This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Many of us have been debating with or ranting at each other for months. The committed are not going to change their views, the undecided want light not heat. This is a very limited forum in a small world.
For the first time I am starting a thread.
I hope that this is a thread where people restrict themselves to expressing their reasons for the way they intend to vote.
To facilitate this please introduce yourself with some background so that others, who probably don't know you see where you are 'coming from'. Then try and keep it under about 750 words otherwise we will have tomes and tomes.
Try not to debate with people, there are other threads for that. please don't abuse, most people are sincere in their beliefs however wrong they may seem to you
I'll go first (unless someone is very quick!)
Post edited at 12:57
In reply to rogerwebb:
I’m Roger Webb, I live in Inverness. Born in England, half Welsh with a Scottish wife and daughter I have lived in Scotland (Glasgow and Inverness) since 1979. I am a Scots lawyer, my qualification is such that I can only work in Scotland. I was not always a lawyer, amongst other things I have worked for BAS, been a seismic surveyor, a setting out engineer on roads, worked for British Rail, worked on production lines and on a farm.
I am a ‘gutter’ lawyer I represent people in the criminal courts, 99% on Legal Aid, throughout the northern highlands. My clients typically have multiple problems from addictions and abuse by others through mental health issues to simple failure to comprehend the world. Some years, but not this year, I represent people who are being detained by the state because of mental illness. I don’t always do this, firstly because of the personal stress involved and secondly, because it costs me more to do it than I earn.
I frequently rant about social justice, particularly on walk ins, if you are with me in winter this can be for a very long time. My apologies to those concerned!
The case for independence rests on the idea that Scotland faces problems that can only be addressed by independence. This in turn requires the belief that we in Scotland are so similar to each other and so different from the inhabitants of the rest of the UK in our aspirations and goals that separation is required to achieve them.
I simply do not believe that proposition, it requires me to believe that a crofter in Sutherland has more in common with an accountant in Glasgow than a smallholder in Wales, or a worker at Grangemouth has less in common with one at Stanlow refinery on the Mersey than he does with a craft shop owner in Ullapool.
Nationalism requires a dichotomy to work, ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘Team Scotland’ and ‘Team Westminster’ (Alex Salmond, neatly questioning the Scottishness of the current 50% of Scots who disagree with him) or more bluntly Scotland and ‘English Tories’ (Jim Sillars, demonising the neighbours). This leads to division where there needs be none and magnifies differences into grievances.
The simple solution of nationalism, if only we were independent then all would be well, leads to a wide variety of people each believing that their vision is the one that will prevail. They can’t all have their wish, or get the government they want, any more than they can at present.
During 300 years of Union we have moved from an aristocratic/peasant world to universal suffrage, equal rights irrespective of race, gender, or sexual orientation. During this time our democracy has evolved to deal with new realities, from the Reform Acts, through votes for women to devolution. The country is not perfect, we suffer from inequality, relative poverty and in some cases absolute poverty, but this country has a track record of evolution and I struggle to see which of those problems will be cured by division.
There are arguments over the economy, there are so many experts trotted out that it becomes just so much noise, I choose to believe those people I know who work in the industries concerned. Yes we could be an independent country but no we won’t be as successful as we would be if we stay in the Union is my conclusion. It is hard to see how a new border will not restrict trade, how EU membership will be on the same terms as we now have or if there is a currency union, which I doubt, its terms would not be so restrictive as to tie us to the economic policy of rUK. The combination of these does not indicate economic good times. If there is no currency union then the scare stories may well become reality.
Many believe that we are on the cusp of social justice on a Scandinavian style, is this possible? Not on the basis of the White Paper with its lack of proposals to raise taxes. Does it even exist? I was as surprised as any to discover that Norway has food banks too and an NHS that is not free at the point of delivery.
A different concern is the kind of state we are going to have. A single chamber parliament capable of domination by a single party with a written constitution is a dangerous combination; add a single police force with no local democratic accountability (or apparent accountability other than to the government) and the track record of centralisation of the likely governing party and my arguable paranoia looks more like legitimate concern.
I believe that a ‘Yes’ vote will create division and expense (can anyone think of a government project that came in on budget?), will lead to no discernible benefit and will impact severely on the most vulnerable.
The ambitious few have suborned the idealism of the many for their own aggrandisement, and if there is ‘Yes’ it will be at the expense of the weakest and poorest of our society.
I’m voting ‘No’.
I’m Roger Webb, I live in Inverness. Born in England, half Welsh with a Scottish wife and daughter I have lived in Scotland (Glasgow and Inverness) since 1979. I am a Scots lawyer, my qualification is such that I can only work in Scotland. I was not always a lawyer, amongst other things I have worked for BAS, been a seismic surveyor, a setting out engineer on roads, worked for British Rail, worked on production lines and on a farm.
I am a ‘gutter’ lawyer I represent people in the criminal courts, 99% on Legal Aid, throughout the northern highlands. My clients typically have multiple problems from addictions and abuse by others through mental health issues to simple failure to comprehend the world. Some years, but not this year, I represent people who are being detained by the state because of mental illness. I don’t always do this, firstly because of the personal stress involved and secondly, because it costs me more to do it than I earn.
I frequently rant about social justice, particularly on walk ins, if you are with me in winter this can be for a very long time. My apologies to those concerned!
The case for independence rests on the idea that Scotland faces problems that can only be addressed by independence. This in turn requires the belief that we in Scotland are so similar to each other and so different from the inhabitants of the rest of the UK in our aspirations and goals that separation is required to achieve them.
I simply do not believe that proposition, it requires me to believe that a crofter in Sutherland has more in common with an accountant in Glasgow than a smallholder in Wales, or a worker at Grangemouth has less in common with one at Stanlow refinery on the Mersey than he does with a craft shop owner in Ullapool.
Nationalism requires a dichotomy to work, ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘Team Scotland’ and ‘Team Westminster’ (Alex Salmond, neatly questioning the Scottishness of the current 50% of Scots who disagree with him) or more bluntly Scotland and ‘English Tories’ (Jim Sillars, demonising the neighbours). This leads to division where there needs be none and magnifies differences into grievances.
The simple solution of nationalism, if only we were independent then all would be well, leads to a wide variety of people each believing that their vision is the one that will prevail. They can’t all have their wish, or get the government they want, any more than they can at present.
During 300 years of Union we have moved from an aristocratic/peasant world to universal suffrage, equal rights irrespective of race, gender, or sexual orientation. During this time our democracy has evolved to deal with new realities, from the Reform Acts, through votes for women to devolution. The country is not perfect, we suffer from inequality, relative poverty and in some cases absolute poverty, but this country has a track record of evolution and I struggle to see which of those problems will be cured by division.
There are arguments over the economy, there are so many experts trotted out that it becomes just so much noise, I choose to believe those people I know who work in the industries concerned. Yes we could be an independent country but no we won’t be as successful as we would be if we stay in the Union is my conclusion. It is hard to see how a new border will not restrict trade, how EU membership will be on the same terms as we now have or if there is a currency union, which I doubt, its terms would not be so restrictive as to tie us to the economic policy of rUK. The combination of these does not indicate economic good times. If there is no currency union then the scare stories may well become reality.
Many believe that we are on the cusp of social justice on a Scandinavian style, is this possible? Not on the basis of the White Paper with its lack of proposals to raise taxes. Does it even exist? I was as surprised as any to discover that Norway has food banks too and an NHS that is not free at the point of delivery.
A different concern is the kind of state we are going to have. A single chamber parliament capable of domination by a single party with a written constitution is a dangerous combination; add a single police force with no local democratic accountability (or apparent accountability other than to the government) and the track record of centralisation of the likely governing party and my arguable paranoia looks more like legitimate concern.
I believe that a ‘Yes’ vote will create division and expense (can anyone think of a government project that came in on budget?), will lead to no discernible benefit and will impact severely on the most vulnerable.
The ambitious few have suborned the idealism of the many for their own aggrandisement, and if there is ‘Yes’ it will be at the expense of the weakest and poorest of our society.
I’m voting ‘No’.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I too am English, I've lived in Scotland for eleven years, you have just expressed my feelings in far better words than I ever could. Thanks.
I'm voting NO.
I too am English, I've lived in Scotland for eleven years, you have just expressed my feelings in far better words than I ever could. Thanks.
I'm voting NO.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Hi Roger. Thank you for your perspective and reasoning.
I'm based in the Highlands, near Tain. Parents from the western isles. Highlander in every conceivable way.
I think identity, rightly or wrongly, plays a major part for me. I feel/am Scottish. I've never felt British. If I've never felt British, how can I conceivably think that Westminster is best placed to deal with Scottish affairs. That's my logic. I could go into that in much more depth but at the core identity is significant for those on both sides of this debate. The idea that a country can, on a fairly regular basis, be governed by a party they haven't collectively elected just seems ridiculous.
I would love to see a Scotland that grows in confidence and belief, a country that views England as an equal and close allie on many many things, but is able to make decisions based on the interests of its 5 million inhabitants.
I want the egotistical, self serving politicians to be MY egotistical, self serving politicians
I don't believe in the notion of Scotland, post independence, being a land flowing with milk and honey. But I do see it as massive opportunity for positive change. I do find it interesting that the majority of my Scottish based English friends will also be voting yes.
So on Thursday I'll be voting YES
Hi Roger. Thank you for your perspective and reasoning.
I'm based in the Highlands, near Tain. Parents from the western isles. Highlander in every conceivable way.
I think identity, rightly or wrongly, plays a major part for me. I feel/am Scottish. I've never felt British. If I've never felt British, how can I conceivably think that Westminster is best placed to deal with Scottish affairs. That's my logic. I could go into that in much more depth but at the core identity is significant for those on both sides of this debate. The idea that a country can, on a fairly regular basis, be governed by a party they haven't collectively elected just seems ridiculous.
I would love to see a Scotland that grows in confidence and belief, a country that views England as an equal and close allie on many many things, but is able to make decisions based on the interests of its 5 million inhabitants.
I want the egotistical, self serving politicians to be MY egotistical, self serving politicians
I don't believe in the notion of Scotland, post independence, being a land flowing with milk and honey. But I do see it as massive opportunity for positive change. I do find it interesting that the majority of my Scottish based English friends will also be voting yes.
So on Thursday I'll be voting YES
In reply to gavmac:
Likewise thank you for yours
> Hi Roger. Thank you for your perspective and reasoning.
Likewise thank you for yours
In reply to rogerwebb:
I too am english by birth but I have chosen to live and raise a family in scotland for the past 34 years. I am a mathematician by training and my career has been within ICT in agriculture and renewables industries (Biomass and Hydro).
My main reason for voting No is that a major factor to the success of independence is income from oil exploration and the taxes this will raise.
However this takes no account of climate change as we must leave most of it in the ground see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/un-tells-oil-gas-industry-to-leave...
The climate science is as robust as it can be with the latest long term forecasts giving at least a 2 degree warming by 2100 http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_...
When it comes to renewables these are only economically viable with subsidies from the 60+ million UK power consumers. Already new tidal, hydro and biomass projects are suffering lack of investment due to the perceived investment risk in the uk. Will Independence reduce this risk?
I too am english by birth but I have chosen to live and raise a family in scotland for the past 34 years. I am a mathematician by training and my career has been within ICT in agriculture and renewables industries (Biomass and Hydro).
My main reason for voting No is that a major factor to the success of independence is income from oil exploration and the taxes this will raise.
However this takes no account of climate change as we must leave most of it in the ground see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/un-tells-oil-gas-industry-to-leave...
The climate science is as robust as it can be with the latest long term forecasts giving at least a 2 degree warming by 2100 http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_...
When it comes to renewables these are only economically viable with subsidies from the 60+ million UK power consumers. Already new tidal, hydro and biomass projects are suffering lack of investment due to the perceived investment risk in the uk. Will Independence reduce this risk?
In reply to rogerwebb:
The only definitive answer from a yes vote, the people in Scotland will have a government the majority of Scots voted for, which seems fairer in my opinion.
I do think Britain is stronger with Scotland than without, economy, defence, as a world power.
I do think Scotland can sustain itself, why couldn't it 40% of tax generated for the UK, comes from whisky & oil? I would like to know where remaining 60% derives from?
If we don't use the pound, this will devalue for both Scotland & rUK since in my opinion, Scotland won't contribute to rUK. I do think rUK will struggle to support the remaining 60 million people, plus Trident too!
I am a firm believer it is better to try and fail, than never try at all, always wondering if we had the chance.......
Yes for me
Stuart
The only definitive answer from a yes vote, the people in Scotland will have a government the majority of Scots voted for, which seems fairer in my opinion.
I do think Britain is stronger with Scotland than without, economy, defence, as a world power.
I do think Scotland can sustain itself, why couldn't it 40% of tax generated for the UK, comes from whisky & oil? I would like to know where remaining 60% derives from?
If we don't use the pound, this will devalue for both Scotland & rUK since in my opinion, Scotland won't contribute to rUK. I do think rUK will struggle to support the remaining 60 million people, plus Trident too!
I am a firm believer it is better to try and fail, than never try at all, always wondering if we had the chance.......
Yes for me
Stuart
In reply to rogerwebb:
I am Scottish. I am British. I am both. Neither excludes the other.
Scotland has serious and deeply routed bigotry and division endemic within it. Any nation seeking independence needs to address its internal problems of disunity before presenting a facade of unity seeking independence.
Unfortunately this referendum has served to divide Scotland even more bitterly than before.
Scotland needs to address its internal issues first before even contemplating going independent.
No chance.
I am Scottish. I am British. I am both. Neither excludes the other.
Scotland has serious and deeply routed bigotry and division endemic within it. Any nation seeking independence needs to address its internal problems of disunity before presenting a facade of unity seeking independence.
Unfortunately this referendum has served to divide Scotland even more bitterly than before.
Scotland needs to address its internal issues first before even contemplating going independent.
No chance.
Post edited at 16:29
In reply to rogerwebb:
I would struggle to put my feelings any better than the post from Roger. My one big thought is WHY. Why do we need this massive upheaval, why do we want to keep the oil to ourselves - are the poor in the rUK some what less deserving than our less well off here, why would you want to split up a successful union that has lasted 300yrs and provided the world with many many good people and ideas, why would you want to take what is effectively a massive gamble with everyones short term future just so you can feel a little more Scottish with a semblance of more control, why are people so shocked that big business are trying to protect big business and then bandy about conspiracy theory stuff, why in the attempt to beak free from Westminster/or it's westminster's fault blame game, can we not see there will be huge rift with the English that was never there before and the chip will just move south of the border, why would you want to split a country with potentially only 51% of the vote leaving 49% peed off and finally why do people never learn the lessons from history. I just cant see what nationalism does in the age we live in.
Mark - live in Angus, work offshore for one of the majors and have been a long term lurker on these threads (which I have enjoyed)
Should have also said I'm Scottish
I would struggle to put my feelings any better than the post from Roger. My one big thought is WHY. Why do we need this massive upheaval, why do we want to keep the oil to ourselves - are the poor in the rUK some what less deserving than our less well off here, why would you want to split up a successful union that has lasted 300yrs and provided the world with many many good people and ideas, why would you want to take what is effectively a massive gamble with everyones short term future just so you can feel a little more Scottish with a semblance of more control, why are people so shocked that big business are trying to protect big business and then bandy about conspiracy theory stuff, why in the attempt to beak free from Westminster/or it's westminster's fault blame game, can we not see there will be huge rift with the English that was never there before and the chip will just move south of the border, why would you want to split a country with potentially only 51% of the vote leaving 49% peed off and finally why do people never learn the lessons from history. I just cant see what nationalism does in the age we live in.
Mark - live in Angus, work offshore for one of the majors and have been a long term lurker on these threads (which I have enjoyed)
Should have also said I'm Scottish
Post edited at 16:47
In reply to rogerwebb:
I predict decades of moaning and upheaval whichever way it goes....... after the recounts and legal challenges!
I predict decades of moaning and upheaval whichever way it goes....... after the recounts and legal challenges!
In reply to rogerwebb:
As a Scot the choice for me has been fairly easy. Firstly, it provides me with more certainty that I can live in a country that gets the government and the policies that the majority of people vote for. Secondly, there does seem to be a growing divide between the political consensus in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I quite simply don't want to live in a country that seems likely to exit Europe, is so closely tied to the US and is steadily moving away from the welfare state and all that it provides. I want my kids to grow up in a fairer country where hard work is rewarded but social justice is also seen as important. And finally, Scotland feels ready for this change. I believe that independence and the freedom it brings will help us to realise the enormous potential in Scotland. Culturally, commercially and with reference to the contribution we can make to the wider world. And I also hope it helps the North of England to rediscover the radical roots of the English working classes. So an emphatic yes.
As a Scot the choice for me has been fairly easy. Firstly, it provides me with more certainty that I can live in a country that gets the government and the policies that the majority of people vote for. Secondly, there does seem to be a growing divide between the political consensus in Scotland and the rest of the UK. I quite simply don't want to live in a country that seems likely to exit Europe, is so closely tied to the US and is steadily moving away from the welfare state and all that it provides. I want my kids to grow up in a fairer country where hard work is rewarded but social justice is also seen as important. And finally, Scotland feels ready for this change. I believe that independence and the freedom it brings will help us to realise the enormous potential in Scotland. Culturally, commercially and with reference to the contribution we can make to the wider world. And I also hope it helps the North of England to rediscover the radical roots of the English working classes. So an emphatic yes.
Post edited at 17:20
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
Can we stick with the spirit of the thread please?
It is for views and reasons for voting one way or the other not debate.
There are plenty of other threads for that where some of the people who have posted on this are debating.
With luck it may allow one or more people to firm up their decision on voting without having to wade through point scoring, however unlikely that may seem.
> I predict decades of moaning and upheaval whichever way it goes....... after the recounts and legal challenges!
Can we stick with the spirit of the thread please?
It is for views and reasons for voting one way or the other not debate.
There are plenty of other threads for that where some of the people who have posted on this are debating.
With luck it may allow one or more people to firm up their decision on voting without having to wade through point scoring, however unlikely that may seem.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Can we also identify ourselves? I think it helps people keep it rational and civilised.
Roger
Can we also identify ourselves? I think it helps people keep it rational and civilised.
Roger
In reply to rogerwebb:
My name is Donald, I am 40 and was born in Scotland to Scottish parents from Stirling and Glasgow. My Mum's side of the family have always been very unionist and whilst many of them have passed away, my uncle finds this subject very difficult.
For me, everything follows from a simple principle which is:
Scotland should be governed from Scotland.
This is of course relative as we are in an globalised and interdependent world.
I think a lot of the talk about "nationalism" is based on a misunderstanding. For example, I don't think people would go around calling Chris Townsend, Dave MacLeod and Cameron McNeish nationalists. They also wouldn't put Annie Lennox or Patrick Harvie in that category so there must be something else driving these people in their desire to vote Yes.
The terming of someone as a Scottish nationalist is convenient for someone who doesn't want independence. But it doesn't explain what is happening or why someone is voting yes. It's just name calling.
I think that desire stems from the principle above and also a belief in a more progressive type of politics than that practiced at Westminster. Some people think Westminster is great, but some others think it's totally out of date, unrepresentative and utterly unwilling to change.
One of the main points behind my reasons to vote Yes are that Scotland will get the government it votes for every time. This is not the case right now.
Another driver is the ability to take a different type of politics forward that isn't based on a soap opera type of aggressive arguing across a chamber where people can hardly hear you. The last two years has seen a huge re-birth of political discussion in Scotland. Not driven by politicians but driven by people getting stuff together and discussing what they want to see and importantly, how they would go about it. That discussion has been enlightening, fun, robust and uplifting. I have met countless new people I never would have met in other circumstances and to a man and woman, they are focussed, informed, intelligent and full of energy.
Infrastructure is a big issue for me. A simple drive from Torp to Rjukan reveals how far behind Scotland is in this respect. I also include the mangement of oil revenues in this. Clearly the railways are decades behind (bolted rails, no wires north of Cumbernauld yet (I know Stirling is happening) and single track in many places. The roads are equally bad.
Some blame this on a Central Belt bias. I don't think that is the case and I think funds, economic policy and where power lies are the main issues.
I also take issue with the nonsense we are told on a daily basis. For example ship building. The last yard on the Clyde building commercial ships (Fergusons) recently went under. I know that Jim McColl has rescued it but the general trend is clear to see. Every Scottish yard that build a ship currently in service with Calmac has closed. The numbers working in Govan and the upper Clyde are tiny and falling. It is too short term to base our ideas on how many people work in two yards and ignore the fact that ship building in Scotland is nearly dead. The four largest ferries in service with Northlink and Calmac (due in service in about a month) were built in Finland and Germany. These are not sweat shop economies and have a similar cost base to Scotland so the comparison stands. Very clearly, we are not better together in this respect. It could and should be different.
Lastly, the notion of value and worth are interesting to me. For example, what is power? "A seat at the top table" etc on the permanent UN security council? Yes that is power of one sort but it's not a power I place particularly high on my measure.
I consider power and value and worth to come from how a country conducts itself. How it forms and implements policy and supports those most in need.
The standard of the debate from the No side is awful. In fact, and I mean fact, they don't really debate. Better Together pulled out of three debates two weeks ago with hours notice. The lazy assumptions and statements such as "can anyone think of a government project that came in on budget?" Yes there are many. And No, my decision to not provide a host of links doesn't make it untrue.
What this referendum has done is provide an opportunity to consider how best to take forward progressive ideas. I genuinely find it surprising how bad the No campaign has been. There are many advantages to staying in the Union but their entire campaign has been based on attacking the Yes campaign. That has had the opposite effect and galvanised the Yes campaign.
I could go on but I have to leaflet the whole of Lochardil tonight!
My name is Donald, I am 40 and was born in Scotland to Scottish parents from Stirling and Glasgow. My Mum's side of the family have always been very unionist and whilst many of them have passed away, my uncle finds this subject very difficult.
For me, everything follows from a simple principle which is:
Scotland should be governed from Scotland.
This is of course relative as we are in an globalised and interdependent world.
I think a lot of the talk about "nationalism" is based on a misunderstanding. For example, I don't think people would go around calling Chris Townsend, Dave MacLeod and Cameron McNeish nationalists. They also wouldn't put Annie Lennox or Patrick Harvie in that category so there must be something else driving these people in their desire to vote Yes.
The terming of someone as a Scottish nationalist is convenient for someone who doesn't want independence. But it doesn't explain what is happening or why someone is voting yes. It's just name calling.
I think that desire stems from the principle above and also a belief in a more progressive type of politics than that practiced at Westminster. Some people think Westminster is great, but some others think it's totally out of date, unrepresentative and utterly unwilling to change.
One of the main points behind my reasons to vote Yes are that Scotland will get the government it votes for every time. This is not the case right now.
Another driver is the ability to take a different type of politics forward that isn't based on a soap opera type of aggressive arguing across a chamber where people can hardly hear you. The last two years has seen a huge re-birth of political discussion in Scotland. Not driven by politicians but driven by people getting stuff together and discussing what they want to see and importantly, how they would go about it. That discussion has been enlightening, fun, robust and uplifting. I have met countless new people I never would have met in other circumstances and to a man and woman, they are focussed, informed, intelligent and full of energy.
Infrastructure is a big issue for me. A simple drive from Torp to Rjukan reveals how far behind Scotland is in this respect. I also include the mangement of oil revenues in this. Clearly the railways are decades behind (bolted rails, no wires north of Cumbernauld yet (I know Stirling is happening) and single track in many places. The roads are equally bad.
Some blame this on a Central Belt bias. I don't think that is the case and I think funds, economic policy and where power lies are the main issues.
I also take issue with the nonsense we are told on a daily basis. For example ship building. The last yard on the Clyde building commercial ships (Fergusons) recently went under. I know that Jim McColl has rescued it but the general trend is clear to see. Every Scottish yard that build a ship currently in service with Calmac has closed. The numbers working in Govan and the upper Clyde are tiny and falling. It is too short term to base our ideas on how many people work in two yards and ignore the fact that ship building in Scotland is nearly dead. The four largest ferries in service with Northlink and Calmac (due in service in about a month) were built in Finland and Germany. These are not sweat shop economies and have a similar cost base to Scotland so the comparison stands. Very clearly, we are not better together in this respect. It could and should be different.
Lastly, the notion of value and worth are interesting to me. For example, what is power? "A seat at the top table" etc on the permanent UN security council? Yes that is power of one sort but it's not a power I place particularly high on my measure.
I consider power and value and worth to come from how a country conducts itself. How it forms and implements policy and supports those most in need.
The standard of the debate from the No side is awful. In fact, and I mean fact, they don't really debate. Better Together pulled out of three debates two weeks ago with hours notice. The lazy assumptions and statements such as "can anyone think of a government project that came in on budget?" Yes there are many. And No, my decision to not provide a host of links doesn't make it untrue.
What this referendum has done is provide an opportunity to consider how best to take forward progressive ideas. I genuinely find it surprising how bad the No campaign has been. There are many advantages to staying in the Union but their entire campaign has been based on attacking the Yes campaign. That has had the opposite effect and galvanised the Yes campaign.
I could go on but I have to leaflet the whole of Lochardil tonight!
Post edited at 18:10
In reply to Saor Alba:
Thanks I was hoping you would post. You can have tea and toast at mine (but not agreement) if you stray into the new Culduthel developmenst.
Thanks I was hoping you would post. You can have tea and toast at mine (but not agreement) if you stray into the new Culduthel developmenst.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Brilliantly worded. And covering issues away from the normal topics yet just as important, if not more.
Bravo!
Brilliantly worded. And covering issues away from the normal topics yet just as important, if not more.
Bravo!
In reply to Saor Alba & Roger Webb
Great posts gents, more informative than the hyperbole on the other threads.
Great posts gents, more informative than the hyperbole on the other threads.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Well I suppose I should as I post on these threads more than any other UKC threads at the mo..
English born in England, lived in England til 18, then a degree in Wales, PhD Glasgow, a year in NZ, back to Wales for 6 years, a year in Germany now married a yank so live near Philly… my Sister and BiL have lived there for 12 years I think.. degree and PhD's now resident in Scotland, parents work in Sheffield but are starting to wind down and live between the east highlands and Sheffield.. I can't list all the countries my brothers lived and worked in, I'd guess Italy, France, Germany, Zambia, he now lives in Northern Italy.
I've represented Wales and GB running, I certainly saw that in a hierarchy and that's how I see the UK as separate nations forming the kingdom which is the greater entity. I definitely see myself as British, but support England at football and rugby, but represented Wales many times against England with no conflict of interest or guilt.
As a family we've moved a lot, the less borders the better.. we've all benefited from the ease with which we can jump across borders and I've certainly had the comparisons of moving to nations outside the various unions... I think we should be looking to integrate further into europe, actually devolving more to Europe than shifting powers out, if the euro is to work, and I hope it is, I think the message of the crashes was we need a greater fiscal union, which sadly the UK under the Tory's backed out of a few years back. I see the breaking up of the UK and further devolution a backwards step when we should be looking at it within the EU and euro context.. what should be decentralised, what should be handed over and ran at an EU level.. aspects of fiscal management for me should be.. I think the UK is unique enough to require government at a separate level to the EU.. not that I'm against further devolution to the home countries but with the EU in mind..
It's a hard thread because no doubt people will want to challenge my views or say Donalds views.. which ruins the point of your thread….
Well I suppose I should as I post on these threads more than any other UKC threads at the mo..
English born in England, lived in England til 18, then a degree in Wales, PhD Glasgow, a year in NZ, back to Wales for 6 years, a year in Germany now married a yank so live near Philly… my Sister and BiL have lived there for 12 years I think.. degree and PhD's now resident in Scotland, parents work in Sheffield but are starting to wind down and live between the east highlands and Sheffield.. I can't list all the countries my brothers lived and worked in, I'd guess Italy, France, Germany, Zambia, he now lives in Northern Italy.
I've represented Wales and GB running, I certainly saw that in a hierarchy and that's how I see the UK as separate nations forming the kingdom which is the greater entity. I definitely see myself as British, but support England at football and rugby, but represented Wales many times against England with no conflict of interest or guilt.
As a family we've moved a lot, the less borders the better.. we've all benefited from the ease with which we can jump across borders and I've certainly had the comparisons of moving to nations outside the various unions... I think we should be looking to integrate further into europe, actually devolving more to Europe than shifting powers out, if the euro is to work, and I hope it is, I think the message of the crashes was we need a greater fiscal union, which sadly the UK under the Tory's backed out of a few years back. I see the breaking up of the UK and further devolution a backwards step when we should be looking at it within the EU and euro context.. what should be decentralised, what should be handed over and ran at an EU level.. aspects of fiscal management for me should be.. I think the UK is unique enough to require government at a separate level to the EU.. not that I'm against further devolution to the home countries but with the EU in mind..
It's a hard thread because no doubt people will want to challenge my views or say Donalds views.. which ruins the point of your thread….
Post edited at 18:48
In reply to rogerwebb:
Hi people..I am self-employed joiner, half Scottish, half French, lived and worked here all my days, love Scotland as a country passionately but have no sense of nationalism....not that long since our relatives came out of Africa. I strongly believe our current socio-economic and political system is pretty dysfuntional and if we don't do something about it we are going to do a good job at trashing our planet whilst continuing to widen the shocking gulf between those of us who struggle to survive ( most of the planet) and those who have it pretty easy ( I fall firmly into latter category) . I think democracy is a fantastic concept but sadly we seem to be pretty inept at sitting down to debate any issue with real consensus as an outcome.
I voted for a Scottish parliament with proportional representation...in my view the Trump fiasco at Balmedie showed how naive we were to think local democracy would be respected by a central government.
So now we sit with the country nicely polarised and as a believer in true democracy find that a no vote is the closest we can get to an equitable outcome as It will surely lead to more debate and devolution of government to Scotland. A yes vote just returns us to the norm of winner takes all politics. Or as my wee boy put it more succintly...swap one crap government for another crap government.
But whatever the outcome, to put it all in perspective we are pretty lucky to live in a country where we can believe what we want when we want and express those beliefs to whoever might be passing by.
Hopefully this makes some sense..I am better at shaping wood than words!
Hi people..I am self-employed joiner, half Scottish, half French, lived and worked here all my days, love Scotland as a country passionately but have no sense of nationalism....not that long since our relatives came out of Africa. I strongly believe our current socio-economic and political system is pretty dysfuntional and if we don't do something about it we are going to do a good job at trashing our planet whilst continuing to widen the shocking gulf between those of us who struggle to survive ( most of the planet) and those who have it pretty easy ( I fall firmly into latter category) . I think democracy is a fantastic concept but sadly we seem to be pretty inept at sitting down to debate any issue with real consensus as an outcome.
I voted for a Scottish parliament with proportional representation...in my view the Trump fiasco at Balmedie showed how naive we were to think local democracy would be respected by a central government.
So now we sit with the country nicely polarised and as a believer in true democracy find that a no vote is the closest we can get to an equitable outcome as It will surely lead to more debate and devolution of government to Scotland. A yes vote just returns us to the norm of winner takes all politics. Or as my wee boy put it more succintly...swap one crap government for another crap government.
But whatever the outcome, to put it all in perspective we are pretty lucky to live in a country where we can believe what we want when we want and express those beliefs to whoever might be passing by.
Hopefully this makes some sense..I am better at shaping wood than words!
Post edited at 18:58
In reply to rogerwebb:
Great thread and nice to hear everyone's reasons without debate.
I was born, raised and live in Scotland. My dad has passed on now but was Scottish and my mum is English and has lived in Scotland since shortly before meeting my dad.
For me, I feel Scottish rather than British. I think an iscotland would be economically successful but don't doubt there will be hiccups and wrangles along the road.
The most important question for me is: do I want to be managed by government or represented? I feel at the moment it's the former through Westminster. I think there's more chance of it being the latter through an independant Scottish parliament.
So it's a yes from me
Great thread and nice to hear everyone's reasons without debate.
I was born, raised and live in Scotland. My dad has passed on now but was Scottish and my mum is English and has lived in Scotland since shortly before meeting my dad.
For me, I feel Scottish rather than British. I think an iscotland would be economically successful but don't doubt there will be hiccups and wrangles along the road.
The most important question for me is: do I want to be managed by government or represented? I feel at the moment it's the former through Westminster. I think there's more chance of it being the latter through an independant Scottish parliament.
So it's a yes from me
Post edited at 19:04
In reply to rogerwebb:
Hello, I'm Jonnie, a civil engineer based in Glasgow and was born and brought up here and in Ayrshire.
I think that the rest of the UK is as fed up with politics as we are, so Scotland is not unique in it's wish for change at Westminster and we should try to get that change UK wide, not just for Scotland.
I question what "Scotland is," I split it into Borders, Central Belt, Highlands and Islands. If one group wants independence does it get it? If one group doesn't does it stay part of the UK? It seems likely that the Borders will vote No, is a border created north of the borders? Why not? I am Scottish and I am British.
I read the Yes campaign information with interest, but find little depth in it, most points raise fairly simple questions that you are expected to swallow and not question. This unquestioning nature of the Yes supporters turns me away from them, as does the vandalism of No signs that you see throughout the central belt. I have asked both sides to say what would get them to change their vote. The vast majority of yes supporters have said that nothing would change them. That worries me as I then class them as fanatics, that they would not engage in debate, other than to restate the party line again and again and again. Not questioning this decision is irresponsible and idiotic and I don't want part of it.
If the question was yes, no or devo max, I think the latter would get most votes. The SNP solution to the currency issue suggests they want devo max too. It does not make sense to replicate all the UK institutions in an Indy Scotland, along with Embassies overseas, etc. There is only one vote that will lead to Devo Max, that is No.
The rest of the UK isn't stupid, the Westminster government is far better at playing politics than Edinburgh (you would assume,) I think the split would be painful to Scotland, the SNP would not get what it wanted or promised us it would and may react in a way that would mean that the break up was not amicable. Their threats of walking away from national debt etc support this. Having an upset neighbour would be very annoying at minimum.
I am not convinced that this isn't just anti-english feeling. Tory bashing when they had 3% less than the SNP at the last general election, demonising Cameron, who seems to have done a not so bad job of recovering from the recession, for being from a rich background, forgetting that Labour had done a pretty bad job before (and the majority of Scots wanted Brown in for another 4 years!!!!) I feel I basically "know," that a lot of people will vote yes purely to show two fingers down south without regards to the outcome. Renton in trainspotting summarises the view pretty well.
I think that regardless of the ease of the transition to an Indy Scotland, there will be more difficulty in going south than there is now. It is harder to order a parcel from the EU than within the UK, it will become more awkward. I buy DMM to support UK business, where would I get my cams and axes from now? If the weather is bad here, I go to the Lakes or Northumberland to feed the rat, will that be as simple?
I want a quiet life. Staying in the UK is that (in my opinion,) leaving may be, or it may be not. I am a climber, so am a risk taker already, telling me not to be scared and take a risk really doesn't speak to me. I'd also get more climbing done in a quiet future.
Finally (and sorry for the post, the last 6 months have been spent thinking on this,) the beauty of the question is "Should Scotland be an Independent country," it is not whether it would be better off, or better represented, or can it do it, but should it? I think it would be odd for a small island like ours to be split in 2 in the same way our neighbour is.
No from me.
P.S. I can still see the yes arguments so will be quite happy either way it goes, and will be joining any parties next weekend regardless!!
Hello, I'm Jonnie, a civil engineer based in Glasgow and was born and brought up here and in Ayrshire.
I think that the rest of the UK is as fed up with politics as we are, so Scotland is not unique in it's wish for change at Westminster and we should try to get that change UK wide, not just for Scotland.
I question what "Scotland is," I split it into Borders, Central Belt, Highlands and Islands. If one group wants independence does it get it? If one group doesn't does it stay part of the UK? It seems likely that the Borders will vote No, is a border created north of the borders? Why not? I am Scottish and I am British.
I read the Yes campaign information with interest, but find little depth in it, most points raise fairly simple questions that you are expected to swallow and not question. This unquestioning nature of the Yes supporters turns me away from them, as does the vandalism of No signs that you see throughout the central belt. I have asked both sides to say what would get them to change their vote. The vast majority of yes supporters have said that nothing would change them. That worries me as I then class them as fanatics, that they would not engage in debate, other than to restate the party line again and again and again. Not questioning this decision is irresponsible and idiotic and I don't want part of it.
If the question was yes, no or devo max, I think the latter would get most votes. The SNP solution to the currency issue suggests they want devo max too. It does not make sense to replicate all the UK institutions in an Indy Scotland, along with Embassies overseas, etc. There is only one vote that will lead to Devo Max, that is No.
The rest of the UK isn't stupid, the Westminster government is far better at playing politics than Edinburgh (you would assume,) I think the split would be painful to Scotland, the SNP would not get what it wanted or promised us it would and may react in a way that would mean that the break up was not amicable. Their threats of walking away from national debt etc support this. Having an upset neighbour would be very annoying at minimum.
I am not convinced that this isn't just anti-english feeling. Tory bashing when they had 3% less than the SNP at the last general election, demonising Cameron, who seems to have done a not so bad job of recovering from the recession, for being from a rich background, forgetting that Labour had done a pretty bad job before (and the majority of Scots wanted Brown in for another 4 years!!!!) I feel I basically "know," that a lot of people will vote yes purely to show two fingers down south without regards to the outcome. Renton in trainspotting summarises the view pretty well.
I think that regardless of the ease of the transition to an Indy Scotland, there will be more difficulty in going south than there is now. It is harder to order a parcel from the EU than within the UK, it will become more awkward. I buy DMM to support UK business, where would I get my cams and axes from now? If the weather is bad here, I go to the Lakes or Northumberland to feed the rat, will that be as simple?
I want a quiet life. Staying in the UK is that (in my opinion,) leaving may be, or it may be not. I am a climber, so am a risk taker already, telling me not to be scared and take a risk really doesn't speak to me. I'd also get more climbing done in a quiet future.
Finally (and sorry for the post, the last 6 months have been spent thinking on this,) the beauty of the question is "Should Scotland be an Independent country," it is not whether it would be better off, or better represented, or can it do it, but should it? I think it would be odd for a small island like ours to be split in 2 in the same way our neighbour is.
No from me.
P.S. I can still see the yes arguments so will be quite happy either way it goes, and will be joining any parties next weekend regardless!!
In reply to jonnie3430:
I read the Yes campaign information with interest, but find little depth in it, most points raise fairly simple questions that you are expected to swallow and not question. This unquestioning nature of the Yes supporters turns me away from them, as does the vandalism of No signs that you see throughout the central belt. I have asked both sides to say what would get them to change their vote. The vast majority of yes supporters have said that nothing would change them. That worries me as I then class them as fanatics, that they would not engage in debate, other than to restate the party line again and again and again. Not questioning this decision is irresponsible and idiotic and I don't want part of it.
Exactly! This is the impression I get from the vast majority of discussions I have with yes voters.
I read the Yes campaign information with interest, but find little depth in it, most points raise fairly simple questions that you are expected to swallow and not question. This unquestioning nature of the Yes supporters turns me away from them, as does the vandalism of No signs that you see throughout the central belt. I have asked both sides to say what would get them to change their vote. The vast majority of yes supporters have said that nothing would change them. That worries me as I then class them as fanatics, that they would not engage in debate, other than to restate the party line again and again and again. Not questioning this decision is irresponsible and idiotic and I don't want part of it.
Exactly! This is the impression I get from the vast majority of discussions I have with yes voters.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Ok. I'm 41, an accountant, and have worked all my life in Edinburgh's financial sector. I think I'm right in saying this sector is Scotland's largest on-shore sector and is certainly a sector that faces great uncertainty in the event of a yes vote, as this will trigger confusion about the regulatory regime, the currency, etc, partially driven by EU regulation.
I've lived in Scotland all my life, and have a Scottish father and an English mother. My mother will face a choice if it's yes, when it comes to renewing her passport. She will qualify for a Scottish passport, which she does not want as she does not consider herself to be Scottish. Or she can continue with a British passport, and feel she is now an immigrant in the country she has lived in since she was 18.
I'm also (unfashionably?) proud of our armed services and Britain's role in the world, with friends in the armed forces. I can't see this being anything but diminished post yes.
Finally, I'm worried about the SNP's plans for a i-Scotland. Their plans (single currency or debt default, cut corporate taxes, expand spending etc) seem less a cohesive plan for government then a cherry-picking of the best bits of the various options, with little acknowledgemnet of the challenges. (I exempt the Greens from this charge).
For all ofthe above, I'm voting no.
But more than anything, I wish it was over. I want to stop judging people by the badges they wear. I want to put what has been a campaign with nasty and judgemental aspects behind me and move on. I want the news to start focusing on the major global stories once again. Is that too much to hope for?
Ok. I'm 41, an accountant, and have worked all my life in Edinburgh's financial sector. I think I'm right in saying this sector is Scotland's largest on-shore sector and is certainly a sector that faces great uncertainty in the event of a yes vote, as this will trigger confusion about the regulatory regime, the currency, etc, partially driven by EU regulation.
I've lived in Scotland all my life, and have a Scottish father and an English mother. My mother will face a choice if it's yes, when it comes to renewing her passport. She will qualify for a Scottish passport, which she does not want as she does not consider herself to be Scottish. Or she can continue with a British passport, and feel she is now an immigrant in the country she has lived in since she was 18.
I'm also (unfashionably?) proud of our armed services and Britain's role in the world, with friends in the armed forces. I can't see this being anything but diminished post yes.
Finally, I'm worried about the SNP's plans for a i-Scotland. Their plans (single currency or debt default, cut corporate taxes, expand spending etc) seem less a cohesive plan for government then a cherry-picking of the best bits of the various options, with little acknowledgemnet of the challenges. (I exempt the Greens from this charge).
For all ofthe above, I'm voting no.
But more than anything, I wish it was over. I want to stop judging people by the badges they wear. I want to put what has been a campaign with nasty and judgemental aspects behind me and move on. I want the news to start focusing on the major global stories once again. Is that too much to hope for?
In reply to tallpaulselfridge:
I am a doctor based in Glasgow. Born in Glasgow to Scottish parents.
I will vote no.
I feel Scottish but also British. I see a yes vote as a negative thing - it is a vote for the destruction of the UK.
It is a vote for an uncertain future, that likely lead to a poorer country - both Scotland and rUK - overall. As a species we are at our most succesful when we all work together, creating a border and division when we have worked well together for centuries is senseless to me.
I have just spent the weekend cycling in the Yorkshire Dales, I want this to remain part of my country. I want the friendly people I met this weekend to remain my countrymen. I want my English climbing friends to remain my countymen.
I want my sister who lives in Oxford to live in the same country as me. I want my children to have the job opportunities created by a unified country of 60 million without borders.
We have more in common with the English, Welsh and Northern Irish than we do with the multitude member states in the EU (I support the EU). It seems fundamentally flawed to want seperation from the UK but become closer to Europe. Europe is a bigger, less flexible political beast than the UK.
I dislike the undercurrent of nastiness that is apparent in some Scottish Nationalists. I do not trust Salmond or the way he brow beats cogent argument on important matters e.g. what happens to our currency?
Lets all get along and work together within the UK. I will vote for (a kinder, wealthier) Scotland and the UK on Thursday. I will vote no.
Best wishes to all - Gregor
I am a doctor based in Glasgow. Born in Glasgow to Scottish parents.
I will vote no.
I feel Scottish but also British. I see a yes vote as a negative thing - it is a vote for the destruction of the UK.
It is a vote for an uncertain future, that likely lead to a poorer country - both Scotland and rUK - overall. As a species we are at our most succesful when we all work together, creating a border and division when we have worked well together for centuries is senseless to me.
I have just spent the weekend cycling in the Yorkshire Dales, I want this to remain part of my country. I want the friendly people I met this weekend to remain my countrymen. I want my English climbing friends to remain my countymen.
I want my sister who lives in Oxford to live in the same country as me. I want my children to have the job opportunities created by a unified country of 60 million without borders.
We have more in common with the English, Welsh and Northern Irish than we do with the multitude member states in the EU (I support the EU). It seems fundamentally flawed to want seperation from the UK but become closer to Europe. Europe is a bigger, less flexible political beast than the UK.
I dislike the undercurrent of nastiness that is apparent in some Scottish Nationalists. I do not trust Salmond or the way he brow beats cogent argument on important matters e.g. what happens to our currency?
Lets all get along and work together within the UK. I will vote for (a kinder, wealthier) Scotland and the UK on Thursday. I will vote no.
Best wishes to all - Gregor
In reply to gregor:
English, British, European. 39. University and lived in Scotland for 20 years, now in England so no vote.
Feel the UK is more than the sum of its parts. Separation would reduce us all. The strong historical, cultural, economic and geographical connections all point to staying as one. I can understand the wish to be ruled by "your" people but for some things, bigger entities are better (for the same reasons I support EU membership). For the UK, this includes defence, economics, foreign affairs and some tax and welfare matters. Westminster can be improved but I don't see that it is a particularly bad form of government and certainly not much better or worse than Holyrood. The SNP/Yes have a nasty element that I think is dangerous. All this would lead to me voting no if I could.
English, British, European. 39. University and lived in Scotland for 20 years, now in England so no vote.
Feel the UK is more than the sum of its parts. Separation would reduce us all. The strong historical, cultural, economic and geographical connections all point to staying as one. I can understand the wish to be ruled by "your" people but for some things, bigger entities are better (for the same reasons I support EU membership). For the UK, this includes defence, economics, foreign affairs and some tax and welfare matters. Westminster can be improved but I don't see that it is a particularly bad form of government and certainly not much better or worse than Holyrood. The SNP/Yes have a nasty element that I think is dangerous. All this would lead to me voting no if I could.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Been enjoying this thread for a few hours now. Nice to see decent points of view for both sides without the usual sickening finger pointing and name calling.
I'm Scottish, from a Scottish father and English mother. Been here all my life. I'm a postman, let's not even go into that discussion!
I tried to take every angle into account from the start and tried to get stuck into the white paper. I couldn't. From the first page it became clear that it was a bill set on hopes and guesses rather than structure and fact. More worrying though was that it was a bill based not on what would be best for Scotland, but what suited Salmond and the snp.
It amazes me that they used Norway as a major arguing point without mentioning the fact that Norway has it's fair share of flaws as well, taking 30 odd years to get to the place it is now which isn't perfect.
Trident is another issue for me. With a huge loss of jobs and also, more importantly, the loss of our deterrent which is a worry. One of those things that seems pointless, until you need it.... Also,selfishly, I'd rather have It on my front door if it takes a hit rather than suffer a Chernobyl like fall out.
But the thing that really swings my vote, and I know it shouldn't be the main driver, but if it's any indicator of the mentality then it's a valid reason, is the mindset of the (majority of) yes voters. It's fanatical, it's viscous and it's dangerous. And it's all driven by a party that can be seen in some respects as dictatorial. 'Vote yes because we say it will be good'.
I'll be voting no.
Paul.
Been enjoying this thread for a few hours now. Nice to see decent points of view for both sides without the usual sickening finger pointing and name calling.
I'm Scottish, from a Scottish father and English mother. Been here all my life. I'm a postman, let's not even go into that discussion!
I tried to take every angle into account from the start and tried to get stuck into the white paper. I couldn't. From the first page it became clear that it was a bill set on hopes and guesses rather than structure and fact. More worrying though was that it was a bill based not on what would be best for Scotland, but what suited Salmond and the snp.
It amazes me that they used Norway as a major arguing point without mentioning the fact that Norway has it's fair share of flaws as well, taking 30 odd years to get to the place it is now which isn't perfect.
Trident is another issue for me. With a huge loss of jobs and also, more importantly, the loss of our deterrent which is a worry. One of those things that seems pointless, until you need it.... Also,selfishly, I'd rather have It on my front door if it takes a hit rather than suffer a Chernobyl like fall out.
But the thing that really swings my vote, and I know it shouldn't be the main driver, but if it's any indicator of the mentality then it's a valid reason, is the mindset of the (majority of) yes voters. It's fanatical, it's viscous and it's dangerous. And it's all driven by a party that can be seen in some respects as dictatorial. 'Vote yes because we say it will be good'.
I'll be voting no.
Paul.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I'm Jim Fraser from Inverness. 250 known years of my Frasers in these parishes and who knows how many thousand before that. Father, highlander, engineer, soldier.
I have several decades of Liberal and Liberal Democrat activism and other political participation including promoting the long-established Liberal policy of a federal UK and support for the European Convention on Human Rights.
I started this campaign in a position of ambivalence. Most things run from Edinburgh or everything run from Edinburgh: well not completely upset about either of those.
Now, I have family in France, have always had an interest in European politics and my partner has lived in Norway and many years in Finland. So my view of our neighbours, their politics, constitutions, freedoms and economics does not come from the Daily Star or Sky News.
I take an interest in the history and development of human rights and political philosophy, including visiting Palais de l'Europe in Strasbourg to learn more of the working of the Council of Europe.
Then the No campaign started. Utter rubbish. Rubbish about how currencies operate around the world now and in the past. Rubbish about the economic position of the UK, Scotland, and our European neighbours. Rubbish about the EU. Rubbish about international law.
Do they think nobody can look up the UN website, or the World Bank, or EU sites, or the BBC Country Profiles, or Wikipedia?
There are four of our neighbours, or near neighbours, have gained independence since the beginning of the 20th century. Norway in 1905, Finland in 1919, Ireland in 1922, and Iceland in 1944. Iceland has a similar population to the Highlands and Islands and all of the rest have a similar population to Scotland. (Many of you will have read in the press and perhaps heard directly about economic problems in Iceland and Ireland in recent years but these need to be considered in the light of similar problems in the UK and economic growth in those states accelerating past the UK during the last 3 years or so.) There is absolutely no chance of any of the peoples of those states wanting to go back to their former masters even in the worst of their economic strife or days of war. Not only that but they have all succeeded in maintaining a position amongst the richest countries in the world. They have maintained positions, in terms of GDP per head, ahead of the UK during most of the recent decades. None of those countries have as broad an economic base and as much natural resources as Scotland. All of them have prospered. All of them punch above their weight on the world stage. None of them are perfect. All of them have a great deal to be proud of in the way they have looked after their people.
The lies that have come from the No campaign have been a disgrace. Being ruled by people who are prepared to tell such lies is a dreadful idea.
Yes. Yes! YES!
I'm Jim Fraser from Inverness. 250 known years of my Frasers in these parishes and who knows how many thousand before that. Father, highlander, engineer, soldier.
I have several decades of Liberal and Liberal Democrat activism and other political participation including promoting the long-established Liberal policy of a federal UK and support for the European Convention on Human Rights.
I started this campaign in a position of ambivalence. Most things run from Edinburgh or everything run from Edinburgh: well not completely upset about either of those.
Now, I have family in France, have always had an interest in European politics and my partner has lived in Norway and many years in Finland. So my view of our neighbours, their politics, constitutions, freedoms and economics does not come from the Daily Star or Sky News.
I take an interest in the history and development of human rights and political philosophy, including visiting Palais de l'Europe in Strasbourg to learn more of the working of the Council of Europe.
Then the No campaign started. Utter rubbish. Rubbish about how currencies operate around the world now and in the past. Rubbish about the economic position of the UK, Scotland, and our European neighbours. Rubbish about the EU. Rubbish about international law.
Do they think nobody can look up the UN website, or the World Bank, or EU sites, or the BBC Country Profiles, or Wikipedia?
There are four of our neighbours, or near neighbours, have gained independence since the beginning of the 20th century. Norway in 1905, Finland in 1919, Ireland in 1922, and Iceland in 1944. Iceland has a similar population to the Highlands and Islands and all of the rest have a similar population to Scotland. (Many of you will have read in the press and perhaps heard directly about economic problems in Iceland and Ireland in recent years but these need to be considered in the light of similar problems in the UK and economic growth in those states accelerating past the UK during the last 3 years or so.) There is absolutely no chance of any of the peoples of those states wanting to go back to their former masters even in the worst of their economic strife or days of war. Not only that but they have all succeeded in maintaining a position amongst the richest countries in the world. They have maintained positions, in terms of GDP per head, ahead of the UK during most of the recent decades. None of those countries have as broad an economic base and as much natural resources as Scotland. All of them have prospered. All of them punch above their weight on the world stage. None of them are perfect. All of them have a great deal to be proud of in the way they have looked after their people.
The lies that have come from the No campaign have been a disgrace. Being ruled by people who are prepared to tell such lies is a dreadful idea.
Yes. Yes! YES!
In reply to rogerwebb:
I'm English and live in England, so I don't get a vote. But I lived in Scotland for a large chunk of the formative years of my childhood, and for that reason when the Scots meet the English at Murrayfield or Twickenham I support the Scots.
I think there's a lot to be said for independence. If you look at league tables for standard of living and quality of life across the world, plenty of small countries come very high. In principle, I think that a small country governing itself is a good idea.
But, it seems to me that to make independence work Scotland would need its own currency and a very pro-business outlook. It would be competing with neighbours and would need to be competitive on tax rates.
The current "yes" supporters seem to want, not so much independence, as a larger welfare state with more money spent on everything. They seem to be voting for independence mostly to get away from Tory governments. It won't work if businesses can just hop across the border to a lower-tax nation. A balance between periods of Labour and Tory rule has been necessary for the good of the UK, and will iScotland have that balance?
I also can't see keeping the pound being a good idea, since they would be using it with no control over it. Nor does joining the Euro and participating with over-closer federal union seem a good idea -- that's the very opposite of independence, and I don't think the Scots would like it (e.g. how much concern has the EU ever shown over Scottish fish?).
But, despite that, I can still see independence working well, precisely because it would force Scotland to compete and force it to be attractive to business and to face realities about public spending. In the medium to long term it could work out well. (In the short term I think it would produce a lot of economic difficulty for Scotland.)
Luckily, not having a vote, I don't have to decide since I don't know what I'd vote.
Except that I'd go for devo-max if given a choice. That's partly because, given the uncertainties in EU direction, if I were them I'd stay joined to England for now. If Scotland really wants to be more pro-EU than England and is afraid of an English vote to leave then, ok, campaign on the basis of adopting the Euro. (A currency union with rUK certainly wouldn't work if England voted to leave the EU and iScotland wanted to stay.)
I'm English and live in England, so I don't get a vote. But I lived in Scotland for a large chunk of the formative years of my childhood, and for that reason when the Scots meet the English at Murrayfield or Twickenham I support the Scots.
I think there's a lot to be said for independence. If you look at league tables for standard of living and quality of life across the world, plenty of small countries come very high. In principle, I think that a small country governing itself is a good idea.
But, it seems to me that to make independence work Scotland would need its own currency and a very pro-business outlook. It would be competing with neighbours and would need to be competitive on tax rates.
The current "yes" supporters seem to want, not so much independence, as a larger welfare state with more money spent on everything. They seem to be voting for independence mostly to get away from Tory governments. It won't work if businesses can just hop across the border to a lower-tax nation. A balance between periods of Labour and Tory rule has been necessary for the good of the UK, and will iScotland have that balance?
I also can't see keeping the pound being a good idea, since they would be using it with no control over it. Nor does joining the Euro and participating with over-closer federal union seem a good idea -- that's the very opposite of independence, and I don't think the Scots would like it (e.g. how much concern has the EU ever shown over Scottish fish?).
But, despite that, I can still see independence working well, precisely because it would force Scotland to compete and force it to be attractive to business and to face realities about public spending. In the medium to long term it could work out well. (In the short term I think it would produce a lot of economic difficulty for Scotland.)
Luckily, not having a vote, I don't have to decide since I don't know what I'd vote.
Except that I'd go for devo-max if given a choice. That's partly because, given the uncertainties in EU direction, if I were them I'd stay joined to England for now. If Scotland really wants to be more pro-EU than England and is afraid of an English vote to leave then, ok, campaign on the basis of adopting the Euro. (A currency union with rUK certainly wouldn't work if England voted to leave the EU and iScotland wanted to stay.)
In reply to rogerwebb:
I'm not a voter in Scotland so get no vote in the referendum; I did though choose to move to Scotland and lived there for four years in my early 20s as a student/climbing shop monkey! I remain very fond of Glasgow in particular, and have lots of Scottish friends who seem split about 50/50 on the question. I feel quite strongly about it.
I've just moved back to the UK after over 13 years living in Finland. I worked for a long time as a security politics analyst while also doing my doctorate, but now am training to teach citizenship as a secondary school teacher where, amusingly or ironically perhaps, we will be obligated by the national curriculum to teach "British values".
If Scotland votes "yes" I doubt it will be end of the world; I can't see why anyone in the rUK or iScotland would, for instance, have any interest in making the drive across the border any different from how it is today. A Scandinavian style passport union would be the obvious solution with free movement, but of course if Scotland joins Schengen as it becomes an EU member in its own right, it could complicate matters. That sort of granularity is what I think the Yes campaign has glossed over - these aren't insurmountable problems but they are very real potential issues and it seems that they have been dismissed with hopeful wave of the hand followed by hectoring of those asking the questions for their "negativity".
There's nothing wrong with being a nationalist in the widest sense. Solidarity always has limits, it's very much how human societies work. I used to be a Red Cross volunteer visiting asylum seekers banged up in police gaol and detention centres in Helsinki because the solidarity of the Finnish state isn't unlimited - in fact it's quire limited. There is a we-feeling, but it has limits. If Scots think that we-feeling ends - at least on many issues - at the Scottish border, then it make sense to vote Yes. I just feel that solidarity across the UK is wider than that. Salmond/Yes's masterstroke has been to frame this as "us" against "Westminster" - fair enough, good politics. But the UK isn't Westminster. The people of Glasgow, or Dundee, Inverness, Fort William, Paisley or Aberdeen AREN'T against the people of Sheffield, or Birmingham, or Swansea, or Newcastle, or Leeds, or Liverpool, or Bangor, or Wolverhampton, or Nottingham, Newport, Carlisle, Croydon, Brighton, Bristol and so on. The social democratic tradition, the trade union tradition, the radical tradition and the liberal tradition are all British traditions - where solidarity between people all across the UK created a country which, despite what many would believe, is really one of the better places to live in the world. Scotland was not invaded and colonised; the union was a political union between the ruling elites of two countries - power structures that meant common people from Cape Wrath to Lands End were kept impoverished an unrepresented. Political and social solidarity between the common people all across these isles is what changed that feudal society into the advanced democracy we have now.
Anyway, great to have a chance to get that out of my head! Good luck to all in Scotland for Thursday, whichever side you're voting for.
I'm not a voter in Scotland so get no vote in the referendum; I did though choose to move to Scotland and lived there for four years in my early 20s as a student/climbing shop monkey! I remain very fond of Glasgow in particular, and have lots of Scottish friends who seem split about 50/50 on the question. I feel quite strongly about it.
I've just moved back to the UK after over 13 years living in Finland. I worked for a long time as a security politics analyst while also doing my doctorate, but now am training to teach citizenship as a secondary school teacher where, amusingly or ironically perhaps, we will be obligated by the national curriculum to teach "British values".
If Scotland votes "yes" I doubt it will be end of the world; I can't see why anyone in the rUK or iScotland would, for instance, have any interest in making the drive across the border any different from how it is today. A Scandinavian style passport union would be the obvious solution with free movement, but of course if Scotland joins Schengen as it becomes an EU member in its own right, it could complicate matters. That sort of granularity is what I think the Yes campaign has glossed over - these aren't insurmountable problems but they are very real potential issues and it seems that they have been dismissed with hopeful wave of the hand followed by hectoring of those asking the questions for their "negativity".
There's nothing wrong with being a nationalist in the widest sense. Solidarity always has limits, it's very much how human societies work. I used to be a Red Cross volunteer visiting asylum seekers banged up in police gaol and detention centres in Helsinki because the solidarity of the Finnish state isn't unlimited - in fact it's quire limited. There is a we-feeling, but it has limits. If Scots think that we-feeling ends - at least on many issues - at the Scottish border, then it make sense to vote Yes. I just feel that solidarity across the UK is wider than that. Salmond/Yes's masterstroke has been to frame this as "us" against "Westminster" - fair enough, good politics. But the UK isn't Westminster. The people of Glasgow, or Dundee, Inverness, Fort William, Paisley or Aberdeen AREN'T against the people of Sheffield, or Birmingham, or Swansea, or Newcastle, or Leeds, or Liverpool, or Bangor, or Wolverhampton, or Nottingham, Newport, Carlisle, Croydon, Brighton, Bristol and so on. The social democratic tradition, the trade union tradition, the radical tradition and the liberal tradition are all British traditions - where solidarity between people all across the UK created a country which, despite what many would believe, is really one of the better places to live in the world. Scotland was not invaded and colonised; the union was a political union between the ruling elites of two countries - power structures that meant common people from Cape Wrath to Lands End were kept impoverished an unrepresented. Political and social solidarity between the common people all across these isles is what changed that feudal society into the advanced democracy we have now.
Anyway, great to have a chance to get that out of my head! Good luck to all in Scotland for Thursday, whichever side you're voting for.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I'm in my late 40s, live in Scotland, Scottish family but have also lived and worked in the south, the US and other places. My family has fought and died for Scottish regiments for over 600 years.
I am pretty sceptical about the Yes campaign's rather obvious glossy-advertising approach to every issue, and think it is so patronising as to be insulting. But at this stage that's not my - or my family's real concern. Any campaign or party which allows the kind of intimidation that Scots have fought against for years - and where senior figures can publicly threaten some form of revenge or "reckoning" against dissenting voices just for expressing a view - is to my mind beyond the pale.
So yes, I'm a No, although I'd much prefer not to be.
I'm in my late 40s, live in Scotland, Scottish family but have also lived and worked in the south, the US and other places. My family has fought and died for Scottish regiments for over 600 years.
I am pretty sceptical about the Yes campaign's rather obvious glossy-advertising approach to every issue, and think it is so patronising as to be insulting. But at this stage that's not my - or my family's real concern. Any campaign or party which allows the kind of intimidation that Scots have fought against for years - and where senior figures can publicly threaten some form of revenge or "reckoning" against dissenting voices just for expressing a view - is to my mind beyond the pale.
So yes, I'm a No, although I'd much prefer not to be.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I'm nearly 50...can't get my head around that! Scottish dad, English mum. Born in Scotland but lived in England...and Norway for a while. I regard myself as English but also a bit of a Scot, don't have a vote. Career in the forces and now NHS, spent a lot of time in Scotland climbing etc.
I can really see why for those with a strong identity as a Scot would want to Govern themselves and I do agree that the Westminster based political system seems to be very removed from Scotland. If i could vote I think I would vote yes....but reading this thread makes me doubt that to some degree
I think a lot of people would be like myself and ultimately find choosing yes or no really difficult. I really dont know how I would vote if I could.
I'm nearly 50...can't get my head around that! Scottish dad, English mum. Born in Scotland but lived in England...and Norway for a while. I regard myself as English but also a bit of a Scot, don't have a vote. Career in the forces and now NHS, spent a lot of time in Scotland climbing etc.
I can really see why for those with a strong identity as a Scot would want to Govern themselves and I do agree that the Westminster based political system seems to be very removed from Scotland. If i could vote I think I would vote yes....but reading this thread makes me doubt that to some degree
I think a lot of people would be like myself and ultimately find choosing yes or no really difficult. I really dont know how I would vote if I could.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Iain, 44, Teaching career and live in Fife.
Been switching political allegiance for a number of years in the vain hope that one of the UK parties would stand up and have a real vision. It never happened, and after being a happy No voter, I am swayed by the optimism and belief in an independent Scotland.
I am not stupid and know there will be a price to pay, winners and losers etc. but in time all will be well and matters will be resolved to ensure common sense prevails over border controls etc.
I am confident in Scotland because our foundations are strong i.e. we have a far better education system (fundamental to a prosperous future), are a large country for our population with many natural resources such as coal, oil and renewables, strong exports such as whisky and golf tourism, a commitment to the high end job market and engineering including renewables etc. and large abundant fishing waters.
I like that we sent Magrahi back to Libya, and want to get rid of nuclear weapons.
I don't like how we try to solve the problems of the middle east but turn a blind eye to others, and pander to the US thinking we are world players. We have alienated ourselves from the rest of Europe and seem to be lurching more and more to the Right. This is not the politics of Scotland and I don't want any more of it, and expect the next big debate will be on what sort of Scotland do we want to live in and how will the parties react and respond to this new opportunity.
Yes please with shortbread and a dram, but I hope we can still get English beer!
Iain, 44, Teaching career and live in Fife.
Been switching political allegiance for a number of years in the vain hope that one of the UK parties would stand up and have a real vision. It never happened, and after being a happy No voter, I am swayed by the optimism and belief in an independent Scotland.
I am not stupid and know there will be a price to pay, winners and losers etc. but in time all will be well and matters will be resolved to ensure common sense prevails over border controls etc.
I am confident in Scotland because our foundations are strong i.e. we have a far better education system (fundamental to a prosperous future), are a large country for our population with many natural resources such as coal, oil and renewables, strong exports such as whisky and golf tourism, a commitment to the high end job market and engineering including renewables etc. and large abundant fishing waters.
I like that we sent Magrahi back to Libya, and want to get rid of nuclear weapons.
I don't like how we try to solve the problems of the middle east but turn a blind eye to others, and pander to the US thinking we are world players. We have alienated ourselves from the rest of Europe and seem to be lurching more and more to the Right. This is not the politics of Scotland and I don't want any more of it, and expect the next big debate will be on what sort of Scotland do we want to live in and how will the parties react and respond to this new opportunity.
Yes please with shortbread and a dram, but I hope we can still get English beer!
In reply to yer maw:
I am British, born in England of English born parents but have 2 great grand parents born in Scotland. I was born in the NE of England in a place which is further north than bits of Scotland.
I live in Sheffield (so have no vote) and have worked with the GB Climbing Team for many years and represented GB on the worldwide stage for many years and I am immensely proud of this representation.
I am currently working in Spain and last night a group of Catalan work colleagues were wearing 1714 (or something like that, I can't remember) T-shirts. It was something to do with how long Catalunya has been part of Spain. Pretty close to the Act of Union I thought. After discussing it they were all totally gobsmacked that I would not have a vote in the future of my country.
If I had a vote it would be No.
I am British, born in England of English born parents but have 2 great grand parents born in Scotland. I was born in the NE of England in a place which is further north than bits of Scotland.
I live in Sheffield (so have no vote) and have worked with the GB Climbing Team for many years and represented GB on the worldwide stage for many years and I am immensely proud of this representation.
I am currently working in Spain and last night a group of Catalan work colleagues were wearing 1714 (or something like that, I can't remember) T-shirts. It was something to do with how long Catalunya has been part of Spain. Pretty close to the Act of Union I thought. After discussing it they were all totally gobsmacked that I would not have a vote in the future of my country.
If I had a vote it would be No.
In reply to rogerwebb:
If Scotland does go independent, then I wonder how it may effect the WML training and assessment?
For residents from England, Wales and Northern Ireland the majority of courses will effectively take place in a foreign country..since global warming has more or less knackered reliable Winter elsewhere in the U.K...so why not go to France or Switzerland instead (none Glacial)?
Interesting......
If Scotland does go independent, then I wonder how it may effect the WML training and assessment?
For residents from England, Wales and Northern Ireland the majority of courses will effectively take place in a foreign country..since global warming has more or less knackered reliable Winter elsewhere in the U.K...so why not go to France or Switzerland instead (none Glacial)?
Interesting......
In reply to sbc_10:
I don't mean to be like a school teacher, but please don't try and debate on this thread. There are many others for that.
The idea is that people present their views on independence and reasons for which way they vote.
If people ask open questions or snipe at others presentations then this thread will descend into chaos and its purpose will be lost.
That purpose is to inform and if the possibly mythical undecided voter is out there it may help.
I don't mean to be like a school teacher, but please don't try and debate on this thread. There are many others for that.
The idea is that people present their views on independence and reasons for which way they vote.
If people ask open questions or snipe at others presentations then this thread will descend into chaos and its purpose will be lost.
That purpose is to inform and if the possibly mythical undecided voter is out there it may help.
1
In reply to rogerwebb:
I was born in England with a Welsh father & a mother from Gibraltar but have lived most of my life in Scotland & usually refer to Scotland as 'home'. But, for work reasons, I've been living in France just long enough to loose the right to vote in UK national elections, including the referendum
This means I haven't had to decide & remain one of the undecided. I can see arguments on both sides, find the no campaign extremely negative and while devo max in a properly federal UK is what I'd opt for if it was on offer, I have no confidence in Westminster to deliver on the hasty promises from Gordon Brown et al which seem to be a bit of a last minute panic measure. But I also find the independence side over optimistic on how easily the problems will be overcome & do have worries about my pension & savings. But I would also have problems work wise if the UK leaves the EU which also seems possible (if unlikely).
I was born in England with a Welsh father & a mother from Gibraltar but have lived most of my life in Scotland & usually refer to Scotland as 'home'. But, for work reasons, I've been living in France just long enough to loose the right to vote in UK national elections, including the referendum
This means I haven't had to decide & remain one of the undecided. I can see arguments on both sides, find the no campaign extremely negative and while devo max in a properly federal UK is what I'd opt for if it was on offer, I have no confidence in Westminster to deliver on the hasty promises from Gordon Brown et al which seem to be a bit of a last minute panic measure. But I also find the independence side over optimistic on how easily the problems will be overcome & do have worries about my pension & savings. But I would also have problems work wise if the UK leaves the EU which also seems possible (if unlikely).
In reply to rogerwebb:
I'm Yorkshire born and bred, with a Scottish surname, have worked on most of the continents of the world and am self employed. I'm 45.
Without a shadow of a doubt if I had a vote I would vote yes every time, the future is not set, it's what we make of it. Scotland once was and can be a great independent nation once again.
I'm Yorkshire born and bred, with a Scottish surname, have worked on most of the continents of the world and am self employed. I'm 45.
Without a shadow of a doubt if I had a vote I would vote yes every time, the future is not set, it's what we make of it. Scotland once was and can be a great independent nation once again.
In reply to rogerwebb: Dienfranchised Scot living in Sheffield
Independance will be very very expensive. For a number of reasons.
Currency.
Salmonds "its our pound too" plan is laughable. Look to the Eurozone to see what happens when you get currency union without fiscal union/cooperation/restrictions. even if London wanted to be generous the markets wouldn't let them. So you may be voting for Independance in name but not reality if Scotlands Fiscal envelope is dictated by UK policy.
A peg to the pound requires reserves to exchange when someone asks. denmark does this with the Euro. It holds large reserves to ensure confidence. Proportionally to ecomomic output a new Scottish Central Bank would need about £37 billion quid. A per capita share of UK reserves gives Scotland £15 billion.
Pretty hard to build an egalitarian utopia if you start £22 billion in the red.
Oil and Goverement Borrowing
Because SCotland is small it's government untested its borrowing cost will be higher than UK. More perceived risk.
North Sea oil is no panacea. Its expensive to extract and "peak oil" is probably past. Saudi could cripple us simply by turning its taps on. BP anda the other big boys are allready bullying westminster to reduce tax to keep the North Sea "competitive". Holyrood will get the same treatment with less bargaining power.
Trident, Aircraft carriers on the Clyde, Air force bases in Kinloss. The UK Army as a route of out of poverty from all the shit holes that those in Edinburgh pretend don't exist. Independace won't put food on the table for the unemployed.
Best of Luck if you go for it but I feel sorry for the pensioners, low waged, disabled, ill etc etc.
Independance will be very very expensive. For a number of reasons.
Currency.
Salmonds "its our pound too" plan is laughable. Look to the Eurozone to see what happens when you get currency union without fiscal union/cooperation/restrictions. even if London wanted to be generous the markets wouldn't let them. So you may be voting for Independance in name but not reality if Scotlands Fiscal envelope is dictated by UK policy.
A peg to the pound requires reserves to exchange when someone asks. denmark does this with the Euro. It holds large reserves to ensure confidence. Proportionally to ecomomic output a new Scottish Central Bank would need about £37 billion quid. A per capita share of UK reserves gives Scotland £15 billion.
Pretty hard to build an egalitarian utopia if you start £22 billion in the red.
Oil and Goverement Borrowing
Because SCotland is small it's government untested its borrowing cost will be higher than UK. More perceived risk.
North Sea oil is no panacea. Its expensive to extract and "peak oil" is probably past. Saudi could cripple us simply by turning its taps on. BP anda the other big boys are allready bullying westminster to reduce tax to keep the North Sea "competitive". Holyrood will get the same treatment with less bargaining power.
Trident, Aircraft carriers on the Clyde, Air force bases in Kinloss. The UK Army as a route of out of poverty from all the shit holes that those in Edinburgh pretend don't exist. Independace won't put food on the table for the unemployed.
Best of Luck if you go for it but I feel sorry for the pensioners, low waged, disabled, ill etc etc.
I think this thread would be much better if only people who CAN vote answered.
Anyway, here's mine:
I am Scottish, but was born in England during my (both Scottish) parents brief hiatus to England for my dad's career.
I lived in Perth between the age of 4 and going to Uni, which I did in Glasgow. I'm now a mechanical engineer working Oil and Gas (although I'd rather work in something more environmentally sustainable). I spend a fair bit of time living in France but still work for a Glasgow based company.
I have thought long and hard about the pros and cons. I would say that I have always been in a position of "YES, but only if the economic and social risks are acceptable". I am not a nationalist and I would probably prefer to change the UK from Westminster than to split off.
However, the 12 years worth of Labour drifting to the right, selling of the NHS (seamlessly continued by the Torys), widening inequality, threats of UKIP and leaving Europe, failure to gain proportional representational have left me feeling completely disillusioned by the UK's drive for positive change.
With regard to the economics - I have read a lot and I am still on the fence. I think Scotland will either roughly stay the same, or prosper. Most of the negative noise comes from companies with a vested interest. The three main credit rating agencies seem to think "it will be a struggle, but there's no major obstacles to success". In my mind, the UK has as big struggle ahead with a banking sector debt of 600% of GDP.
I'm voting yes not because I subscribe to Salmond's far fetched wishlist. I'm voting yes because I think a proportionally representative modern government of Scotland would be able to:
Save and strengthen the NHS
Stop privatisation of Schools
Reduce our dependency on fossil fuels
Never go to war.
As a final note - I don't feel that voting for independence is saying "f*ck you* to everyone in England, Ireland and Wales who want these same things. An independent Scotland would be a huge catalyst for change within the rUK. No wonder the Establishment are so keen to stamp it out.
Final final note - I don't begrudge anyone voting No and I dislike the way some on the Yes side are saying people are somehow "less Scottish" - it's petty. In my mind Scotland now has a win-win as long as the Establishment don't renege on their promises....
Anyway, here's mine:
I am Scottish, but was born in England during my (both Scottish) parents brief hiatus to England for my dad's career.
I lived in Perth between the age of 4 and going to Uni, which I did in Glasgow. I'm now a mechanical engineer working Oil and Gas (although I'd rather work in something more environmentally sustainable). I spend a fair bit of time living in France but still work for a Glasgow based company.
I have thought long and hard about the pros and cons. I would say that I have always been in a position of "YES, but only if the economic and social risks are acceptable". I am not a nationalist and I would probably prefer to change the UK from Westminster than to split off.
However, the 12 years worth of Labour drifting to the right, selling of the NHS (seamlessly continued by the Torys), widening inequality, threats of UKIP and leaving Europe, failure to gain proportional representational have left me feeling completely disillusioned by the UK's drive for positive change.
With regard to the economics - I have read a lot and I am still on the fence. I think Scotland will either roughly stay the same, or prosper. Most of the negative noise comes from companies with a vested interest. The three main credit rating agencies seem to think "it will be a struggle, but there's no major obstacles to success". In my mind, the UK has as big struggle ahead with a banking sector debt of 600% of GDP.
I'm voting yes not because I subscribe to Salmond's far fetched wishlist. I'm voting yes because I think a proportionally representative modern government of Scotland would be able to:
Save and strengthen the NHS
Stop privatisation of Schools
Reduce our dependency on fossil fuels
Never go to war.
As a final note - I don't feel that voting for independence is saying "f*ck you* to everyone in England, Ireland and Wales who want these same things. An independent Scotland would be a huge catalyst for change within the rUK. No wonder the Establishment are so keen to stamp it out.
Final final note - I don't begrudge anyone voting No and I dislike the way some on the Yes side are saying people are somehow "less Scottish" - it's petty. In my mind Scotland now has a win-win as long as the Establishment don't renege on their promises....
In reply to rogerwebb:
Name : Andy
Born : England
Lives : Stockport - hence no vote
I am British, English and European. If Scotland goes, team UK will be losing some of its best players, and I'm referring to people, not oil revemues. Others have articulated much better than I can the weakness of the debate on both sides, but it seems to me that Yes are essentially promising jam tomorrow. They are promising a new start whilst refusing to acknowledge any current difficulties. It makes serious debate impossible - any difficult question is presented as either part of project fear or as trivial. There are 2 major issues - the currency and eu membership - which remain unresolved. People in the Yes camp *genuinely* believe that there will be currency union and that iScotland will automatically join the eu. Neither is guaranteed, not by a long chalk.
The real divisions in this world are between rich and poor, large corporations / banks and the ordinary people, the elite and the masses, not between Carlisle and Gretna. If team UK are to challenge this status quo, we need stronger government not weaker, we need more talent not less. We need Scotland in the union.
Name : Andy
Born : England
Lives : Stockport - hence no vote
I am British, English and European. If Scotland goes, team UK will be losing some of its best players, and I'm referring to people, not oil revemues. Others have articulated much better than I can the weakness of the debate on both sides, but it seems to me that Yes are essentially promising jam tomorrow. They are promising a new start whilst refusing to acknowledge any current difficulties. It makes serious debate impossible - any difficult question is presented as either part of project fear or as trivial. There are 2 major issues - the currency and eu membership - which remain unresolved. People in the Yes camp *genuinely* believe that there will be currency union and that iScotland will automatically join the eu. Neither is guaranteed, not by a long chalk.
The real divisions in this world are between rich and poor, large corporations / banks and the ordinary people, the elite and the masses, not between Carlisle and Gretna. If team UK are to challenge this status quo, we need stronger government not weaker, we need more talent not less. We need Scotland in the union.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Good idea - it's easy to get caught up in arguments and find yourself arguing about something that isn't very important to you. This lets people show what they really think; I'll read more of the responses this evening.
I'm Iain, Inverness-born to Scottish parents, resident in Central Scotland; I consider myself Scottish and European; I am also British, but this means little to me (either positive or negative). I work in IT support and development in Glasgow.
I have some not-too-distant Irish and English ancestry, and I'm married to a wonderful Swedish woman, with whom I have two young daughters. Many of my friends and family are from outwith the UK, and I know quite a few mixed-nationality families. This leaves me a little bemused about the horror some people express at the thought of some of their family members becoming 'foreigners' after a Yes vote - I just don't see any problem with this, we're still right next door!
There are several reasons why I'm voting Yes.
I feel that Scotland has a strong enough identity, has plenty of natural resources (not just oil), and is big enough, diverse enough, and competent enough, to be its own country. As part of Britain we'll always be an afterthought - a small fraction of the population in a land to the North of the areas known as 'The North'. There's no badness in it, it's just a fact of geography and population distribution.
As a result, I think we're better running our country from inside it, where Scottish issues are actually relevant. I also feel that Scotland properly having its own identity can bring large advantages internationally for business, particularly tourism.
I firmly believe that countries need to work together and become entangled enough that going to war is hard to do - but not so closely that countries have little control over their own affairs.
We're really are better together with the English, the Welsh, the Irish, the Swedes, the French, the Germans, the Danish, and so on...
Sadly, I do not believe that the Southern part of the UK agrees, and I fear they're about to leave the EU, dragging us with them. An independent Scotland, on the other hand, seems much more likely to either remain in the EU through negotiation, or rejoin it soon if no way is found to simply stay.
And then there's the UK's approach to international problems. There seems to be a strong belief that we're a military power that can go in where it chooses and fix problems by killing the bad people!
It isn't possible to fix social problems by bombing and shooting them, killing vast numbers of innocent people and further radicalising those who care about them. It's seductive to imagine that we're heroes going in there to save people from their oppressors, but the reality is quite different; the real ways to make a positive difference are long and hard.
I don't believe Scotland suffers from this delusion to the same extent, and a Scottish military would be smaller and less able to go 'adventuring', having to concentrate on actual defense and in contributing to legitimate international task forces.
And, of course, we pour huge amounts of tax money into nuclear weapons, whose sole purpose is to say to other countries "don't mess with us, or we'll murder millions of your civilians" - this is not how I want my country to spend its resources, or to engage with the world.
That was enough for me, but during the campaign I've become caught up in the positivity and hope of the Yes community, daring to imagine a better future, discussing, planning and celebrating the opportunity to have a chance to try to make some of it happen.
At the same time, much of the No side has spent its energy attempting to demoralise this, and tell Scots we're just not up to it, rather than to present their own positive visions of the future. Even the offer of further devolution is half-hearted and not so much last minute as sceduled to be presented weeks after the last minute, with the parties proposing this having failed to come together to agree any of it, and every possibility that the rest of the UK will decide we already have enough, or even too much, devolution.
It's very clear to me that many people do have good reasons for wanting to vote No, and nobody should be made to feel bad for considering it properly then deciding either way.
However, the above are my reasons for voting for Scotland to become an independent country.
- edited to correct spelling! -
Good idea - it's easy to get caught up in arguments and find yourself arguing about something that isn't very important to you. This lets people show what they really think; I'll read more of the responses this evening.
I'm Iain, Inverness-born to Scottish parents, resident in Central Scotland; I consider myself Scottish and European; I am also British, but this means little to me (either positive or negative). I work in IT support and development in Glasgow.
I have some not-too-distant Irish and English ancestry, and I'm married to a wonderful Swedish woman, with whom I have two young daughters. Many of my friends and family are from outwith the UK, and I know quite a few mixed-nationality families. This leaves me a little bemused about the horror some people express at the thought of some of their family members becoming 'foreigners' after a Yes vote - I just don't see any problem with this, we're still right next door!
There are several reasons why I'm voting Yes.
I feel that Scotland has a strong enough identity, has plenty of natural resources (not just oil), and is big enough, diverse enough, and competent enough, to be its own country. As part of Britain we'll always be an afterthought - a small fraction of the population in a land to the North of the areas known as 'The North'. There's no badness in it, it's just a fact of geography and population distribution.
As a result, I think we're better running our country from inside it, where Scottish issues are actually relevant. I also feel that Scotland properly having its own identity can bring large advantages internationally for business, particularly tourism.
I firmly believe that countries need to work together and become entangled enough that going to war is hard to do - but not so closely that countries have little control over their own affairs.
We're really are better together with the English, the Welsh, the Irish, the Swedes, the French, the Germans, the Danish, and so on...
Sadly, I do not believe that the Southern part of the UK agrees, and I fear they're about to leave the EU, dragging us with them. An independent Scotland, on the other hand, seems much more likely to either remain in the EU through negotiation, or rejoin it soon if no way is found to simply stay.
And then there's the UK's approach to international problems. There seems to be a strong belief that we're a military power that can go in where it chooses and fix problems by killing the bad people!
It isn't possible to fix social problems by bombing and shooting them, killing vast numbers of innocent people and further radicalising those who care about them. It's seductive to imagine that we're heroes going in there to save people from their oppressors, but the reality is quite different; the real ways to make a positive difference are long and hard.
I don't believe Scotland suffers from this delusion to the same extent, and a Scottish military would be smaller and less able to go 'adventuring', having to concentrate on actual defense and in contributing to legitimate international task forces.
And, of course, we pour huge amounts of tax money into nuclear weapons, whose sole purpose is to say to other countries "don't mess with us, or we'll murder millions of your civilians" - this is not how I want my country to spend its resources, or to engage with the world.
That was enough for me, but during the campaign I've become caught up in the positivity and hope of the Yes community, daring to imagine a better future, discussing, planning and celebrating the opportunity to have a chance to try to make some of it happen.
At the same time, much of the No side has spent its energy attempting to demoralise this, and tell Scots we're just not up to it, rather than to present their own positive visions of the future. Even the offer of further devolution is half-hearted and not so much last minute as sceduled to be presented weeks after the last minute, with the parties proposing this having failed to come together to agree any of it, and every possibility that the rest of the UK will decide we already have enough, or even too much, devolution.
It's very clear to me that many people do have good reasons for wanting to vote No, and nobody should be made to feel bad for considering it properly then deciding either way.
However, the above are my reasons for voting for Scotland to become an independent country.
- edited to correct spelling! -
Post edited at 11:08
In reply to rogerwebb:
English born, teacher in Perth for 20 years.
I moved up from Cumbria, so the complaints about London based government are nothing new, but....
It seems to me that most of the Scots and most of the English are mostly the same, especially the further North you go. In the time I've lived here I've never been particularly struck by the European-ness of Scotland. We trade most with England (and Wales etc.), our cultural ties are with England, why on earth would we put a barrier between us and England and leap headfirst into (possibly?) an alliance with Europe (the terms of which have yet to be decided, and might well not be to our benefit).
I would vote Devo Max, but it's not on the table.
I ploughed through a good deal of the White Paper, and I find it frighteningly unconvincing.
While I would love to see the abolition of Trident, I'm not sure that this is going to happen in the short term, nor do I think that its removal and oil are going to provide enough money for the plans as set out.
I disagree with many of the ways the Tories are going about solving the country's issues, but they have at least been brave enough to say what the problems are. (Not enough money.) I'm not convinced that we have done that.
I don't subscribe to the "at least they're our crap/corrupt/self-serving politicians" argument. They're still crap, and Trumpgate and the rash of windfarms over the Highlands doesn't fill me with confidence about the future. I don't want another rubbish government, I want a better one.
I like watching team GB compete, and although it is a very minor point I feel very sorry for sportspeople (including a number of my pupils) who will no longer have access to this pathway.
Even the most enthusiastic Yes supporter will admit that there is the real possibility of major disruption for a number of years. I want constitutional reform and a fairer and prosperous United Kingdom: I don't think that two smaller, poorer nations will be able to provide a better life for all its citizens.
The currency question has not been dealt with with any credibility, nor has EU membership. I accept that the EU question is difficult to deal with hypothetically, but there is still not a currency solution outside basic schoolyard politics.
For me, No, with the hope of more power to the Scottish assembly and a greater focus on all regions of the UK, rather than the kingdom of London.
English born, teacher in Perth for 20 years.
I moved up from Cumbria, so the complaints about London based government are nothing new, but....
It seems to me that most of the Scots and most of the English are mostly the same, especially the further North you go. In the time I've lived here I've never been particularly struck by the European-ness of Scotland. We trade most with England (and Wales etc.), our cultural ties are with England, why on earth would we put a barrier between us and England and leap headfirst into (possibly?) an alliance with Europe (the terms of which have yet to be decided, and might well not be to our benefit).
I would vote Devo Max, but it's not on the table.
I ploughed through a good deal of the White Paper, and I find it frighteningly unconvincing.
While I would love to see the abolition of Trident, I'm not sure that this is going to happen in the short term, nor do I think that its removal and oil are going to provide enough money for the plans as set out.
I disagree with many of the ways the Tories are going about solving the country's issues, but they have at least been brave enough to say what the problems are. (Not enough money.) I'm not convinced that we have done that.
I don't subscribe to the "at least they're our crap/corrupt/self-serving politicians" argument. They're still crap, and Trumpgate and the rash of windfarms over the Highlands doesn't fill me with confidence about the future. I don't want another rubbish government, I want a better one.
I like watching team GB compete, and although it is a very minor point I feel very sorry for sportspeople (including a number of my pupils) who will no longer have access to this pathway.
Even the most enthusiastic Yes supporter will admit that there is the real possibility of major disruption for a number of years. I want constitutional reform and a fairer and prosperous United Kingdom: I don't think that two smaller, poorer nations will be able to provide a better life for all its citizens.
The currency question has not been dealt with with any credibility, nor has EU membership. I accept that the EU question is difficult to deal with hypothetically, but there is still not a currency solution outside basic schoolyard politics.
For me, No, with the hope of more power to the Scottish assembly and a greater focus on all regions of the UK, rather than the kingdom of London.
In reply to rogerwebb:
A view from the English borders.
The north of England needs more control over it's own destiny, i.e. devolution as Scotland has been promised in return for a NO vote.
The north of England would be pleased with Scottish YES vote in so far as it could give impetus to their demands for similar.
However, the problem with the north of England supporting Scottish independence is that no-one believes Alex isn't doing this for his own place in history, as least to some extent.
He has lied twice, firstly when he said that independence was the only way to safeguard Scottish NHS when his party have or are about to cut Scotland's NHS budget by 2%.
He has said that he will cut corporation tax as it is charged on the economic activity inside Scotland and not on where the company is based"
That is absurdly wrong, why do USA companies move their HQ to the UK from the USA?
Alex likes Ireland's 12% corporation tax but the Irish Times says that most big USA companies in Ireland pay 1% tax not 12%.
When, during debates Alex or one of his team were asked a question for which they had no answer they reverted to emotion in loud voices such as the glorious Scots would be free etc, etc.
Scots should seriously ask that if they want independence is Alex's way i.e. doing it on a wing and a prayer the right way?
A view from the English borders.
The north of England needs more control over it's own destiny, i.e. devolution as Scotland has been promised in return for a NO vote.
The north of England would be pleased with Scottish YES vote in so far as it could give impetus to their demands for similar.
However, the problem with the north of England supporting Scottish independence is that no-one believes Alex isn't doing this for his own place in history, as least to some extent.
He has lied twice, firstly when he said that independence was the only way to safeguard Scottish NHS when his party have or are about to cut Scotland's NHS budget by 2%.
He has said that he will cut corporation tax as it is charged on the economic activity inside Scotland and not on where the company is based"
That is absurdly wrong, why do USA companies move their HQ to the UK from the USA?
Alex likes Ireland's 12% corporation tax but the Irish Times says that most big USA companies in Ireland pay 1% tax not 12%.
When, during debates Alex or one of his team were asked a question for which they had no answer they reverted to emotion in loud voices such as the glorious Scots would be free etc, etc.
Scots should seriously ask that if they want independence is Alex's way i.e. doing it on a wing and a prayer the right way?
In reply to 999thAndy:
Oldish, 65, and just retired, coming back to Britain soon, to whatever's left of it! No vote, but I think I have the right to give my opinion all the same - I was slightly shocked by being told I shouldn't.
Ditto, and you put it more succinctly than me! Especially the last paragraph, and the last sentence, "We need Scotland in the Union", and not just for monetary reasons.
Oldish, 65, and just retired, coming back to Britain soon, to whatever's left of it! No vote, but I think I have the right to give my opinion all the same - I was slightly shocked by being told I shouldn't.
Ditto, and you put it more succinctly than me! Especially the last paragraph, and the last sentence, "We need Scotland in the Union", and not just for monetary reasons.
Out of those who can vote (21 so far by my count), it's 9 yes and 12 no, 43%/57%.
The OP clearly stated "I hope that this is a thread where people restrict themselves to expressing their reasons for the way they intend to vote."
This is not hypothetical discussion - it is just a way to allow people state why they are voting the way they are. I have no problem with you starting your own thread on "If you could vote, what would you vote".
This is not hypothetical discussion - it is just a way to allow people state why they are voting the way they are. I have no problem with you starting your own thread on "If you could vote, what would you vote".
In reply to rogerwebb:
Hi Rodger,
Good thread....
ANdy...born Yorkshire, lived there for 25 years, married to a lady from Cardiff, now lived in Scotland for 30 years, children born in Aberdeen, now live near Glasgow....and I will be voting YES.
A myriad of smaller reasons...but for me the main one is this....
People think political parties run the UK - they don't. The Establishment runs the UK for the benefit of a few to the detriment of the majority. 90% of power, wealth and authority is concentrated in just 1% of the population of the UK.
This vote is THE biggest chance we have ever had since WWII to change that, not only for Scotland but for all constituent parts of what is currently know as the UK.
..so it's a massive YES from me.
ANdy
PS. Enjoy Thursday/Friday everyone...whatever the outcome....it will be one of those "I was there" moments of your life.
Hi Rodger,
Good thread....
ANdy...born Yorkshire, lived there for 25 years, married to a lady from Cardiff, now lived in Scotland for 30 years, children born in Aberdeen, now live near Glasgow....and I will be voting YES.
A myriad of smaller reasons...but for me the main one is this....
People think political parties run the UK - they don't. The Establishment runs the UK for the benefit of a few to the detriment of the majority. 90% of power, wealth and authority is concentrated in just 1% of the population of the UK.
This vote is THE biggest chance we have ever had since WWII to change that, not only for Scotland but for all constituent parts of what is currently know as the UK.
..so it's a massive YES from me.
ANdy
PS. Enjoy Thursday/Friday everyone...whatever the outcome....it will be one of those "I was there" moments of your life.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I was born and brought up in Scotland and have also lived in England and in Asia.
My reasons for voting YES are because I believe:
1. Our country should be run by a government wholly elected by the people who are able to make the decisions that are best for the people of Scotland. This means that bodies unelected bodies such as the house of lords, which is a pompous, self serving anachronism, can have no part in our decisions. Neither can Westminster as it is mainly unelected by the people of Scotland.
2. We should all have equal opportunity to access health care, education and the welfare system where needed. At the very least this means an NHS which is free at the point of delivery; no tuition fees for higher education and a welfare system which supports the most vulnerable in society.
3. We should not host weapons of mass destruction, which we have no control of, on our soil. Weapons of mass destruction are immoral. History has shown us that war begets war but we seem to have learned nothing from the continual bombing and destruction of communities. The cost of such weapons is a sickening reflection of a morally impoverished society who would choose to fund that over feeding, educating and caring for its own people.
We have the capacity (and yes Scotland will economically viable as an independent nation) to make a difference and I think that is clear of late that we do also have the will.
A great big YES from me
R
I was born and brought up in Scotland and have also lived in England and in Asia.
My reasons for voting YES are because I believe:
1. Our country should be run by a government wholly elected by the people who are able to make the decisions that are best for the people of Scotland. This means that bodies unelected bodies such as the house of lords, which is a pompous, self serving anachronism, can have no part in our decisions. Neither can Westminster as it is mainly unelected by the people of Scotland.
2. We should all have equal opportunity to access health care, education and the welfare system where needed. At the very least this means an NHS which is free at the point of delivery; no tuition fees for higher education and a welfare system which supports the most vulnerable in society.
3. We should not host weapons of mass destruction, which we have no control of, on our soil. Weapons of mass destruction are immoral. History has shown us that war begets war but we seem to have learned nothing from the continual bombing and destruction of communities. The cost of such weapons is a sickening reflection of a morally impoverished society who would choose to fund that over feeding, educating and caring for its own people.
We have the capacity (and yes Scotland will economically viable as an independent nation) to make a difference and I think that is clear of late that we do also have the will.
A great big YES from me
R
In reply to 999thAndy:
Interesting interview on 5live this morning from Carlisle where people who were from different sides of the border made the point 'What about we Borderers -- we always seem to get ignored by politicians from Westminster and and the central belt of Scotland - and Independence is unlikely to change things!"
Being a Geordie who's lived in Cumbria and in Scotland and worked extensively on both sides of the border know where they 'were coming from'.
No matter what the outcome of the referendum there will still be no cross country dual carriageway / motorway / decent rail link between the M62 corridor and the M8. The people in Westminster and Edinburgh just 'do not get it'.
> The real divisions in this world are between rich and poor, large corporations / banks and the ordinary people, the elite and the masses, not between Carlisle and Gretna.
Interesting interview on 5live this morning from Carlisle where people who were from different sides of the border made the point 'What about we Borderers -- we always seem to get ignored by politicians from Westminster and and the central belt of Scotland - and Independence is unlikely to change things!"
Being a Geordie who's lived in Cumbria and in Scotland and worked extensively on both sides of the border know where they 'were coming from'.
No matter what the outcome of the referendum there will still be no cross country dual carriageway / motorway / decent rail link between the M62 corridor and the M8. The people in Westminster and Edinburgh just 'do not get it'.
Post edited at 16:43
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
Please don't try and turn this into a debating thread.
I hope that this is a thread where people restrict themselves to expressing their reasons for the way they intend to vote.
Your post does not do that.
Please don't try and turn this into a debating thread.
I hope that this is a thread where people restrict themselves to expressing their reasons for the way they intend to vote.
Your post does not do that.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Great thread, and it's lovely to see that for the most part people are sticking to the "no debate" rule
I am Kathryn. I lived most of my childhood in and adolescence SE England. I moved to Scotland in 2006, have a Scottish partner and intend on staying. I have lived in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and currently reside in Glasgow.
I will be voting no on Thursday. Most of my reasons have been summed up by rogerwebb and 999thAndy far more eloquently than I could do it myself.
I am a strong supporter of a devolved, federalised UK, but I don't see the need for the unnecessary division that would come from being an independent country. I can't come round to thinking that anything that forces any sort of 'us and them' dichotomy is a good thing.
Despite this, I was interested in what the yes campaign had to say, but they have utterly failed to do anything to change my gut opinion. In my eyes, they are offering a soap bubble - shiny and pretty to look at but with very little substance.
I can't say that I have been particularly impressed with the no campaign either, but as the yes campaign has failed to change my mind, I will be sticking with my gut feeling and voting no, but with the hope of greater devolution of power (for the whole of the UK) in the future.
Edited to add: Actually, my biggest hope is just for a good turnout...
Great thread, and it's lovely to see that for the most part people are sticking to the "no debate" rule
I am Kathryn. I lived most of my childhood in and adolescence SE England. I moved to Scotland in 2006, have a Scottish partner and intend on staying. I have lived in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and currently reside in Glasgow.
I will be voting no on Thursday. Most of my reasons have been summed up by rogerwebb and 999thAndy far more eloquently than I could do it myself.
I am a strong supporter of a devolved, federalised UK, but I don't see the need for the unnecessary division that would come from being an independent country. I can't come round to thinking that anything that forces any sort of 'us and them' dichotomy is a good thing.
Despite this, I was interested in what the yes campaign had to say, but they have utterly failed to do anything to change my gut opinion. In my eyes, they are offering a soap bubble - shiny and pretty to look at but with very little substance.
I can't say that I have been particularly impressed with the no campaign either, but as the yes campaign has failed to change my mind, I will be sticking with my gut feeling and voting no, but with the hope of greater devolution of power (for the whole of the UK) in the future.
Edited to add: Actually, my biggest hope is just for a good turnout...
Post edited at 17:22
In reply to rogerwebb:
Lynda. Born IOM, lived in England for first 19 years of my life, moved to Dundee for my first degree, Edinburgh for my Phd now live and work in Glasgow, so been here for 20 years and have a vote.
I'm a soft no.
The idea of accountability is very appealing to me and is the reason why I'm swithering. To be able to say, yes we messed up, with no scapegoats would be refreshing.
But, I have so many questions, how will we pay for everything that the YES team say we should? Will we in fact be better off, or will the cost of living go up so that more people will end up at the foodbanks? What about investment from companies, will they leave Scotland in droves in search of profit?
Roger's post and others is an excellent summation of many of my concerns and I don't want to repeat the same questions and arguments. I'd like to thank Roger for this most excellent of threads.
So I'm no but still the idea of self accountability...
Lynda. Born IOM, lived in England for first 19 years of my life, moved to Dundee for my first degree, Edinburgh for my Phd now live and work in Glasgow, so been here for 20 years and have a vote.
I'm a soft no.
The idea of accountability is very appealing to me and is the reason why I'm swithering. To be able to say, yes we messed up, with no scapegoats would be refreshing.
But, I have so many questions, how will we pay for everything that the YES team say we should? Will we in fact be better off, or will the cost of living go up so that more people will end up at the foodbanks? What about investment from companies, will they leave Scotland in droves in search of profit?
Roger's post and others is an excellent summation of many of my concerns and I don't want to repeat the same questions and arguments. I'd like to thank Roger for this most excellent of threads.
So I'm no but still the idea of self accountability...
In reply to rogerwebb:
OK -- I've not got a vote - but I'm English and currently live in England.
My wife and her sister ( and a number of their relations) are Scottish but are denied a vote because they do not currently reside there yet have stongly held views on the issue.
OK -- I've not got a vote - but I'm English and currently live in England.
My wife and her sister ( and a number of their relations) are Scottish but are denied a vote because they do not currently reside there yet have stongly held views on the issue.
In reply to rogerwebb:
This has to be the most intelligent and interesting thread here for aeons, amidst ever increasing dross.
This has to be the most intelligent and interesting thread here for aeons, amidst ever increasing dross.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Name: see above
Age: 52
Born: Edinburgh
Location: Glasgow
Working: architect (large, private international firm)
Voting: No
I'll try and keep this short:
- I'm proud to be Scottish but equally proud to be British.
- I see no reason to make one's self smaller rather than larger
- I see no reason to put up more boundaries rather than take them down.
- there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that a Scottish parliament will give any more people the government they 'want' than a Westminster one does. You get the government the majority of the electorate vote for - it's called democracy.
- since WW2, Scotland has had the government it voted for more frequently than England has.
- for me, the sums simply don't add up. Larger public sector workforce % pro rata in Scotland than the rest of the UK, ergo less opportunity to bring 'new' money into the national economy
- the ever increasing national deficit is on the brink of being impossible to pay back once borrowing rates start to rise from their current, unrealistically low position. Government borrowing : GDP ratio is astronomical at the moment, but I predict that in 3-5 years, the UK will be in a bigger financial hole than it was in 2008. An independent Scotland will exacerbate the situation and will have less opportunity to address the issue due to the following:
- oil will eventually run out, be that in 20, 50 or 100 years time. It's a dwindling resource, just like the income generated from it.
- Scots are, for a large part, notoriously unhealthy. Increased healthcare costs and longer lifespans will increase the public expenditure required to cater for this.
- lack of clarity on how the financial set-up will work in the event of a Yes vote and subsequent currency union. To my mind, there are way too many uncosted and unknown financial implications.
- I'm pro-Trident and I think defence is likely to be more successful if you're part of a bigger national group
- I only need to watch Scottish Parliament in action on tv to see the dearth of decent, capable politicians in this country with any sense of gravitas, who would be able to stand alongside their international counterparts. Having a larger pool of 'players' to chose from can only be a good thing for a team. It's up to us, the electorate, to choose that team
- The Yes campaign have confused the SNP manifesto with the Independence issue. In reality they are quite separate things.
- A 'Yes' vote result is irreversible, it's not a 'suck-it-and-see' option; once you're out, you're out for keeps.
Name: see above
Age: 52
Born: Edinburgh
Location: Glasgow
Working: architect (large, private international firm)
Voting: No
I'll try and keep this short:
- I'm proud to be Scottish but equally proud to be British.
- I see no reason to make one's self smaller rather than larger
- I see no reason to put up more boundaries rather than take them down.
- there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that a Scottish parliament will give any more people the government they 'want' than a Westminster one does. You get the government the majority of the electorate vote for - it's called democracy.
- since WW2, Scotland has had the government it voted for more frequently than England has.
- for me, the sums simply don't add up. Larger public sector workforce % pro rata in Scotland than the rest of the UK, ergo less opportunity to bring 'new' money into the national economy
- the ever increasing national deficit is on the brink of being impossible to pay back once borrowing rates start to rise from their current, unrealistically low position. Government borrowing : GDP ratio is astronomical at the moment, but I predict that in 3-5 years, the UK will be in a bigger financial hole than it was in 2008. An independent Scotland will exacerbate the situation and will have less opportunity to address the issue due to the following:
- oil will eventually run out, be that in 20, 50 or 100 years time. It's a dwindling resource, just like the income generated from it.
- Scots are, for a large part, notoriously unhealthy. Increased healthcare costs and longer lifespans will increase the public expenditure required to cater for this.
- lack of clarity on how the financial set-up will work in the event of a Yes vote and subsequent currency union. To my mind, there are way too many uncosted and unknown financial implications.
- I'm pro-Trident and I think defence is likely to be more successful if you're part of a bigger national group
- I only need to watch Scottish Parliament in action on tv to see the dearth of decent, capable politicians in this country with any sense of gravitas, who would be able to stand alongside their international counterparts. Having a larger pool of 'players' to chose from can only be a good thing for a team. It's up to us, the electorate, to choose that team
- The Yes campaign have confused the SNP manifesto with the Independence issue. In reality they are quite separate things.
- A 'Yes' vote result is irreversible, it's not a 'suck-it-and-see' option; once you're out, you're out for keeps.
In reply to rogerwebb:
British, born in County Durham, 61, no vote, confused.
Why do only people in Scotland get a vote? It will affect everybody in the UK.
Why on such an important issue, probably irreversible, is the decision based on a possibly temporary majority of 50.0001%. The winning line would be safer at say 66%.
Even with goodwill on all sides, it will be virtually impossible to have a fair share out of assets and liabilities, and any redistribution will only costly in bureaucracy. The 1974 council reorganisation almost bankrupted the country in my recollection. Its hard enough sorting out the kitty after a climbing trip.
Last weekend, I drove to Glencoe via Callander and back via Loch Lomond. Bemused to only see "yes" signs on the way there and "no, thanks" signs on the way back.
British, born in County Durham, 61, no vote, confused.
Why do only people in Scotland get a vote? It will affect everybody in the UK.
Why on such an important issue, probably irreversible, is the decision based on a possibly temporary majority of 50.0001%. The winning line would be safer at say 66%.
Even with goodwill on all sides, it will be virtually impossible to have a fair share out of assets and liabilities, and any redistribution will only costly in bureaucracy. The 1974 council reorganisation almost bankrupted the country in my recollection. Its hard enough sorting out the kitty after a climbing trip.
Last weekend, I drove to Glencoe via Callander and back via Loch Lomond. Bemused to only see "yes" signs on the way there and "no, thanks" signs on the way back.
In reply to rogerwebb:
I am born and educated in England, but have lived 10 years in Scotland. I have a Scottish wife and two children born in Scotland. I work in the oil and gas industry as a Geophysicist.
Sadly I don't think I could write anything as well reasoned and eloquent as Roger has - thanks Roger.
I have been unimpressed by both sides of the campaign to be honest, but will be voting NO on Thursday.
I simply do not believe the SNP claims of delivering a fairer more prosperous Scotland. This is just mantra to widen the appeal of the yes vote from the traditional nationalist areas. I doubt even the Tories would disagree with this sentiment as an ideal, but there is no plan on how it will be delivered. yes, the country we live in is not perfect, but I don't believe that introducing division will help this in any way. Maybe it will end up a fairer Scotland in the event of a yes vote in that everyone will end up poorer.
No Thanks!
I am born and educated in England, but have lived 10 years in Scotland. I have a Scottish wife and two children born in Scotland. I work in the oil and gas industry as a Geophysicist.
Sadly I don't think I could write anything as well reasoned and eloquent as Roger has - thanks Roger.
I have been unimpressed by both sides of the campaign to be honest, but will be voting NO on Thursday.
I simply do not believe the SNP claims of delivering a fairer more prosperous Scotland. This is just mantra to widen the appeal of the yes vote from the traditional nationalist areas. I doubt even the Tories would disagree with this sentiment as an ideal, but there is no plan on how it will be delivered. yes, the country we live in is not perfect, but I don't believe that introducing division will help this in any way. Maybe it will end up a fairer Scotland in the event of a yes vote in that everyone will end up poorer.
No Thanks!
Post edited at 20:45
Half Scottish, half English.
Have lived most of my life in Scotland.
Feel far more Scottish than English but equally British.
With Devo Max now the alternative, I cannot see that Scotland has anything at all to gain (except some sort of nebulous idea of "self respect") from independence and a lot to definitely lose and potentially a lot more to lose.
All of Salmond's promises are irrelevant (this is a referendum purely and simply on irreversible independence, not a Scottish general election which would come later and he might well lose). And unless we were also to leave NATO, the Trident argument is just plain nimbyism.
I'll be voting No.
Have lived most of my life in Scotland.
Feel far more Scottish than English but equally British.
With Devo Max now the alternative, I cannot see that Scotland has anything at all to gain (except some sort of nebulous idea of "self respect") from independence and a lot to definitely lose and potentially a lot more to lose.
All of Salmond's promises are irrelevant (this is a referendum purely and simply on irreversible independence, not a Scottish general election which would come later and he might well lose). And unless we were also to leave NATO, the Trident argument is just plain nimbyism.
I'll be voting No.
In reply to rogerwebb:
Rhona again
I don't believe that 'the case for independence rests on the idea that Scotland faces problems that can only be addressed by independence'. I think that independence is bigger and more positive than that. I think that Scotland and Westminster are on diverging political ideology and independence can go some way to address that. Overarching this is self determination - the people living in Scotland elect the people who write their policies and legislation that affect them directly.
I also don't think we are 'so different from the inhabitants of the rest of the UK in our aspirations and goals', particularly those in the less affluent north of England, as can be seen from the support from some parts of the UK and the calls for greater devolution across the rUK. Many of us are, however, very different from the elite incumbents of Westminster where successive governments have ignored the needs and wishes of the people of the UK to fawn to big business and market forces. Regardless of differences and similarities voters resident in Scotland have had no impact on the government ending up in Westminster - as has been shown elsewhere.
There is a dichotomy in the whole debate but that possibly comes from having a question which requires 1 of 2 possible replies. A 3rd option (devo-max) was removed - by Westminster if I remember correctly. Interestingly the 3rd option has now re-emerged (in the desperate attempts by Westminster to avoid independence coming to pass) but lacks credibility, reliability and even any legal standing.
R
Rhona again
I don't believe that 'the case for independence rests on the idea that Scotland faces problems that can only be addressed by independence'. I think that independence is bigger and more positive than that. I think that Scotland and Westminster are on diverging political ideology and independence can go some way to address that. Overarching this is self determination - the people living in Scotland elect the people who write their policies and legislation that affect them directly.
I also don't think we are 'so different from the inhabitants of the rest of the UK in our aspirations and goals', particularly those in the less affluent north of England, as can be seen from the support from some parts of the UK and the calls for greater devolution across the rUK. Many of us are, however, very different from the elite incumbents of Westminster where successive governments have ignored the needs and wishes of the people of the UK to fawn to big business and market forces. Regardless of differences and similarities voters resident in Scotland have had no impact on the government ending up in Westminster - as has been shown elsewhere.
There is a dichotomy in the whole debate but that possibly comes from having a question which requires 1 of 2 possible replies. A 3rd option (devo-max) was removed - by Westminster if I remember correctly. Interestingly the 3rd option has now re-emerged (in the desperate attempts by Westminster to avoid independence coming to pass) but lacks credibility, reliability and even any legal standing.
R
In reply to RhonaM:
Please don't try and turn this into a debating thread.
I hope that this is a thread where people restrict themselves to expressing their reasons for the way they intend to vote.
It is to disseminate views not challenge them.
Please don't try and turn this into a debating thread.
I hope that this is a thread where people restrict themselves to expressing their reasons for the way they intend to vote.
It is to disseminate views not challenge them.
Post edited at 07:53
In reply to rogerwebb:
Many thanks Roger for the best thread in a very long time on here, as others have said, you've expressed my concerns in a far better post than I could ever cobble together.
My background- 25 years old, born in Somerset, raised in rural Yorkshire. Lived in Glasgow for the past two years after leaving a good job to start all over again and I plan to stay here long term for many reasons- Good people, good friends, excellent training facilities (TCA), generally better working conditions if not necessarily better pay and owning property without crippling debt is realistic prospect.
I work in healthcare, both NHS and Private practice. Things are soo much better on the NHS side of things up here, I genuinely feel patients get a much higher standard of care compared to down south. It's not perfect though, some areas are broken beyond repair, and I feel this trend will continue whether or not we vote Yes.
Maybe I've missed something but I fail to see how independence will save the Nash, but things are on a downward spiral anyway.
With regards to cries of 'Anti-English' that seem to get banded about- I have one word for that. B*llox. As an Englishman in Glasgow, other than friends and patients taking the p*ss, I've not had a scrap of this. What I have noticed though is Scottish friends having pretty serious fall outs with each other over which way to vote.
I could vote Yes, I have no mortgage or dependents, so if I'm skint for the next decade it won't really matter, but I guess that makes people like me 'Problem voters' so to speak, as I'm in a position to vote with my heart without having to think about anyone else.
I have several friends from outside of the UK (Spain, Portugal, Hungary and others) and talking to them about it, their overwhelming view has been 'Our countries would give anything to be part of the UK, why don't you understand how lucky you are'
My vote:
Heart-YES!!!!!!!
Head- NO (or Yes)
Many thanks Roger for the best thread in a very long time on here, as others have said, you've expressed my concerns in a far better post than I could ever cobble together.
My background- 25 years old, born in Somerset, raised in rural Yorkshire. Lived in Glasgow for the past two years after leaving a good job to start all over again and I plan to stay here long term for many reasons- Good people, good friends, excellent training facilities (TCA), generally better working conditions if not necessarily better pay and owning property without crippling debt is realistic prospect.
I work in healthcare, both NHS and Private practice. Things are soo much better on the NHS side of things up here, I genuinely feel patients get a much higher standard of care compared to down south. It's not perfect though, some areas are broken beyond repair, and I feel this trend will continue whether or not we vote Yes.
Maybe I've missed something but I fail to see how independence will save the Nash, but things are on a downward spiral anyway.
With regards to cries of 'Anti-English' that seem to get banded about- I have one word for that. B*llox. As an Englishman in Glasgow, other than friends and patients taking the p*ss, I've not had a scrap of this. What I have noticed though is Scottish friends having pretty serious fall outs with each other over which way to vote.
I could vote Yes, I have no mortgage or dependents, so if I'm skint for the next decade it won't really matter, but I guess that makes people like me 'Problem voters' so to speak, as I'm in a position to vote with my heart without having to think about anyone else.
I have several friends from outside of the UK (Spain, Portugal, Hungary and others) and talking to them about it, their overwhelming view has been 'Our countries would give anything to be part of the UK, why don't you understand how lucky you are'
My vote:
Heart-YES!!!!!!!
Head- NO (or Yes)
In reply to rogerwebb:
Scotland's central problem is that the UK has a plan for the future and Scotland is not part of it. The plan is pretty simple, cogent and will probably work: concentrate on growing London and the financial services industry. Boris Johnson will come right out and say it but all the Westminster parties are following it. When you look at where they spend money it is totally obvious: banks and the city get bailed out immediately at a cost of hundreds of billions, the city gets put back in business with floods of central bank money and nobody gets jailed. Meanwhile at any time there are several large scale infrastructure schemes on the go in London with values in excess of £10Bn and nothing anything like that scale anywhere else.
The consequence is also predictable: London's population growing from 8 million to maybe 15 or even 20 million over the next 25 years. Scotland's population continuing to fall from 5 million to maybe 4 million as young people leave - the long term trend for the last 20 years. Over that time period Ireland's population and economy has grown: yes they've had problems but they are getting over them and the long term trend is still much more positive than that in Scotland. The UK does not need Scotland to be successful, it can let it contract, even lose major industries and even if Scotland fails slowly, as long as the London growth plan works the UK will be just fine.
Scotland needs a government for which growing the Scottish economy is the only option. The kind of focus and 'failure is not an option' approach the UK has for financial services and London. It needs to get started now while there is still plenty of oil money and it needs policies that let Scotland compete with London for investment and build infrastructure to support population growth and business expansion.
Scotland is never going to be a 'socialist republic' with significantly higher benefits and taxes than England because it would be instantaneously obvious to any government that tried it that taxpayers would go South and benefit seekers would come North. Small countries like small companies get brought back to reality very quickly. Scotland has great natural resources shared among a relatively small number of people and world class Universities that with proper backing from the financial sector and the right tax policies can be the base of a high tech economy.
Scotland can be a very economically successful small country if it focuses on its opportunities and gets the same sort of self-confidence and aggression in pursuing them as the UK has for London. Scotland is never going to be allowed to do what it takes as part of the UK because many of the necessary actions would directly compete with London.
Scotland's central problem is that the UK has a plan for the future and Scotland is not part of it. The plan is pretty simple, cogent and will probably work: concentrate on growing London and the financial services industry. Boris Johnson will come right out and say it but all the Westminster parties are following it. When you look at where they spend money it is totally obvious: banks and the city get bailed out immediately at a cost of hundreds of billions, the city gets put back in business with floods of central bank money and nobody gets jailed. Meanwhile at any time there are several large scale infrastructure schemes on the go in London with values in excess of £10Bn and nothing anything like that scale anywhere else.
The consequence is also predictable: London's population growing from 8 million to maybe 15 or even 20 million over the next 25 years. Scotland's population continuing to fall from 5 million to maybe 4 million as young people leave - the long term trend for the last 20 years. Over that time period Ireland's population and economy has grown: yes they've had problems but they are getting over them and the long term trend is still much more positive than that in Scotland. The UK does not need Scotland to be successful, it can let it contract, even lose major industries and even if Scotland fails slowly, as long as the London growth plan works the UK will be just fine.
Scotland needs a government for which growing the Scottish economy is the only option. The kind of focus and 'failure is not an option' approach the UK has for financial services and London. It needs to get started now while there is still plenty of oil money and it needs policies that let Scotland compete with London for investment and build infrastructure to support population growth and business expansion.
Scotland is never going to be a 'socialist republic' with significantly higher benefits and taxes than England because it would be instantaneously obvious to any government that tried it that taxpayers would go South and benefit seekers would come North. Small countries like small companies get brought back to reality very quickly. Scotland has great natural resources shared among a relatively small number of people and world class Universities that with proper backing from the financial sector and the right tax policies can be the base of a high tech economy.
Scotland can be a very economically successful small country if it focuses on its opportunities and gets the same sort of self-confidence and aggression in pursuing them as the UK has for London. Scotland is never going to be allowed to do what it takes as part of the UK because many of the necessary actions would directly compete with London.
Post edited at 09:25
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...