Independence - how would you vote?

[Reverend Maynard]

A massive opportunity presents itself. An optimistic opportunity to be bold and run our own affairs. Are you going to turn round to your kids and grandkids, many yrs from now, and say.. I shat it and voted no?

You know it's an interesting one about the future generations.

If it is a yes next year, in the immediate aftermath I don't think there will be an economic calamity , I recon things will be pretty much as they a now. My concern and guess skepticism is that such a chunk of our income will come from oil, a finite resource. What will future generations do, once that is gone?

[jmothecat]

Well said.

Anyone who goes into that voting booth and votes No after doing absolutely f**k all research into the matter is a scumbag quite frankly.

I've felt with this referendum that most folk who have made up their minds (out of people I know at least) have done so based on emotion rather than research. It's the undecided's I think who are most likely to be swayed by the actual facts, hence why so much of the arguments revolve around economics.

I think the people who made their minds up when the referendum was first announced would probably vote the way they will whether it is better for the country or not.

[Mr Rational]

I hate quoting the Sun but there was a wee story in it yesterday. There's a woman up in Dalkeith I think it was that is going through chemo in order to try and prolong her life long enough to vote yes.

Now I know it is the sun, there's an angle to it and prob 100 hidden reasons as well, but as the comments bit said - if she is putting herself through hell to vote yes, there really should be no excuse for DKs not engaging and finding out the facts even if its a no vote.

It's the most important thing we will ever do politically in our lifetime, we owe it to those coming after us to at least find out the position of both parties.

[Mr. Bojangles]

Interesting points. Financially my understanding is that post idependance our income vs expenditure will give or take balance out. This includes income from oil. So to build an oil fund ( a good idea) how will we continue to fund public service to the level that we have come to expect? I don't think must folk in England are that different from us to be honest. South east may be an exception, but not the rest of the UK.

I'm 99% sure that the balance your talking about is before you take oil into it (99% of UK average - vs - 118% with oil). And like I said, it's after you pay for things like Trident, Crossrail, HS-2 etc.

Unfortunately the SE is the area that decides for the rest of us. If things were looking better financially I'd be happy to take any parts of the UK that want to come with us, but English nationalism is surprisingly strong considering many of the arguments you hear.

[John Lambies Doos]

 

Kill them with fire.

Storming off to their orange walk no doubt..

Anyway i speak to who is voting no, says we canny survive without england.. I just laugh in their foolish faces..

[Mr. Bojangles]

I hate quoting the Sun but there was a wee story in it yesterday. There's a woman up in Dalkeith I think it was that is going through chemo in order to try and prolong her life long enough to vote yes.

Now I know it is the sun, there's an angle to it and prob 100 hidden reasons as well, but as the comments bit said - if she is putting herself through hell to vote yes, there really should be no excuse for DKs not engaging and finding out the facts even if its a no vote.

It's the most important thing we will ever do politically in our lifetime, we owe it to those coming after us to at least find out the position of both parties.

I didn't see that, but I agree completely. Whatever the result (and I'm obviously on the YES side), it's vitally important that people take an active interest in this. This isn't an election we're talking about, but a decision that will almost certainly be talked about for generations to come.

[John Lambies Doos]

You know it's an interesting one about the future generations. If it is a yes next year, in the immediate aftermath I don't think there will be an economic calamity , I recon things will be pretty much as they a now. My concern and guess skepticism is that such a chunk of our income will come from oil, a finite resource. What will future generations do, once that is gone?

What does norway do? What does belgium do? Sweden. Heck, even ireland and iceland have turned things round and now have greater gdp, per person, than uk. Guess what, we feckin invented modern economics, banking and mostly everything. Are u that anti scottish to think that our people canny run a country like the rest of the world??

[Reverend Maynard]

To be fair to Reverend Maynard, I don't altogether blame people for not being interested. The media in Scotland has drawn such a laughably one-sided sketch of the 'debate' that it is hard for the disinterested observer to have any idea of what's actually going on.

Then again, that's what Yes Scotland is for.

Anyway, to answer the question of "what's so bad about the union?" Well, I differ from many supporters of independence in that my main motivation is getting away from the Westminster model, rather than towards a Scottish model, so I don't mind answering this question.

The Westminster system right now sees the government of the entire UK determined by a tiny number of swing constituencies, mostly in central/southern England, and national manifestos are written to appeal to these groups. I think the PR system in Scotland (which would surely remain after independence) is far healthier.

I think the Cabinet and Privy Council system of government in Westminster lends itself to hugely undemocratic decision-making, and Scotland often bears the brunt of it.

That's the institutional side. Then there's the political side.

The falsification of Scotland's oil prospects in the 70s set Scotland 20 years back on the road to autonomy, and there's still been no hint of apology for this. In fact there is a great deal of evidence that actively harming Scottish interests is a vote-winner down south (c.f. a significant majority of Tory MPs polled believe that there needs to be a reset of balance between 'English' interests and Scottish ones, and that since devolution Scotland has benefitted 'too much'.)

I think that Unionists in general are absolutely delighted at anything that penalises Scotland, such as Michael Moore trying to undermine Scottish interests overseas in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Scotland.

I find the obsession with 'foreignness' and borders of the Unionists - and this is a very mainstream view, not some fringe lunatics - to be most frightening of all.

I know that it's not a direct comparison because inertia and institutional continuity are important, but if you switch the situation around and say "would an independent Scotland join the Union?" then I can't imagine a single compelling reason for saying 'yes' to that.

I get where you are coming from re the Westminster system. I was very happy to have PR for the Scottish parliament. I think a federal structure , an elected president is the way to go for the UK, but of course, no major political party is going to go for that. As I have had a telling of for not being informed I'll check the yes website, as I'm not sure, will the queen still be head of state of an independant Scotland?

[I'm Brian]

You know it's an interesting one about the future generations. If it is a yes next year, in the immediate aftermath I don't think there will be an economic calamity , I recon things will be pretty much as they a now. My concern and guess skepticism is that such a chunk of our income will come from oil, a finite resource. What will future generations do, once that is gone?

They utilise all of the other natural resources that Scotland is abundant in. And then there is the whisky, food, tourism every other industry we have in Scotland.

[Mr. Bojangles]

I get where you are coming from re the Westminster system. I was very happy to have PR for the Scottish parliament. I think a federal structure , an elected president is the way to go for the UK, but of course, no major political party is going to go for that. As I have had a telling of for not being informed I'll check the yes website, as I'm not sure, will the queen still be head of state of an independant Scotland?

She will (just like Canada, Australia etc)

EDIT: And if we ever want to change it we'll have the political ability to do so.

[Mr Rational]

I'm posting this on the hoof tonight as we are having a wee work night. One thing I've noticed is this, the 'worse off' areas, apart from the pensioners that hark back to a Britain that no longer exists, I have never once found a no voter. They are all straight balls out yes, or maybe yes but we need more facts.

A few streets away, if it's detached stone bungalows, it's mainly no but there's a few DK as well. I've stopped engaging no voters, very little point, I used to think they were worth engaging but quite frankly, I can't be arsed as they are often angry and aggressive, so it's better to keep on moving.

And it's feckin getting cauld!

[Jamaldo]

I get where you are coming from re the Westminster system. I was very happy to have PR for the Scottish parliament. I think a federal structure , an elected president is the way to go for the UK, but of course, no major political party is going to go for that. As I have had a telling of for not being informed I'll check the yes website, as I'm not sure, will the queen still be head of state of an independant Scotland?

Yes, the Queen will remain the head of state of an independent Scotland until the people of Scotland were to decide otherwise. Whichever party is in government may decide to have a referendum on the monarchy in the future, but you just need to look at independent countries such as Australia who still have the Queen as their head of state. It wouldn't be an issue.

[Reverend Maynard]

You are coming across as smug and self-satisfied, in fairness, expecting a thread of dozens of people to immediately bow down in thrall to the Floating Voter. This thread's gone over many of these points literally dozens of times. I think if you had a genuine interest in the debate you'd do a bit of reading first (not necessarily on this thread... in fact, preferably on other sites) before inserting yourself at the centre of it.

You need to remember that with perhaps three or four exceptions the people who post here aren't official campaigners and it's unrealistic to expect them to act as one.

Bit harsh. :-(

VT is a smug know it all, I clearly don't know it all, hence my questions. The last few pages clearly had die hard nats posting so I thought, why not post?

Not expecting anything from anyone other than a bit of a debate. What it's for no?

[Reverend Maynard]

For Reverend Maynard's benefit:

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

Get reading mate.

I will look that up. Fair play.

[Mr. Bojangles]

The point of the thread is to share information. I don't mind doing a bit of typing if it means someone will be likely to read a bit more on the subject.

EDIT: Shouting down a new voice who is simply asking a few questions seems to be against the whole point of the thread.

[renton]

I met a couple of twins at the union recently who are studying politics and got speaking to them about the referendum. When they asked me what way I would be voting I softly told them I'm currently on the yes side but would accept more devolution. What followed was frightening as one of the twins reacted badly.

*Massive gasp*

"WHAT ALEX SALMOND IS GOING TO CLOSE THE SCHOOLS?!"

"No he's not. Scotland currently run our own education system and there is no reason to suggest this would change in independence"

"But you do realise that if you get sick you'd have to pay thousands and be left for dead?!"

"No that is like the schools and we have a more successful health system than in the rest of the UK at the moment. This is also run from Holyrood"

"But there will be no pound and we'd have to use the euro and have no money"

"Well that's more complicated but..."

"AND THEY WON'T EVEN LET US INTO THE EU!"

"But you just said we'd have to use the euro?"

"Yeah but that's only if we're lucky"

"I think you should maybe do a bit more reading on the subject"

"People like you are going to destroy this country and it scares me to think you could do this to a fellow human being" *both storm off*

I seriously haven't made that up. On the plus side a few of my friends started asking me some questions and we got talking a bit and debated things. They were fairly open minded (but hadn't thought about it) and were as shocked as me at the exchange. I think I'm studying the wrong course.

Yeah I got talking to some lass who was doing politics at uni, she was informed to the point where her major concerns were the 9 year wait to get into the EU and the loss of the British army. I take teo things away from yours anx my encounter. First there is no causal link between intelligence and ignorance, 2nd that in both encounters we are not talking to floating voters, or even soft nos - we are looking at folk with a visceral unionism who are looking for some strawman intellectual reason to vote no. They will move from bad argument to bad argument as you demolish their strawmans - they will allow no gap to appear in their armour. Finally, you have to consider that a polotics degree is full of folk wanting to get into politics, by which we can read: The Scottish Labour party; In these cases there is no point even arguing, they believe messianically in whatever Labour says. Reasoned empirical arguments are useless when faced with theae people.

[caleyjaggi]

Fair comment, no! I'm not "into" politics so haven't been following this thread/ the wider debate with the level of interest that many on here have. I'm not in any political parties or undertake political activities in my spare time. I've never voted SNP before as I've alway been sceptical , hence my question. Arguably its my vote/ folk like me that need won over to make it a resounding yes next year.If its a clear cut argument, my question should be easy to answer.

Because this is the mentality of most unionist MPs and MSPs.

[harry94]

First there is no causal link between intelligence and ignorance

That's definitely a good point. Before going to university I was of the belief that the Oxbridge population in Westminster wasn't a bad thing as it's good to have intelligent people working in politics. Since I've been around people who are supposedly considered more intellectual than others I can see that they are as uninformed and stupid on political matters as the rest of the population.

One of my friends is at Cambridge and says the same thing about life there. Place is full of the best intellectual minds in the world but they still aren't able to apply their skills to the world of politics or even understand the struggles others have.

[Reverend Maynard]

What does norway do? What does belgium do? Sweden. Heck, even ireland and iceland have turned things round and now have greater gdp, per person, than uk. Guess what, we feckin invented modern economics, banking and mostly everything. Are u that anti scottish to think that our people canny run a country like the rest of the world??

Not sure where you're getting the anti Scottish thing from??

In an independant scotland We will get £12 billion income from oil, is that right?

We need that to help fund our public services? Oil prices will fluctuate, but probably up the way, but it will be more expensive to get, so we will get maybe a bit more in the future.

But Thats still a big gap to fill when it runs out. Ireland has turned things around but at a huge cost to public services, and has really high youth unemployment. As I said the oil fund seems a good idea but we'll need to start chucking money into it straight away to build it up to a meaningful level for it to provide income in the future.

So economic uncertainty around the status of oil and the lack of it is fuelling my skepticism I suppose.

[xbl]

I think most of the points have been covered, but I also want to mention immigration. England has had a soaring population for years, whereas scotland has just passed 1975 levels. We have different needs and generally, on matters like immigration and the eu, Scotland is generally much more in favour than down south.

If we hark back to when Scotlands population was predicted to plummet, I remember even labour asking for special immigration dispensation for Scotland. We were told that one size fits all, and it was only once the snp got to power that there was grudging talk of special dispensation. Not for the good of Scotland, but purely to stop the snp.

Fast forward to now, and we have the rise of ukip, immigration caps, dawn raids, marriages being separated, new limits on foreign students, and policy which is just dog whistle racism.

Where are ukip up here? Where is the demand for the eu referendum up here? As part of the union, it doesn't matter how we vote. On immigration, we just have to take what we are given.

And thats just one reason I think the Union is a bad thing.