UKC

Not what you'd like, but your predicted outcome. Those that prove to be right can then tease those that prove to be wrong once we have a result

I think Yes will win

In reply to JJL:

I think No will win, by a tiny margin, purely because I think a lot of apathetic/undecided people whose opinions haven't yet been counted in poles will err on the side of caution.

In reply to JJL:

No.

In reply to JJL:

Yes

In reply to slinky wizard:

Yes

In reply to JJL:

I think no will win by a comfortable margin on the night.

In reply to JJL:

Might be worth mentioning where you are.

I.e. Scotland/England/ex-pat

In reply to JJL:

I think yes if yes means independence. I'm English living in England but might move to Scotland if yes vote.

In reply to JJL:

Yes

In reply to JJL:

yes

In reply to JJL:

I guess yes. Pure guesswork.

I'm British me. Live and born in England but with a Scottish grandad I've never considered myself anything but British.

In reply to JJL:

No by a tiny margin

In reply to JJL:
It will be yes. If you live in Scotland you can see that the tide had turned and there is no going back.

In reply to JJL:

I genuinely think it's now too close to call. It was obvious that it was going to be No. It's not obvious now.

I've already voted. I voted No.

If we get Yes, I think it will be a bumpy ride. But maybe the same is true, by now, even if we get No.

There's plenty about the south-of-the-border polity that I dislike. So provided an independent Scotland doesn't fail at launch, which I'm afraid is quite possible, it wouldn't necessarily be a nightmare. I say that even though I wouldn't have voted No if I didn't think we'd do better not to go independent.

In reply to JJL:

A close call but No. Then years of whining and recriminations.

In reply to JJL:

Yes but no but yes but no

In reply to JJL:

No by a small majority.
England

In reply to JJL:

A couple of weeks ago I thought the Yes cause was all but lost; now it's booming. I now think a narrow Yes win is most likely, but I wouldn't be astonished if it isn't even all that narrow. It could still go wrong, though.

(Living in Scotland, and delighted with the sudden surge of energy, engagement and positivity.)

In reply to JJL:

No

In reply to JJL:

Voting: No
Hoping: No
Calling: too close!

In reply to JJL:

No

In reply to JJL:

Yes and a clear victory.

Scottish

In reply to JJL:

Yes, I hope and dare to dream

A couple of months ago I could only envisage a no.

Scottish Highlands

In reply to JJL:
If we can get Alistair Darling on TV for another debate then it will definitely be a YES. That is the evidence of the You-Gov numbers.

In reply to JJL:

Yes because once your eyes have been opened to the lies and propaganda, they can't be closed.

People in Scotland don't turn from yes to no, but rather fron no to yes.

It will give Westminster a boot in the balls which will ultimately benefit the rUK

In reply to JJL:

Very close with the loser not going quietly.

In reply to JJL:

Still think no.

In reply to Removed User:


I wonder what the requirements are for a very close result causing a recount demand.

In reply to JJL:

Yip. With a significant majority, i.e. around 3 or 4%. English. Lived in Scotland on and off as a kid. Plan to move up there permanently in the next couple of years. Agree with Bruce on the other thread, SNP couldn't of hoped for such an exhulted coalition government in Westminster to further the cause of Indepedance.

D

In reply to JJL:

Far too tight to call with many undecided who may sadly be swayed by last minute pseudo promises. I really can't call it and at work the other day everyone agreed that we will be staying up all night to see the outcome.

In reply to all:

OK, so some improvements to the "rules" of engagement.

You need to state a prediction of the final outcome.

It seems fun to include:
- your desired outcome
- your connection (if any) to Scotland

So I predict YES but...
...I'd prefer NO...
...(possibly because) I've no genealogical or residential (but plenty of spiritual) connection.

Rationales are interesting but won't spare your blushes if you get it wrong.

In reply to JJL:

Hoping yes, but it'll be a close no on the day.

The government are already panicking; the near future is going to contain a large number of hopeless, desperate promises to the Scottish people, along with some transparent pish about how Westminster is 'getting the message'. This will convince the undecideds - who, let's face it, are unlikely to be the sharpest tools in the box if they still haven't understood the debate - that they've forced Our Dave into enough concessions to make staying in the union beneficial to Scotland.

None of these promises will ever be kept and, indeed, the revenue-creating industries in Scotland will be stitched up tighter than a midge's @rse by the government so that nobody else will ever get a look-in. By this time, large swathes of the Scottish population will realise they've been conned - again - and start agitating for another referendum.

Which will never, ever, ever get held.

Live in Cornwall (which doesn't need independence), but am Welsh. Scottish-English wife.

Martin

In reply to JJL:
No by a percentage point or two.

For Scotland's sake I hope it's a yes, for England's a No, for my sake a No.

Whatever happens the genie isn't going back into the bottle.

jk
Manx living in northern England

In reply to JJL:

Think YES
Hope YES
( 1 scot parent/1 english....born in scotland but lived in england)

In reply to abr1966:

Hoping for a yes, predicting a very narrow yes.

since everyone else seems to be declaring...born a Scot to Scottish parents in Scotland, English by choice.

In reply to JJL:

Think Yes, hope No.


The costs to the UK of rebuilding Scotland after the failed self rule experiment will be huge.

In reply to stroppygob:

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...

The bookies still have it as more likely a NO..

~2:1 for a YES ~1:2.5 for NO..

In reply to JJL:

Predict a no by a narrow margin followed by court cases, appeals and calls for a rerun.

Dave (Brit/Canadian/Aussie - living in Straya, quite like visiting Scotland)

In reply to JJL:
I think Yes, because 'yes we can' style campaigning is effective if Obama is anything to go by, and a lot of Scottish people are proud of their country and culture which the SNP is tapping into.

I'm mostly English and part Scottish and part Irish, I might be a bit sad if Scotland does go independent because I like the idea of different countries being able to live together as a bigger whole in a harmonious way, and because I see myself as British I guess, but I want Scotland to succeed if it does go independent.

I live in Sheffield.

In reply to JJL:

I think - YES
I hope - NO

Live in cumbria, work in aberdeen

Truthfully my scots co-workers are shocked by the YouGov poll at the weekend (even though it was only a 1000 people sample) - some are very worried - they see yes as a headlong plunge into a socialist mess with no safety net - CV's are getting polished for expat jobs at present.

In reply to JJL:

I think it will be no. I am basing this very unscientifically on the Quebec referendums, where there was a big push for yes at the 11th hour, but on the day it ended up a no.

England

In reply to Fraser:

I'm now revising my earlier post and think the 'No' camp will win - just - based on the fact that 8% of voters on the poll which gave the lead to the 'Yes' camp were, at the time of the poll, still currently undecided.


Some further interesting statistics here from the latest YouGov poll, particularly if you drill down into the detailed responses about Trust etc:

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/02/full-results-scottish-independence-28th...

In reply to JJL:

Hoping: No
Voting: No
Calling: No

Live in Angus.

Mark

In reply to JJL:

I think no. I think we're seeing some odd statistical fluctuations, although the gap is a lot narrower than it was.

I hope no. I think Scotland would be a lot worse off if it were independent. Also from a personal point of view, I used to live in Scotland until a few years ago, and truthfully it's where my heart is and I would like to move back. I think (and hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am) that a yes vote would lead to prolonged economic turmoil - the sort no-one would chose to love through. Also, as an academic scientist, jobs would be under severe threat.

In reply to JJL:
A No, but very slim majority, but Scottish politics will never be the same as before the referendum. Trying to be objective and based on chatting.
Inverness

In reply to MargieB:

Massively hoping it's a YES and it throws Westminster and the elites into turmoil, but suspect caution will prevail and it'll be a NO.

Living in England person.

In reply to JJL:

Too close to call. Evidence from canvassing says Yes but I think it's more complex than that.

Yes 53%. Inverness

In reply to JJL:

Voted No. Hoping (praying) No. Predicting...No. Just. by 3-4%. Interesting that Dauphin above says yes by 3-4% would be a significant margin.

In reply to JJL:

Hoping: no
Calling: no but by a tight margin

Grew up in SE England, lived in Scotland for 8 years.

In reply to JJL:

It all depends how much more patronising Osborne can manage to be over the next couple of weeks. I have to say that if I were a Scot, the sudden and completely transparent enthusiasm for devo-max from a government that until a week ago was more or less ignoring the whole thing hoping it would go away would only persuade me that the Yes option must have something going for it.

I don't trust Salmond but I can see why Scots trust Cameron even less.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


The BBC covers this. The Government has promised nothing, and shouldn't. They're staying out of the debate, this is monitored.

Osbourne is speaking on behalf of the Conservatives if they are elected next time.

In reply to JJL:

The news of another royal pregnancy will lead to mass hysteria, red, white and blue bunting all over the place and a NO vote

In reply to Philip:


Which will be why the Cons,Libs and Lab have all said that it is a joint proposal+timetable presumably??

In reply to Dave Garnett:


The scary thing is that so many people seem to think its got anything to do with either. It's about an independent Scotland versus a Scotland in the UK. And to remain so long after both Cameron and Salmond are voted out or long dead.

In answer to the OP's question: I predict a No vote by a more comfortable margin than the polls are predicting.

In reply to puppythedog:


How will you get through the barbed wire?

On the OP, "don't know" but what interests me as much is the turn out, will it be massive or like local elections. If it is not massive there could well be more trouble ahead IMO.

In reply to JJL:

Hoping for Yes. Think it will be No by a few percent because there isn't quite enough pain yet to overcome natural caution.

However, a few years down the line and a bit of Westminster imposed austerity combined with egregious spending on wars and infrastructure for London or a UK vote to leave the EU and there will be another SNP government another referendum and it will be Yes. It will take some really big changes by the UK in the direction of federalism and decentralisation to stop independence in the medium term.

In reply to JJL:

Hi JJL,

I will be voting YES, fervently want a YES vote and believe it will be a YES vote. I'm a Yorkshireman who has lived in Scotland for 30 years, have a Scottish wife (undecided), a daughter and son both born in Aberdeen, (both voting Yes).

Why am I voting YES ? Because the British political system has been rotten for decades and anything that has the potential to change that has, in my opinion, to be a good thing.

ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

That's my take on it, it's far from perfect, but it may shake things up for the better for everyone, England included.

In reply to JJL:

definitely a NO

I think that, despite what people say they will vote, when it comes down to actually doing it, a lot of those hung-ho types will bottle it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



But Holyrood imposed austerity would be fine would it? Or are we going to just keep spending and end up like Greece (except that we might not be in the EU with Germany there to bail us out).


Do you seriously think the SNP can go on having a referendum every few years until they get the answer they want? I think a generation gap will be appropriate.


Yes, I think the wake up call has probably been heard.

In reply to JJL:

It'll be YES

English, some Celtic ancestry.

It'll be a lot more complex & bring more fall-out than many people realise

In reply to JJL:
It'll be a no, by a tight margin.
Supporters of minority parties are less apathetic when it comes to voting.

Either way it goes it's a bad thing for Scotland, and the UK. There will be a loss of confidence in any investment north of The Wall.

English, England, family and friends in Scotland.

In reply to Robert Durran:


There isn't any need for austerity in Scotland. It is just a matter of choices - the UK chooses to spend its money on wars, railways in London, overpriced services provided by London, overseas development, housing benefit for immigrants etc etc. Scotland could choose to spend its money on education, the NHS and infrastructure in Scotland.

Cutbacks aren't appropriate for a country with 40% of the UK land area and 10% of the population. Scotland has lots of opportunity for growth if it can organise its economy properly and reform land ownership.


If the SNP are elected on a manifesto that calls for a referendum then they have a right to hold one. If the electorate don't want another referendum then they won't elect the SNP or the SNP won't put the referendum in their manifesto. Westminster trying to block a referendum if there was overwhelming demand for one - as could easily happen if the UK voted to leave the EU or the Barnett formula was dropped resulting in large cutbacks - would be a very dangerous path.


For now. But give it a few years and it will be back to business as usual.

In reply to JJL:

Predict - Yes
Hope - YES

Live in England.

I think Scotland should take this opportunity for a break from the London-centric policies of Westminster.

In reply to JJL:

Most hearts will say, Yes
But more heads will say, No.

Welshman living in England.

In reply to JJL:

I suspect that when it really comes down to it, in the polling booth with the pencil hovering, most people will tend towards security and say 'No'.

I hope it's a 'Yes' though. I think it's what UK/ London-centric politics needs and it will put a rocket up the arse of a lot of arrogant politicians/ Industry leaders/ Lobbyists at home and abroad. It would lead to more de-centralising of government I would hope.

(Having said that, I believe a 'Yes' for Scotland would be an extremely brave punt, and I'm glad it's not a choice I have to decide on)

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Bit surprised at your "it's my money and I'm keeping it" attitude when it comes to overseas aid. Surely you can see that an independent Scotland would need to allocate a percentage of it's GDP towards this if it wants to be seen as a responsible player internationally? Just doesn't seem in keeping with most of the Yes people on this site.

From Wales, I'm hoping for a Yes vote to shake up the whole UK establishment.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You don't live in Scotland. You live in lah lah land. Less than 1% of State spending is on transport for London. Salmond tells us Scotland will aim to attract immigrants so are they going to live on the streets? Are you telling jus the new kind socialist nation will turn its back on the world's poor?
Get a grip man!

In reply to Postmanpat:

It also doesn't spend its money on education.. hence cuts in places and underfunded universities..

In reply to Jim Fraser:

1% in a survey which doesn't account for undecided and postal votes is effectively a dead heat imo.

Voting No because despite having had an open mind Yes have failed to give convincing answers on any of the things that matter to me (Defence, currency etc etc). Proposed benefits are to vague and nebulous to justify the obvious risks and costs.

I don't think independence will be a disaster, but like others I predict turbulence ahead whoever wins.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



What on earth has population density got to do with living within ones means? (Also it's about 32%).

In reply to Robert Durran:




Exactly my thoughts.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:




http://scotreferendum.com/questions/if-scotland-votes-no-will-there-be-anot...

In reply to JJL:

If I thought independence a bad idea, I'd have strong backing for no. As it is I think it is an absurd idea, no - beyond belief ludicrous, I find it difficult to feel strongly either way. I guess this has been the problem of the No campaign too.

As a Scot living in England, I have no say anyway. Suffice to say I have already moved assets out of the Scottish financial sector, just in case. My worry is not money moving south but people: it'd be devastating to see Scotland turn into an Ireland and lose a generation (the irony of my statement is noted).

In reply to MG:


It is an indication that Scotland should be able to increase its means.

A lightly populated country with lots of natural resources, 84% of its land area held by a small number of passive landowners only interested in maintaining ownership and a history of under investment in infrastructure does not need to cut back. It needs to invest in education and infrastructure to maximise its potential. You don't run a growth business the same way as a steady state or declining one.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I don't see how it indicates that at all. Why do think there should be a inverse correlation between population density and the potential wealth of a country? If so, Mongolia should be fantastically rich and Hong Kong very poor.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I'm genuinely interested in your proposals for this land to create a very meaningful impact on Scottish SGP and tax revenues.

In reply to JayPee630:

Hi Jay,
+1....
I also feel that this will be good for the rUK as well.
ANdy

In reply to JJL: I hope it's a no - I think the UK punches above its weight together; separately, I think we'd diminish in importance.

I think the outcome will be a no - just. Typically when there's a close margin, the status quo prevails.

As to my Scottish connections: distant ancestors were Scottish, though not so distant that some members of my family don't get out the kilts at weddings etc.

In reply to JJL:

I think there'll be a narrow no victory because Scotland lost to Germany last night

A win might just have swung it the other way as Scotland would've claimed to be World Champions

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'll climb or swim.

In reply to JJL:

Really keen on it being a YES. Think itll be a NO by a very small margin but hope Im wrong.

Debate has been heated at times. I hope I can be gracious either way. I will try. I really hope voter turnout is as high as predicted..democracy will then have spoken either way...

I am Scottish (grew up in Scotland and live in Scotland); My Dad was Scottish and his side of the family; My Mum is English as are her side of the family.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:




Good points, well presented.

In reply to JJL:

No - by a reasonably comfortable margin of 5-6%, which I hope for too.

Scottish Parents. Born, mainly raised in (3/4 years in Scotland as a child) and live in England.

However if a yes vote look fwd to having a Scottish passport and moving north of the border at some point when older. Cake/eat it etc.

In reply to JJL:
Remember those Florida dodgy chads a few years back in a tight vote? They got Bush! Good luck Scotland!

In reply to Postmanpat:


The main thing is the highlands could easily support a much larger population that at present. To attract more people and make them productive will take better transport so journey times from the main cities are reduced, lower fuel taxes in the remote areas and high speed internet so knowledge workers can be productive and a supply of land so people can be attracted to the region by the opportunity to have larger houses with some land around them which they could not afford elsewhere.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


The thing is that you can replace "highlands" with areas of many, many developed countries around the world - Canada, Australia, NZ are very obvious examples. All of these countries are endowed with natural resources and have good social structures. What is going to set Scotland apart from these natural competitors?

Cheers
LD

In reply to Lurking Dave:

Plus huge areas of eastern europe…

Immigrants go to jobs.. not space..

In reply to Jim Fraser:


How? How has he explained it?

How can you invest in education whilst also cutting student places? This is SNP policy.. westminster is increasing funding available for education..

How do you re-assign land ownership?

Its an issue, I agree, but how do you do legal land grabs?

In reply to Lurking Dave:

Sat adjacent to one of the most densely populated areas on the planet?

D

In reply to Dauphin:

I'm not sure that that is a major premise of a knowledge based economy? What was you point?

LD

In reply to JJL:

No, marginally.
Hoping no.
Im english with a love of scotland but other than that no blood connection (that i know of)

In reply to IainRUK:


You don't do 'land grabs', you gently nudge them out of business with taxation. Make sure there are no inheritance tax loopholes for landowners which let them preserve wealth more effectively than the rest of us, put a little tax and regulatory pressure on dear/grouse shooting and make sure renewable energy subsidies don't go straight into the pocket of landowners keeping them in business for another generation.

In reply to Lurking Dave:


The distances are much shorter and environmental factors are much less extreme in Scotland than in Australia and Canada. The population of the highlands was artificially reduced by the clearances, there's no reason it can't be restored. The internet has changed the rules about where businesses can locate: as long as there is a fast connection and the services of the main cities can be reached in a reasonable time many locations in the highlands would work for small knowledge businesses.

What is needed is a dual carriageway all the way to Inverness and eventually Fort William, widening of the main A roads with more overtaking opportunities and once population starts to grow significantly a few bridges.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: Would you let the locals have any input into your plans for increasing the rural population? Or would it be decreed by Westminster, sorry, Edinburgh?

In reply to Philip:


You're absolutely right. I don't know why it's taken me so long to realise the implications of this but it does partly explain the utter uselessness of the No campaign. There's a broad cross-party agreement on the basic position south of the border but of course party rivalry prevents any real coordination or conviction.

I'm not sure why the British government shouldn't have a position on this. Was it really because it was thought the government should have no opinion, or because they thought that anything they said from a position of authority would be more likely to boost the Yes vote?

The more I think about, the more ridiculous it seems that the government and, indeed, the Head of State, shouldn't have a very clear opinion about such a major constitutional issue.

In reply to JJL:

No-one knows how independance will effect Scotland. It's a big leap of faith. If they have the balls for it they will vote yes. If they bottle it they will vote no.

personally i would vote yes with the hope of a fairer and more equal country.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Where exactly do you live? I'd assume Edinburgh from your name, and definitely not the highlands or islands judging by those comments. Do you really think westminster, or 'the english' or some other entity has stopped the highlands form being 're-populated'? It is a distant, often inhospitable place, and costly for infrastructure - many millions spent to service just a few. I do appreciate the RET scheme to Stornoway, and these communities need to be supported an kept alive, but they can't even keep the electricity flowing to the highlands effectively over summer never mind winter. Why don'y you move up to some wee glen and create a demand for roads, networks, phone coverage, rail, e.t.c if there is no reason stopping you or others?

Also you may want to read thgis : http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Highland-Clearances-Eric-Richards/dp/1780271654...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I think there is precedence if not law on this kind of referendum.

The UK government, even if unbiased by the people involved, would speak on behalf of the nation's (all of UK) position, but this isn't the choice in the referendum - the referendum allows a small number of UK citizens to vote to leave, not the whole UK to vote on division or not. It's quite ridiculous, and why it's been left to the few who are eligible to vote to argue it out, for better or worse for the whole of the UK.

In reply to doz generale:


It is a nice idea, but if capitalism is to rule the roost - and everything I have seen from Salmond suggests this is the case, an egalitarian state will be way down the agenda. When big business can pay millions to lobbyists to do their reckoning, the plight of the little guy is neither here nor there.

Come independence in Scotland, everything will be up for grabs and I can guarantee that big business with its eye on a quick buck will be first in the queue. And sat at the head of the queue will be Salmond, licking his lips in anticipation.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It hasnt though. It still generally clusters round urban areas. Reason being is a tad expensive to run a fibre cable out to a single house 20 miles away. Or even a village when only one person out of the 100 cares enough for fast broadband.

In reply to JJL:

English, long settled in Scotland (well Shetland actually, but that's another issue...)

Vote: Emphatic yes.

Prediction: No.

Scotland "The Brave" will bottle out again. The bribes that will have swung it will be buried in a bog of bureaucracy and we'll end up being thrown a biscuit in a few years time. We'll also have submitted, of our own free will, to a Westminster project dedicated to turning back the clock on 150 years of social and political progress.

It's also profoundly sad to see Gordon Brown, a man I have huge admiration for despite his faults, being dispatched to do the Tories dirty work.

In reply to Jon Wylie:

Nice point about gracious, and I hope so all round on Friday and Saturday night and we're capable of it. By the way, family history is Mothers family Scottish, Dad's Russian/Irish with a dash of English- live in Inverness.

In reply to doz generale:


A fairer and more equal Scotland could be had now without independence. The powers that the devolved Scottish government have now could have gone a long way to delivering that already had they bothered to use them, yet they harp on about 'more powers'. That is the rather obvious deceit about Independence - that Scotland can only be a fair and equitable country ONLY if there is independence, but that is simply untrue. The quandary the SNP found themselves in was/is that if Scotland had become a better place to live in without being independent, then where would the incentive be to vote for it. Yet Independence is their reason for being.

In reply to dissonance:


Good point. And there is always that cottage industry that has big ambitions but then fails to recruit the highly skilled workforce not found in remote areas and as a result fails to grow. Either that or it relocates to find the staff it requires.

In reply to JJL:

Starting to think it'll be YES, partly due to the recent momentum and comments from friends in scotland.

Hoping it'll be NO

Scottish expat (still wandering why I have no vote as to what passport I hold)

In reply to JJL:
Just as a matter of interest what do English people define as "English", genetically or culturally, where you live or both?
Especially as there are English people who are also saying they are Scottish.
Yep I've been watching "Prometheus " again......

In reply to MargieB:

I would imagine there are a whole raft of opinions. Just as there are a diverse number of opinions about what it is to be Scottish.

In reply to MargieB:

I'm curious about passports. Will the EU and other states continue to accept "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" passports when Great Britain no longer exists as an entity? Won't that invalidate the issuing authority?

In reply to MargieB:


Thanks Margie,

Im off to a wedding on that Saturday night up in Strathpeffer...think everyone will be glad of a good Ceilidh to blow the cobwebs away whatever the result!

Jon

In reply to MargieB:

I've always been "British" but then I grew up in the northern part of England - Always thought calling yourself English was a bit of a southern thing.

In reply to fraserbarrett:




+1 to all of that

Are there any figures on support for independence among scots living south of the border?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Doesn't require independence for that goal, and that goal is certainly not one that independence has promised.

In reply to off-duty:
Absolutely. If the current Scottish government, or any Scottish administration since the parliament was set up, had wanted to make infrastructure, either in the form of roads or telecoms networks, a priority, it could have done so already

Why should things be any different if there is independence?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's very easy to answer that question. It's not just abut powers. You need the means to be able to take things forward.

For example you have the power to buy any house you want, but you don't have the means to buy any house you want. If it was just about powers then everything could be done immediately.

Power and resources go hand in hand.

In reply to off-duty:


The UK is like a large company with one division (London) that is more successful than the others and managed out of the corporate headquarters. Top management put all their attention and all serious investment into that division and have little interest in the others: maybe they let some of them run at a loss or use them as cash cows just sucking money out until they die naturally.

Within the UK there is no appetite for putting major investment into Scotland. The level of infrastructure and transport investment in London compared with the rest of the country is shocking.

This article
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2013/12/london-is-different-the-go... says

"Ed Cox, from the IPPR, tweeted that the per capita spending on transport infrastructure comes out at: south-west £215, north-east £246, Yorkshire and Humberside £303, north-west £839, London £4895."

Compare that £4895/person just on infrastructure and transport with the arguments about Scotland being subsidised because it gets total public spending 'on behalf ' of each person of £10K rather than £8.5K.

Hard to believe the spending in London could be that high until you start thinking about the new £5Bn sewer, £15Bn Crossrail, HS1 and soon HS2 and Crossrail 2, Olympics, 3rd Heathrow runway etc etc.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If the people of Scotland wanted the infrastructure investment in the motorway that "you" want then they could have spent the 1 billion on Edinburgh trams on it, or the half billion on the M8 improvements.

There appears to be a belief that magic money will be made available by removing 60 million taxpayers from potentially contributing to the Scottish economy.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Those numbers are not remotely credible. Taking a population of 8 million it implies a transport infrastructure spend of £39b a year in London, which would be 7% of the total UK tax take! Unless all tube stations are gold plated these days, it is a laughable claim.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



Firstly,the numbers produced by the IPPR have been deconstructed and demonstrated as bollocks. The actual number is about £800 for London and between £250-350 for other regions. Given that half of all bus journeys and 59% of train journeys begin or end at a London terminal, and many of those will be from outside London it doesn't seem particularly disproportionate. The calculation based on per capita of residents is bloody silly.

Secondly, State spending on transport represents about 2.5% of the total so making a huge thing about it and ignoring the offsets in regional spending on other, bigger, sectors is misleading. You have to look at the whole.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Eh? You can't claim Heathrow as for London.. that's the major airport for a good 30 million people..

Even in Sheffield I'd use it a lot.. obviously Manchester is closer but its only a few hours more so I've used it many times…

Don't just lie and twist...

In reply to Saor Alba:



Which obviously begs the question of why you think that by reducing the shareholder base by 60 million so more resources will become available? Is this Salmond's magic money tree?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

This is true, but so too is the amount of wealth generation from London compared to the rest of the country.

In terms of monetary infrastructure, Scotland isn't doing too badly. You have blown the budget on the trams in Edinburgh, but the new Forth Road Bridge seems to be coming in under budget right now. Sadly though, large infrastructure programs like this are going to swamp the infrastructure budget for some years to come.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That is what happens when you build your transport system as a star centred on London. It is a stupid topology: London is not even in the middle of the country.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Sounds like you have a bit of London envy. You could always move there if you wanted? How would you construct your transport infrastructure... given that what we see today has been born out of a couple of hundreds years of evolution?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Unlike all those other countries around the world that picked a city slap bang in the middle for their capital (rather than say, ooh I don't know, base it on a port or something).

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Edinburgh is in the equivalent position!!!

In reply to Sir Chasm:
You just need to build a new capital city and economic success away from old fashioned centres is assured. You know like Brasilia or Canberra.

In reply to MG:


The problem is that the bally country is the wrong shape, should be round.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Too right, too many awkward bits sticking out... can we not straighten it out e.g. hack Cornwall* off and use it for landfill for Boris Island aka the new Heathrow, how clever is that?!?!

*Apologies to the Cornish

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


DC is? Canberra? Berlin? Oslo? Copenhagen? Stockholm? Helsinki? Paris? Prague? Otawa?

In fact I can't think of a capital being centred…

Its a pretty horrific future for scotland if thats the level of thinking..

In reply to Saor Alba:




There are resources at present; but the current (and previous) administrations have not chosen to prioritise these projects. As has been pointed out, other infrastructure projects (some quite controversial) have taken precedence.

Of course, if independence guaranteed an increase in the money available for infrastructure projects, then maybe we could have our trams and dual carriageways all over the place.

But Tom seemed to be making an argument based on priorities rather than overall better economic performance after independence (apologies if I've got that wrong Tom)

And if the argument is that there will just be more money after independence, so extra infrastructure projects will be possible, I'll need some convincing that this would be the case...

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to IainRUK:




Yes. I guess the new capital of an independent Scotland will be dalwhinnie.

In reply to IainRUK:

What I said is that it is stupid to build a transport system which looks like a star centred on the South East corner. Britain already has that to a ridiculous degree and recently it is getting worse.

What is happening is the government's response to the financial crisis has been to pump liquidity into the banks - mostly in London. The banks have all this money they need to lend out again and they like lending to 'safe' stuff within an hours drive of their office so far too much of it is going into property in London and quasi-state-sponsored transport and infrastructure projects for London. A lot of it will be PPI or loans to a 'private' water company or quasi-private rail company and never show in the government accounts but basically it is central bank money sloshing through the London economy and making it look like a success.

Same thing as happened in Tokyo - government prints money, it feeds back into the capital city, Tokyo grows and grows and gets monstrously expensive single bedroom apartments and ridiculous numbers of railway lines.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And you think this "capital-centred" bias won't occur in an independent Scotland, or you don't care because you live there?

In reply to IainRUK:




Madrid

In reply to off-duty:


Sure it will, it is a natural effect. The question is how much it will happen. In the UK recently centralisation has got out of control and it is on a course to get much worse.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Thread total (approx) is 25 yes predictions to 32 no predictions

In reply to JJL:
Bookies remain favoring no.. 1:2 to 2:1

Have the bookies got this hugely wrong then?

Been as high as 5:1.. I'd bang money on a yes...

In reply to JJL:

I'll give it No with a comfortable margin.

Celtic fringe blood living in Cornwall.

Cheers

Toby

Now that RBS has said they'll relocate anyone want to change their forecast?

In reply to JJL: It certainly simplifies matters, if all the banks leave there'll be no need for a lender of last resort.

In reply to JJL:

It's becoming clear - as independence seems to be making less and less economic sense (yet most of the politicians, particularly the party leaders, seem incapable of serious discussion) the more the Scots' tendency for contrarianism emerges, and the more they want to grasp control of their own failure. I say a Yes vote is imminent.

In reply to JJL:

it is not a physical move, more of a legal switch of thier holding company;
'In a letter to staff, the bank's chief executive said there was no intention to move operations or jobs'.

that said i think the no vote will win approx 55 to 45.

In reply to mac fae stirling:
Blurrty wrote this on another thread..

'You can see why the banking institutions will have to move South if it's a 'Yes'. Another blow is that, under EU regulation, the majority of employees have to be based in the country where a bank is headquartered; some jobs would be lost to rUK as well as lost tax revenue from the HQ Stat reporting/ taxation.'

If so jobs will move.. It makes sneeze, the UK shouldn't protect a bank unless it's in their interests... I.e. It has UK jobs or customers... If not then the Icelandic option some scots seemed to favour seems justifiable...

In reply to IainRUK:

"under EU regulation, the majority of employees have to be based in the country where a bank is headquartered"

Can you please point us to the specific regulation you refer to.

In reply to studgek:

Did you see what I said….

I said Blurty said this.. hence the use of ' '

Then I meant to say "If so jobs will move.. It makes sneeze,"

If so, jobs will move, it makes sense'.. I pad issues…

But if this wasn't the case what stops many more foreign banks doing this?

Anyone think the "news" about increased retail prices will sway your prediction?

In reply to JJL:

I think... just about no, but very close

Thought it would be a big no not too long ago. Scary stuff!

If it is a yes I might just move to Canada

From Boro (NE England)

In reply to JJL:

i really hope

No

In reply to JJL:

I think it will be No 55% to Yes 45%.

I live in England so don't have a vote but would vote Yes.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


Yes but that's what they always say! "We're just moving a few machines to make room, don't worry there'll be no job losses."!

What about the latest row?

Sway anyone?

Still No>yes on this thread

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The jobs are in Scotland because they can't find the skills in India and they don't need to be in London.

If there is a Yes vote Scotland the pressure from the banks will get bought off with a tax break and they'll all be happy.

In reply to JJL:

No by 75% because most votes will go missing & organising a revote will be denied
Cynical part of Scotland

Last chance to make your predictions.

I have stuck a bet on "Yes" - a win for me either way since I'd have happily donated the money for a "No" outcome

Yes 10/3
No 1/4

52% no 48% yes, a bit like how I feel.

Even the proportion of undecideds is undecided at 5% to 15% depending on the poll!

In reply to JJL:

...

With who? Some bookies paid out on 'No' a few days ago.

In reply to elsewhere:

Just checked it out - one of them has this comment as to why they paid already -

"To put the current prices into context, Betfair's markets gave Mitt Romney more of a chance of beating Barack Obama in 2012, than Alex Salmond currently beating the NO campaign on Thursday."

In reply to JJL:

I'm not a betting person. Hope for no, prepare for yes is my approach just now!

In reply to JJL:

60/40 in favour of No. At least 1% spoilt ballots and an 85% turnout.

In reply to malky_c:

No

It will be no

The emphatic nos that I've chatted to had the same reasoning as all the undecideds will have when the time comes to put pen to ballot paper. It's too risky.

In reply to JJL:

53%/47% No/Yes. Years of denial and whining about how it was rigged/was the fault of 'the establishment'/ the BBC/ English people in Scotland. But in the end DevoMax and devolution for England, the best solution all round.

In reply to nw:

You're probably right, who knows? (These being the most tentative polls ever, according to the experts). But whatever, a huge mess. I love the way that people think DevoMax will be wonderful. If it's anything like the huge Conservative-driven (and exaggerated) 'devolution' of powers to local authorities and councils, it's a nightmare. Because of the very low calibre of people such local units attract. I am of the opinion that we should stick to our parliamentary system that can tap into our top experts at a national level.

In reply to JJL:

Yes, with my heart. I cant quite believe its happening tomorrow. The sense of nervousness, anxiety and quiet excitement in my work and between my family and friends is like nothing i've ever seen and could have imagined.

In reply to JJL:

Walking round central Edinburgh past the parliament, over the meadows and the Royal Mile the place is buzzing. It feels like a capital city on the edge of something historical. The media are out in force and the streets are packed with Yes supporters. I passed Yes rallies at the Parliament and in the Meadows. Don't think I saw a single person wearing a No badge although there are stickers on windows. There were a fair few people from other countries out showing support: lots of Quebec flags on the meadows.

The polls say No by a couple of percent but Yes has the people to do a much better job tomorrow, that might be enough to get the last 2%.

Time to be a nation again.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I disagree. I think that the regions of the UK are sufficiently distinctive to warrant having control over their own internal affairs. Certain things (defence, intl trade, etc)obviously benefit from those regions coming together. Hence, DevoMax , federalism or whatever you want to call it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Because of the very low calibre of people such local units attract. I am of the opinion that we should stick to our parliamentary system that can tap into our top experts at a national level.

And the best way to ensure that we have the VERY BEST is to eliminate 63 million people from the competition?

In reply to JJL:

youtube.com/watch?v=gApwpSWAhbQ&

In reply to JJL:


Davey (Cameron - I'm no. 1 on his speed dial) has just phoned me and told me that the English army are going to INVADE Scotland at dawn. Get your hats on. The paras will land on Ben Nevis and you'll see tanks in Aviemore High Street. Salmond will be locked up in the Tower of London and charged with high treason and being a fruit*.

*Meaning, Old English, 'idiot'.

In reply to abseil:


Not a chance....the traffic at Tesco is mental. We'll have plenty of time to mount a counter offensive with deep fried mars bars from the chippy.

Voted Yes but betting on and hoping for No.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:



Was that a tactical vote?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

"Voted Yes but betting on and hoping for No."

Brilliant! )

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Yes, by a small margin and a large hangover. I will regret it, so will many others, its all a bit too 1978.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


A problem with this idea is that it assumes that 'high calibre people' are a finite, limited pool, and that others cannot become high calibre.

People who are great at things don't magically appear - they have to have opportunity, work hard, and be lucky.

It seems to me that having more engagement in politics and more political institutions is likely to result in a larger number of people becoming effective, competent politicians.

In reply to JJL:

Yes by more than a few percent!

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Sort of......bit of a gamble though....

My thinking. If i go with my fears and vote No, and lots of others do the same then Westminster will see a large No majority and do nothing to reform government in the UK. If the Yes vote is close then hopefully they'll wake up and do something about it. There's a momentum in the rest of the UK so here's hoping we've managed to wake a generation out of political apathy.

However if the Yes vote wins.....god only knows.....

Prediction: No

Reason: I think there will be a marginal 'silent majority' voting for no. My impression of the campaign has been that the Yes campaign has been more vocal and therefore has a stronger presence in the media than the no campaign. In addition I think undecideds will feel compelled to vote, and will vote cautiously and vote no leading to a marginal victory for no. I think this will be a slightly larger victory for no than expected.

I would like Scotland to remain in the UK, however if they don't best of luck to them.

In reply to Matt250:



Same here.

In reply to Malcolm Tucker's Sweary Aunt:

I would like Scotland to remain in the UK, however if they don't, best to go and we will sort out the costly mess south of the border.

Over the fence conversation today. Some Scottish "No " voters are predicting civil war in 20 years because everything will be so polarised up there if it goes independant.

Just what I heard, unfortunately.

OOOOOOOOeeeer


It's very exciting, isn't it?

Did anyone do an estimate of the cost of seperating? I suspect it dwarfs the minor pros and cons of the economic position

In reply to JJL:

Don't be silly.

In reply to nw:

Really? We've numbers from +£2000pppy to -£2000pppy

Share you definitive figures (and the derivation) please...

In reply to JJL:


bugger. Why didnt you mention that earlier. I might have changed my vote.

In reply to JJL:
No sorry I meant: Don't be silly, nobody has provided definitive answers on any of the quantitative questions. And if you mention this you are being ruled by fear and selfishness.

In reply to JJL:

So, since the polls have closed - the odds have lengthened from 1/9 to 1/16 for a no vote.
Best odds for a Yes are 9/1...

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/scottish-independence/...

The Yougove "exit" poll is 54% no 46% Yes (with the website apparently crashed)


And really - nobody knows.....

In reply to dissonance:

Sooooooooooooooo much more exciting to play the "scottish lottery" though

In reply to off-duty:


Apart from the tories. Remember they have rigged it like they did in 1979.

Sadly I suspect if the result goes the way the bookies reckon this conspiracy theory will find favour with some.

Speaking of the bookies it is one time i wish I was seriously rich. Just to put a shedload on a yes vote and think of them shitting themselves wondering if I knew something they didnt.

In reply to JJL:

I can't believe it. It's passed 10pm and I'm still undecided - BBC1 Scotland or BBC1 with better graphics, will I have another pack of flame grilled steak or wait until after the first count and most importantly will I crack open the vino or wait for some bubbles in the wee small hrs.

In reply to dissonance:

It'll find favour with plenty.

In reply to nw:


Bu the promise is for sweetness, light, brotherhood and no recriminations post-result.....

In reply to JJL:

Well I'm guessing No but not with much conviction.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I am going for a perfect 50% split.

In reply to JJL:

Yes by a smidgen

In reply to JJL:



I was wrong, let the ridicule begin!

Very happy though

In reply to JJL:

I was the first to answer uniquivacallyxxx unequivercollyxxx unequivvercaulixxx definitely 'no' on this thread [Trevers was hedging], what do I win? What's the prize? Thank you.

In reply to abseil:

I'll tickle your tummy. There. Well done.

In reply to JJL:


I was wondering about an enormous cash prize e.g. 10 quid?

In reply to abseil:
i seem to have got the proportions correct [unfortunately... ] 'i think the no vote will win approx 55 to 45'

surley worth a tenner?

In reply to mac fae stirling:



You're right - you win - an impressive prediction. But JJL is only offering 'tummy tickles' [see JJL's post above], what's going on?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Think I got mine pretty spot on although I was getting a little worried as the Yes's started to gain support late on.

In reply to off-duty:

Hmmm.
https://www.facebook.com/topic/George-Square/137363492953426?source=whfrt&a...

In reply to maisie:





Watch this space.....

Martin

In reply to JJL:

I think it'll be a no vote

In reply to gavmac:


I have been called 'pessimistic' , for saying that the vauge pledges will NOT be delivered.

Having heard what Milliband is saying , I say nothing significant will be delivered, and not any time soon.

In reply to mac fae stirling:


What odds did you get ?

In reply to Jim C:



Constant negativity…