

Huge parts of the Scottish electorate have no personal wealth and they are seeing their rights, benefits and opportunities eroded at the expense of protecting the wealth of what is basically a minority of middle class, English (mainly) swing voters that Cameron and the Coalition (and also Milliband, Blair, new Labour etc) pander to in order to win elections.

Nail on head, at least someone gets it. 

[Somerled]

Wow! I leave it for a few days and merry hell breaks loose.

Referring to people as Quislings is beyond contempt, and exactly the kind of rubbish that makes me sick to the back teeth of the whole campaign.

Quick point I was making to someone on Twitter today re Exports. Business for Scotland (a pathetic laughable organisation) put up a letter signed by 40 "internationally renowned" business leaders - some of whom owned pubs, some were chefs, at least 90% of them have never exported anything. Anyway, the crux of their statement was that Scottish food & drink exports will flourish in an iScotland. Because......welll, just because they will.

The true position is that Scottish F&D exports ARE flourishing. Now. Right now. And WILL continue to do so for the forseeable future. Unless we tear apart the system which is working so well.

The chap on twitter pointed out to me how Scottish exports subsidise Westminster. Which given that there's no VAT or Duty paid on exports is somewhat hard to fathom. What exports do is create jobs in Scotland, and every product sold abroad is an advert for Scottish tourism. Why on earth would anyone want to lose that? Would we lose all these exports? Of course not. Would creating a new system be awkward and expensive? Of course. Is it needed or even desirable? No.

Not just my views, the views of every other Scottish company I've dealt with over the last year or so. Most of whom are too scared to officially declare themselves "No" for the reasons perfectly illustrated on here by KMac. There also still many folk who still believe that their vote is a private thing and don't feel the need to shout it from the rooftops. Most of them will be happily voting No.

Around here (the highlands) many many No signs and banners have been torn down. No doubt some Yes ones have too but the vast majority of that type of behaviour is confined to the Yes camp. Is that down to pure passion? Maybe. But it's sorely misplaced.

This is one of the best pieces I've read on the whole campaign, particularly when it explains the SNP "positivity" campaign. Largely PR Spin and media manipulation - the very stuff most Yessers profess to despise. Sigh.

http://www.scottishreview.net/CarolCraig172.shtml

I'll pop back in another few days and see what's happened....

[DungBeetle]

All this nonsense of politicians offering sweetners is very annoying, and undemocratic for the rest of us if you ask me.

It should be

A) Have independence - good luck guys hope it works out for you
B) Stay and get treated the same as everyone else in the UK

Bribing the Scots to stay sums up the woeful quality of our politicians in Westminster.

Its just way more complex than that though

MPs representing the rest of the UK in Westminster and working for the Better Together campaign are doing so because their constituents want to keep the union together. I'm not going to find a direct source but if I recall correctly, the polls from rUK were 65-70% in favour of keeping the union. The rUK public wants Scotland to stay so our politicians can't just say 'meh, gl if you pull the trigger' when millions of people in their constituencies will feel the effects of a split in one way or another.

The idea that we're trying to 'bribe' Scotland to stay assumes that the scots were getting a 100% fair deal before and anything else would be unfair on the rest of the union. There are so many conflicting numbers I don't think anyone has a hope in hell of REALLY knowing whether independence is going to be of net benefit to them, but given the swirling maelstrom of numbers I think it would be very presumptuous to assume that Scotland was already getting a great deal and that anything extra is automatically a 'bribe'.

I think it is simple.  London runs a surplus and would be very wealthy if it were an independent country.  But we accept that the North needs to be funded as we are in it together so we contribute far higher tax than the rest of the country.  If Scotland wants to be in the Union then it should do the same.  They may be net contributors like London, but if you want to be part of the Union that is the price you pay. If they are offered anything else which the rest of the country is not, then it is indeed a bribe in my opinion.  We're either in it together, or we're not.

Where do you think London makes its money from?  They manufacture fck all, they grow fck all, and they have no natural resources.  It's a fucking miracle city.

Where do you think?  Am I being whooshed?

[horseplayer]

More Ed Miliband speech "I grew up in the 1980s against the backdrop of the Miners’ strike and Mrs Thatcher" - (in a Primrose Hill mansion.)

At this rate Salmond will be paying them to stay longer

[kinboshi]

More Ed Miliband speech "I grew up in the 1980s against the backdrop of the Miners’ strike and Mrs Thatcher" - (in a Primrose Hill mansion.)

At this rate Salmond will be paying them to stay longer

Can someone who wasn't personally affected by a situation not stand up for the people who suffered?

[Woodsey]

I boycotted a pack of Scottish strawberries today in favour of a pack from Yorkshire 

[arbboy]

Wow! I leave it for a few days and merry hell breaks loose.

Referring to people as Quislings is beyond contempt, and exactly the kind of rubbish that makes me sick to the back teeth of the whole campaign.

Quick point I was making to someone on Twitter today re Exports. Business for Scotland (a pathetic laughable organisation) put up a letter signed by 40 "internationally renowned" business leaders - some of whom owned pubs, some were chefs, at least 90% of them have never exported anything. Anyway, the crux of their statement was that Scottish food & drink exports will flourish in an iScotland. Because......welll, just because they will.

The true position is that Scottish F&D exports ARE flourishing. Now. Right now. And WILL continue to do so for the forseeable future. Unless we tear apart the system which is working so well.

The chap on twitter pointed out to me how Scottish exports subsidise Westminster. Which given that there's no VAT or Duty paid on exports is somewhat hard to fathom. What exports do is create jobs in Scotland, and every product sold abroad is an advert for Scottish tourism. Why on earth would anyone want to lose that? Would we lose all these exports? Of course not. Would creating a new system be awkward and expensive? Of course. Is it needed or even desirable? No.

Not just my views, the views of every other Scottish company I've dealt with over the last year or so. Most of whom are too scared to officially declare themselves "No" for the reasons perfectly illustrated on here by KMac. There also still many folk who still believe that their vote is a private thing and don't feel the need to shout it from the rooftops. Most of them will be happily voting No.

Around here (the highlands) many many No signs and banners have been torn down. No doubt some Yes ones have too but the vast majority of that type of behaviour is confined to the Yes camp. Is that down to pure passion? Maybe. But it's sorely misplaced.

This is one of the best pieces I've read on the whole campaign, particularly when it explains the SNP "positivity" campaign. Largely PR Spin and media manipulation - the very stuff most Yessers profess to despise. Sigh.

http://www.scottishreview.net/CarolCraig172.shtml

I'll pop back in another few days and see what's happened....

Good read.  This was the key thing for me which rings true.

He then explains that a separate currency would have its own difficulties but that using the pound in a currency union or through Sterlingisation would be 'very dangerous' adding: 'I find it mind-boggling that Scotland would consider going down this path after all that has happened in the last few years. If Scottish voters really believe that it's safe to become a country without a currency, they have been badly misled'.
Quite frankly they are being misled because the leadership of the SNP and the Yes campaign want independence at any price. Secondly they have created an atmosphere where any facts or viewpoints which are 'negative' are being ridiculed. But how did a country once respected for its emphasis on reason, common sense, and principles get to the position where healthy scepticism or inconvenient truths are demonised as scaremongering lies? I believe the answer is to be found in the weight the Yes campaign places on optimism.

[Kmac84]

More Ed Miliband speech "I grew up in the 1980s against the backdrop of the Miners’ strike and Mrs Thatcher" - (in a Primrose Hill mansion.)

At this rate Salmond will be paying them to stay longer

Can someone who wasn't personally affected by a situation not stand up for the people who suffered?

If they were genuine yes. 

[DungBeetle]

More Ed Miliband speech "I grew up in the 1980s against the backdrop of the Miners’ strike and Mrs Thatcher" - (in a Primrose Hill mansion.)

At this rate Salmond will be paying them to stay longer

Can someone who wasn't personally affected by a situation not stand up for the people who suffered?

Yes.  But his trump card seems to be "vote no, so you can then vote for me to kick the Tories out and I'll build a socialist utopia from Westminster".  However, I imagine the Scots weren't too happy with Labour rule 1997 to 2010, a government in which Miliband played a prominent role.  He just sounds hollow.

[Woodsey]