No Voters - what say you?

[jamamafegan]

I want to hear the thoughts of people who intend to vote No when the time eventually comes. I ask of you two things:

What are the main reasons as to why you are against independence?

Can you present a solid case for Scotland to stay in the UK?

Lets have a leveled, dignified discussion here. Lets try to avoid bickering, insulting and laughing at each other - that will get us nowhere. Taking the utter piss out of someone because they don't have the same view as you will result in an action of retaliation  - a tick on the 'No' box. Lets not alienate people. I aim that message at the Yes voters because PnB is predominantly in the Yes camp.

Being absolutely honest, not once has somebody from the No side actually presented to me a number of good reasons as to why we should stay in the UK. So this is your opportunity, No voters, to change my mind. Don't tell me why independence is bad - tell me why the UK is good. 

And Yes voters, if you see something you don't agree with this is your chance to politely 'myth bust' what has been said. For example - Don't agree that we can't have our own currency? Fine - provide the facts and evidence to show that yes, we can. Constructive and simple. If people choose to be arrogant and ignore the facts and evidence then more fool them. We move on, dish out the reddies, and debate with others.

Over to you.

Edited March 14, 2017 by jamamafegan

[Boostin' Kev]

9 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

 

Being absolutely honest, not once has somebody from the No side actually presented to me a number of good reasons as to why we should stay in the UK. 

That's not really the point of an independence referendum is it? 

[Jambomo]

2 minutes ago, The Diabolical One said:

That's not really the point of an independence referendum is it? 

I think it is part of the point of the independence Referendum. In an ideal world, one side would present the case with the facts of why we are better to go it alone and the other side would present the facts as to why we should stay as a union, then voters make up their minds and vote.

I.e take Brexit, and we should be doing exactly the opposite of that.

Whichever way a vote goes, you at least want to know that the outcome was reached by the voters having the best information and basing their choices on an informed view. The reason that Brexit is such a sham is that voters voted (on both sides) with a dreadful lack of information. Neither side put forward any factual arguments at all.

 

lets not have another Brexit.

[Skyline Drifter]

First and foremost I do not believe the economic case for independence stands up to the slightest scrutiny. The SNP's attempts at a financial plan for independence last time were laughable and I'm pretty sure by son's P2 class could have come up with something about as worthwhile. I appreciate the sentiment that a post independence Scotland may not be run by the SNP (in practice I suspect it would be for many years to come) but no matter who is in charge you can only work with the tools you have.

I think we'll lose a lot of financial sector jobs and it will create labour market problems both with rUk and with Europe, though the latter is probably going to happen anyway post Brexit (which I was also against). I think pensions will be a problem with the main pension funds relocating to England (Standard Life) and the costs of that will inevitably be borne by investors one way or another.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem being "British". I'm Scottish but I don't think that's incompatible. I have as much or more in common with English people as I do with the rest of Scotland. That may partly be a geographic thing being as we're right on the Border but I don't see the governing of the UK by a UK parliament as being any sort of problem. I think the Scottish parliament is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that just costs us all a fortune. I'd merrily disband it tomorrow if it were up to me.

[Ross.]

12 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

First and foremost I do not believe the economic case for independence stands up to the slightest scrutiny. The SNP's attempts at a financial plan for independence last time were laughable and I'm pretty sure by son's P2 class could have come up with something about as worthwhile. I appreciate the sentiment that a post independence Scotland may not be run by the SNP (in practice I suspect it would be for many years to come) but no matter who is in charge you can only work with the tools you have.

I think we'll lose a lot of financial sector jobs and it will create labour market problems both with rUk and with Europe, though the latter is probably going to happen anyway post Brexit (which I was also against). I think pensions will be a problem with the main pension funds relocating to England (Standard Life) and the costs of that will inevitably be borne by investors one way or another.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem being "British". I'm Scottish but I don't think that's incompatible. I have as much or more in common with English people as I do with the rest of Scotland. That may partly be a geographic thing being as we're right on the Border but I don't see the governing of the UK by a UK parliament as being any sort of problem. I think the Scottish parliament is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that just costs us all a fortune. I'd merrily disband it tomorrow if it were up to me.

With regards to pensions, Scotland is in a better position than rUK, ironically because of issues that I would hope an independent Scotland is able to tackle. We die younger and as a result pay out less per capita in this area.

[AyrTroopMajor]

11 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

First and foremost I do not believe the economic case for independence stands up to the slightest scrutiny. The SNP's attempts at a financial plan for independence last time were laughable and I'm pretty sure by son's P2 class could have come up with something about as worthwhile. I appreciate the sentiment that a post independence Scotland may not be run by the SNP (in practice I suspect it would be for many years to come) but no matter who is in charge you can only work with the tools you have.

I think we'll lose a lot of financial sector jobs and it will create labour market problems both with rUk and with Europe, though the latter is probably going to happen anyway post Brexit (which I was also against). I think pensions will be a problem with the main pension funds relocating to England (Standard Life) and the costs of that will inevitably be borne by investors one way or another.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem being "British". I'm Scottish but I don't think that's incompatible. I have as much or more in common with English people as I do with the rest of Scotland. That may partly be a geographic thing being as we're right on the Border but I don't see the governing of the UK by a UK parliament as being any sort of problem. I think the Scottish parliament is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that just costs us all a fortune. I'd merrily disband it tomorrow if it were up to me.

That's fair enough, in the spirit of the thread, I'm not gonna hit you with a meme or anything like that. I do have a question though;

Does it not bother you that we, as a nation, are voting predominantly on the opposite end of the political spectrum as those down south? Its not a new argument and I appreciate that, but are you okay with the fact that, even if every single person in Scotland voted for the same political party, it still wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the result of a general election?

[Shandon Par]

10 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

First and foremost I do not believe the economic case for independence stands up to the slightest scrutiny. The SNP's attempts at a financial plan for independence last time were laughable and I'm pretty sure by son's P2 class could have come up with something about as worthwhile. I appreciate the sentiment that a post independence Scotland may not be run by the SNP (in practice I suspect it would be for many years to come) but no matter who is in charge you can only work with the tools you have.

I think we'll lose a lot of financial sector jobs and it will create labour market problems both with rUk and with Europe, though the latter is probably going to happen anyway post Brexit (which I was also against). I think pensions will be a problem with the main pension funds relocating to England (Standard Life) and the costs of that will inevitably be borne by investors one way or another.

From a personal point of view I don't have a problem being "British". I'm Scottish but I don't think that's incompatible. I have as much or more in common with English people as I do with the rest of Scotland. That may partly be a geographic thing being as we're right on the Border but I don't see the governing of the UK by a UK parliament as being any sort of problem. I think the Scottish parliament is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that just costs us all a fortune. I'd merrily disband it tomorrow if it were up to me.

That's all fair enough but you can flip much of that on its head and have the same argument. Why do we need Westminster when we have Holyrood? Other parts of the EU are already looking to woo big UK firms who don't want to be stuck outside the EU so surely that could be a massive opportunity for Edinburgh over London? I think it makes a lot of sense for Sturgeon to wave the flag and get folk to look at us as still wanting to be part of the EU. The amount of trade and physical movement of people and stuff between Scotland and England would mean that there's never realistically going to be any kind of barriers between us and it's just scaremongering to suggest there ever would be.  

 

[SimonLichtie]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I think the Scottish parliament is an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that just costs us all a fortune. I'd merrily disband it tomorrow if it were up to me.

Genuine question on this point - as you view it simply as an unnecessary layer which costs a lot of money, would you be happy for there simply to be a European parliament making decisions for all of Europe?* This would obviously save vast amounts on parliaments in individual countries, and it would also take away an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy from every other country in Europe?

If the answer to the above is that you would not be happy with this - can I then ask why not, and why you think Scotland shouldn't have their own parliament yet the other individual countries within Europe should do? Would it be because Holyrood has far less powers, and therefore you deem it unnecessary in comparison to other countries whose parliaments have full powers in that country?

I'm genuinely intrigued by the above questions - also think the thread is a good one. I think it important that instead of just mud slinging on both sides, that we try to understand why people will vote a different way from how we will.

*I'm sure there are plenty of fairly right wing Brexiters who already believe this to pretty much be the case anyway in terms of the EU

[Skyline Drifter]

20 minutes ago, Ross. said:

With regards to pensions, Scotland is in a better position than rUK, ironically because of issues that I would hope an independent Scotland is able to tackle. We die younger and as a result pay out less per capita in this area.

That may or may not be accurate in the long term and generally. Speaking as someone marginally closer to retirement than the start of my career who has been paying into a small pension pot for 20 odd years though, it's going to hit my own fund hard. Mine and those of pretty much everyone else with an existing pension pot unclaimed.

19 minutes ago, AyrTroopMajor said:

That's fair enough, in the spirit of the thread, I'm not gonna hit you with a meme or anything like that. I do have a question though;

Does it not bother you that we, as a nation, are voting predominantly on the opposite end of the political spectrum as those down south? Its not a new argument and I appreciate that, but are you okay with the fact that, even if every single person in Scotland voted for the same political party, it still wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the result of a general election?

No, it doesn't bother me. I'm perfectly happy with the UK as my "nation". I don't see the need to separate Scottish-ness from it. And politically I'm centre right so my views are more reflective of the Westminster parliament anyway.

18 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

That's all fair enough but you can flip much of that on its head and have the same argument. Why do we need Westminster when we have Holyrood? Other parts of the EU are already looking to woo big UK firms who don't want to be stuck outside the EU so surely that could be a massive opportunity for Edinburgh over London? I think it makes a lot of sense for Sturgeon to wave the flag and get folk to look at us as still wanting to be part of the EU. The amount of trade and physical movement of people and stuff between Scotland and England would mean that there's never realistically going to be any kind of barriers between us and it's just scaremongering to suggest there ever would be.

Sturgeon can wave as many flags as she likes, she's a very long way away from being able to deliver EU membership or anything like it for an independent Scotland. If I thought she could do that I'd be a lot less anti Independence. I strongly doubt it is achievable though. And if it is achievable, it won't happen in the next 2 years so those same big firms who want to relocate will already be firmly ensconced in Paris and Berlin before there's any certainty on where Scotland will lie.

The potential for Holyrood to be "no worse" than Westminster is really terrible argument for moving away from the status quo. You don't cause enormous upset and uncertainty to achieve nothing. You have to be able to demonstrate that it will be a significantly better position. I don't believe that can be achieved.

15 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

Genuine question on this point - as you view it simply as an unnecessary layer which costs a lot of money, would you be happy for there simply to be a European parliament making decisions for all of Europe?* This would obviously save vast amounts on parliaments in individual countries, and it would also take away an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy from every other country in Europe?

If the answer to the above is that you would not be happy with this - can I then ask why not, and why you think Scotland shouldn't have their own parliament yet the other individual countries within Europe should do? Would it be because Holyrood has far less powers, and therefore you deem it unnecessary in comparison to other countries whose parliaments have full powers in that country?

I'm genuinely intrigued by the above questions - also think the thread is a good one. I think it important that instead of just mud slinging on both sides, that we try to understand why people will vote a different way from how we will.

*I'm sure there are plenty of fairly right wing Brexiters who already believe this to pretty much be the case anyway in terms of the EU

Contrary to popular belief, Europe doesn't run entire countries legal systems and laws. I'm happy to be part of Europe, I don't want Europe to effectively become one massive country. It isn't perfect but on balance I prefer to be in it than out of it. Just as I in fact prefer to be in the UK than out of it. I see no inconsistency there. Scotland isn't a separate country at the moment as much as we pretend it is. I never saw the point in a largely toothless parliament at Holyrood. I voted against it when it was set up and I haven't changed my mind one bit. Not sure of your age and you may not remember life without it. I do. It's added nothing to my life except more elections, more costs and more partisan politics and arguments. It has indeed got us to this point here.

[git-intae-thum]

25 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

That's all fair enough but you can flip much of that on its head and have the same argument. Why do we need Westminster when we have Holyrood? Other parts of the EU are already looking to woo big UK firms who don't want to be stuck outside the EU so surely that could be a massive opportunity for Edinburgh over London? I think it makes a lot of sense for Sturgeon to wave the flag and get folk to look at us as still wanting to be part of the EU. The amount of trade and physical movement of people and stuff between Scotland and England would mean that there's never realistically going to be any kind of barriers between us and it's just scaremongering to suggest there ever would be.  

 

Very much so. The fact Scotland has no port passenger links with Europe at present and very minimal freight links says it all for the economic development of Unionist Scotland.

There is a reason 75% (or thereabouts) of Scottish export is to rUK. This figure that unionists keep quoting.

These figures totally ignore the final destination of Scottish goods. However by and large they have to be shipped out from England.

[AyrTroopMajor]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

That may or may not be accurate in the long term and generally. Speaking as someone marginally closer to retirement than the start of my career who has been paying into a small pension pot for 20 odd years though, it's going to hit my own fund hard. Mine and those of pretty much everyone else with an existing pension pot unclaimed.

No, it doesn't bother me. I'm perfectly happy with the UK as my "nation". I don't see the need to separate Scottish-ness from it. And politically I'm centre right so my views are more reflective of the Westminster parliament anyway.

Sturgeon can wave as many flags as she likes, she's a very long way away from being able to deliver EU membership or anything like it for an independent Scotland. If I thought she could do that I'd be a lot less anti Independence. I strongly doubt it is achievable though. And if it is achievable, it won't happen in the next 2 years so those same big firms who want to relocate will already be firmly ensconced in Paris and Berlin before there's any certainty on where Scotland will lie.

The potential for Holyrood to be "no worse" than Westminster is really terrible argument for moving away from the status quo. You don't cause enormous upset and uncertainty to achieve nothing. You have to be able to demonstrate that it will be a significantly better position. I don't believe that can be achieved.

Contrary to popular belief, Europe doesn't run entire countries legal systems and laws. I'm happy to be part of Europe, I don't want Europe to effectively become one massive country. It isn't perfect but on balance I prefer to be in it than out of it. Just as I in fact prefer to be in the UK than out of it. I see no inconsistency there. Scotland isn't a separate country at the moment as much as we pretend it is. I never saw the point in a largely toothless parliament at Holyrood. I voted against it when it was set up and I haven't changed my mind one bit. Not sure of your age and you may not remember life without it. I do. It's added nothing to my life except more elections, more costs and more partisan politics and arguments. It has indeed got us to this point here.

As much as I disagree pretty much entirely with every single thing you said, kudos for replying to the grilling you're getting here

[Ross.]

Just now, Skyline Drifter said:

That may or may not be accurate in the long term and generally. Speaking as someone marginally closer to retirement than the start of my career who has been paying into a small pension pot for 20 odd years though, it's going to hit my own fund hard. Mine and those of pretty much everyone else with an existing pension pot unclaimed.

I may have misunderstood, I was talking about the state pension and the pay out on that. Private pensions are a whole other issue. I think they are gubbed short to medium term irrespective of any vote on independence. Long term your guess is as good as anyones as to how the markets and Sterling will perform.

[ICTChris]

2 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

Very much so. The fact Scotland has no port passenger links with Europe at present and very minimal freight links says it all for the economic development of Unionist Scotland.

There is a reason 75% (or thereabouts) of Scottish export is to rUK. This figure that unionists keep quoting.

These figures totally ignore the final destination of Scottish goods. However by and large they have to be shipped out from England.

I've seen this argument a few times on Twitter - is there any proof that businesses are shipping goods through England that are then counted as being from England?  If this is the case then why do the figures show any exports at all to the EU or rest of the world from Scotland?

[git-intae-thum]

1 minute ago, Ross. said:

I may have misunderstood, I was talking about the state pension and the pay out on that. Private pensions are a whole other issue. I think they are gubbed short to medium term irrespective of any vote on independence. Long term your guess is as good as anyones as to how the markets and Sterling will perform.

With regards to private pensions it is likely Brexit will have a far greater impact. Watch the pound and ftse over the coming years.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Ross. said:

I may have misunderstood, I was talking about the state pension and the pay out on that. Private pensions are a whole other issue. I think they are gubbed short to medium term irrespective of any vote on independence. Long term your guess is as good as anyones as to how the markets and Sterling will perform.

Yes, I wasn't talking about state pension. It will be unchanged I expect. It may even be marginally better. I was talking about personal pension funds. I've been paying into one for years and yes, it is fairly gubbed given the markets over the last decade and the long term is completely uncertain regardless of who goes where, The short term however will undeniably see the big pension companies relocate to England as that's where their customers are. Those of us in Scotland will end up with pots held by smaller hived off firms and however it happens, both lots will end up bearing the restructure costs through increased charges and reduced economies of scale.

[Paco]

4 minutes ago, git-intae-thum said:

These figures totally ignore the final destination of Scottish goods. However by and large they have to be shipped out from England.

Would that change in an independent Scotland, and if so, how and why?

As ICT Chris posted above if there are any articles or suchlike on this, I'd be interested to read.

[DI Bruce Robertson]

Great thread, P&B represents a very small percentage of the overall electorate, I would suggest to the mods that anyone entering this thread with insults is given a warning.
I'm all for Independence, but also think any supporter of that, needs to understand the concerns or reservations of those who don't. It would give me little pleasure to win the Indy vote by a couple of percentage points, so, let's have a decent, well reasoned debate in here. Thanks to the OP.

[Ross.]

Just now, git-intae-thum said:

With regards to private pensions it is likely Brexit will have a far greater impact. Watch the pound and ftse over the coming years.

Really depends on what you hold in your pension. I have a small SIPP account which is worth more now than it was pre Brexit as the majority of the companies I hold shares in trade largely in USD. As Sterling has come down, the value of their shares has gone up.

[MarkoRaj]

I may have misunderstood, I was talking about the state pension and the pay out on that. Private pensions are a whole other issue. I think they are gubbed short to medium term irrespective of any vote on independence. Long term your guess is as good as anyones as to how the markets and Sterling will perform.

This^

No idea why you think Scottish private pensions would be hit any harder than they're already being hit with Brexit

[git-intae-thum]

Just now, ICTChris said:

I've seen this argument a few times on Twitter - is there any proof that businesses are shipping goods through England that are then counted as being from England?  If this is the case then why do the figures show any exports at all to the EU or rest of the world from Scotland?

There are no official figures as such. They are based on an unofficial survey of business. This is riddled with holes. It does not stop unionist commentators continuing to make the claim though. The best description I have found re the complexities of measuring this is from the autonomy Scotland blog:

"If you run a hotel in Edinburgh and lease a room to someone coming from Liverpool, does that count as a transfer of money from rUK into Scotland?

If you run a haulage company in Manchester and buy fuel in Falkirk does that count?

If you produce goods in Edinburgh then ship them to France via an English haulage company and through an English port then how does the profit break down?

What happens if a company in Dundee create something but the final packaging and shipping to customers happens in England?

Say you run a business in Glasgow but the registered office is still your old address in Bristol?"

In effect unionist claims are bollox. No one knows the real figure, but it is likely to significantly undervalue Scots exports to outside the rUK.