I have decided to vote.....

[Sergeant Wilson]

Made it this far.

Further than I did!

[1320Lichtie]

Lichtie is a vile ethnonat

WTF?

How?

[joozy]

The ludicrousness of the yes campaign is highlighted by the response to the OP here. All of these claims that the OP's concers have been 'comprehensively debunked' are a lie.

On currency union, we have the yes campaign giving equal credence to one anonymous cabinet minister quoted in the Guardian as to the main economic spokespeople of all 3 major parties who have all explicitly stated there will be no currency union. Then we have them claiming that it's ok because we will still be able to use the pound even if we don't get currency union. 'Dollarisation' is a very different thing and throws up many legitimate concerns. No voters have perfectly legitimate grounds for concern.

On Europe, again the yes campaign selectively choose to give greater credence to those who support their claims. Contrary views are dismissed or ignored. I don't think anyone doubts seriously an independent Scotland would ultimately gain access to the EU. However, the timing, terms and conditions of that accession are still highly contentious to say the least. The issue has not been resolved or debunked as some of the yes liars on here claim. As for presenting rUK exit from the EU as a fait accompli, it isn't. Even if it were, Scotland would have to consider seriously the effect of an rUK exit on its economy. After all, rUK would be a far more important trading partner for Scotland than the rest of the UK combined. Would it be better for Scotland ultimately being part of a UK outside the EU than having our most important trading partner leaving the club just as ww are joining. Again, the issue is far from resolved.

The same can be said for issues like austerity. As Scotland is currently running a larger fiscal deficit than rUK and in the majority of the Scottish government's own oil forecast scenarios this gap is projected to widen over the next few years. Not many people doubt that an independent Scotland will face higher borrowing costs than rUK (lower liquidity, relatively unknown to investors etc), so it is unclear how an independent Scotland can rein back on austerity while increasing public spending and launching a North Sea oil fund. Again, I'm sure others will take a different view, but these are legitimate questions which have not been answered. The yes voters on here will claim that they've been debunked - but they're living in a solipsistic bubble.

[placidcasual]

The ludicrousness of the yes campaign is highlighted by the response to the OP here. All of these claims that the OP's concers have been 'comprehensively debunked' are a lie.

On currency union, we have the yes campaign giving equal credence to one anonymous cabinet minister quoted in the Guardian as to the main economic spokespeople of all 3 major parties who have all explicitly stated there will be no currency union. Then we have them claiming that it's ok because we will still be able to use the pound even if we don't get currency union. 'Dollarisation' is a very different thing and throws up many legitimate concerns. No voters have perfectly legitimate grounds for concern.

On Europe, again the yes campaign selectively choose to give greater credence to those who support their claims. Contrary views are dismissed or ignored. I don't think anyone doubts seriously an independent Scotland would ultimately gain access to the EU. However, the timing, terms and conditions of that accession are still highly contentious to say the least. The issue has not been resolved or debunked as some of the yes liars on here claim. As for presenting rUK exit from the EU as a fait accompli, it isn't. Even if it were, Scotland would have to consider seriously the effect of an rUK exit on its economy. After all, rUK would be a far more important trading partner for Scotland than the rest of the UK combined. Would it be better for Scotland ultimately being part of a UK outside the EU than having our most important trading partner leaving the club just as ww are joining. Again, the issue is far from resolved.

The same can be said for issues like austerity. As Scotland is currently running a larger fiscal deficit than rUK and in the majority of the Scottish government's own oil forecast scenarios this gap is projected to widen over the next few years. Not many people doubt that an independent Scotland will face higher borrowing costs than rUK (lower liquidity, relatively unknown to investors etc), so it is unclear how an independent Scotland can rein back on austerity while increasing public spending and launching a North Sea oil fund. Again, I'm sure others will take a different view, but these are legitimate questions which have not been answered. The yes voters on here will claim that they've been debunked - but they're living in a solipsistic bubble.

But but but....FOODBANKS!!!

[MarkoRaj]

The ludicrousness of the yes campaign is highlighted by the response to the OP here. All of these claims that the OP's concers have been 'comprehensively debunked' are a lie.

On currency union, we have the yes campaign giving equal credence to one anonymous cabinet minister quoted in the Guardian as to the main economic spokespeople of all 3 major parties who have all explicitly stated there will be no currency union. Then we have them claiming that it's ok because we will still be able to use the pound even if we don't get currency union. 'Dollarisation' is a very different thing and throws up many legitimate concerns. No voters have perfectly legitimate grounds for concern.

On Europe, again the yes campaign selectively choose to give greater credence to those who support their claims. Contrary views are dismissed or ignored. I don't think anyone doubts seriously an independent Scotland would ultimately gain access to the EU. However, the timing, terms and conditions of that accession are still highly contentious to say the least. The issue has not been resolved or debunked as some of the yes liars on here claim. As for presenting rUK exit from the EU as a fait accompli, it isn't. Even if it were, Scotland would have to consider seriously the effect of an rUK exit on its economy. After all, rUK would be a far more important trading partner for Scotland than the rest of the UK combined. Would it be better for Scotland ultimately being part of a UK outside the EU than having our most important trading partner leaving the club just as ww are joining. Again, the issue is far from resolved.

The same can be said for issues like austerity. As Scotland is currently running a larger fiscal deficit than rUK and in the majority of the Scottish government's own oil forecast scenarios this gap is projected to widen over the next few years. Not many people doubt that an independent Scotland will face higher borrowing costs than rUK (lower liquidity, relatively unknown to investors etc), so it is unclear how an independent Scotland can rein back on austerity while increasing public spending and launching a North Sea oil fund. Again, I'm sure others will take a different view, but these are legitimate questions which have not been answered. The yes voters on here will claim that they've been debunked - but they're living in a solipsistic bubble.

The currency will be up for debate just like everything else. The idea that the UK government will dig their heels in and not play ball is laughable. If it comes to using other options you are correct in saying there may be concerns but what do you seriously expect? There are hundreds of different currencies in the world, what makes the pound so special? Yes it would beneficial to keep the pound but the idea of a country collapsing because it has to change currency is ridiculous.

Your post actually highlights that people can get confused over the scaremongering. You have said that "I don't think anyone doubts seriously an independent Scotland would ultimately gain access to the EU" and yet what the OP has actually suggested is that he has concerns that we don't have a plan b in case we don't get in.

[MarkoRaj]

With regards austerity, something the no voters tend to do is take recent years in isolation when it comes to the deficit when really Scotland has run at a lower deficit for the 30 years prior and will do in the future when we start to see the benefit of "record north sea investment" last year and the budget is based on the renewed oil forecasts.

[1320Lichtie]

Stolen from FB, really good piece I thought seeing as everyone's arguing about the finer details...

This is the most important political decision my generation will ever make and I feel very strongly about it.

Firstly, let me be absolutely clear - the ongoing political and economic situation in the UK is not 'normal' and the status quo, or whatever variation of the status quo might or might not be on offer in the event of a No vote, is not the best of both worlds.

We have the most expensive public transport (run by private businesses for profit), energy (ditto), the longest working hours, the most inefficient tax system, the lowest pensions, the most unequal and skewed economy, the most centralised concentration of political power in Europe and both a government and an opposition in Westminster committed to this status quo, including the dismantling of the NHS to replace it with a US style system that puts profit before people. We live in the most unequal society in Europe. I repeat - this is NOT normal.

The imbalance of the UK versus other European countries, and those further afield, is proven by publicly available data whether you want to look at in-work and child poverty, privatisation of public services, local democracy, land ownership, pensions or any number of other measures. These are facts (citations on request or you could just google it and find out for yourself instead of moaning there isnt enough info to make up your mind) but they are also things that can be changed if we choose to change them. It doesn't have to be this way. It is only difficult to change them because it goes against the neoliberal consensus which has become the politics of all 3 Westminster parties over the last 30 years (when they're not knee-jerking even further to the right to satisfy UKIP swing voters in the shires).

Politics is a question of priorities. I think the parties at Westminster have their priorities wrong. I think theyve become blinded to whats right for the people they serve by whats good for big business, that they think their economic orthodoxy trickles wealth down, instead of up. Is it more important that we invest in nuclear weapons or education? Aircraft carriers or healthcare? Should private companies be able to make obscene profits from heating our homes or mass transit systems, or our ill health? Do you want to continue to live in a Me First society or share more of the success of our nation with the people who make that success possible by putting All of Us first (with thanks to The Common Weal)?

Some of my friends (please correct me if Ive misunderstood your points of view) are voting no because they think Westminster will change its tune with a Labour government in power (worth remembering who deregulated the banking industry, stole the pension pot, began the privatisation of the NHS), or because they think the status quo is as good as it gets (as history shows, it never is), or because they think some sort of anarchist uprising will overthrow the powers that be at some indeterminate point in the future (it wont and its not desirable anyway), or because they think we are stronger (whatever that means) with the most successful political Union in history (again, by what criteria? Successful for whom?).

Some of them are voting no because they hate Alex Salmond although he and the SNP administration at Holyrood were democratically elected to a majority in a system designed to stop that happening yet still, after a length of time that would see most governments ousted, have the highest approval ratings of any leader or party in the UK three times as many residents trust Holyrood than Westminster to look after Scottish interests.

I'm voting Yes because I don't believe this is as good as it gets, because I see a Labour party thats turned its back on its own principles and is trying to out-Tory the Tories (a race to the bottom they can never win), because I don't believe in an anarchist uprising, nor that the electorate in much of the rest of the UK believes it's either necessary or desirable and because a Yes vote is not a vote for the SNP or Alex Salmond, its a vote for change to the rotten-to-the-core status quo.

I'm voting Yes because we have a clear and present opportunity to change things, I hope for the better, by the simple act of putting a cross in a box. I'm under no illusions that a Yes vote will suddenly result in a land of milk and honey. It'll be hard. But when was anything worthwhile ever easy? I believe it is worth it for the prize of a better, fairer place to bring up my daughter, and for her to bring up hers, for the chance to take back control of the levers that can make this country, our society a better place to live.

Decisions made here have made Scotland a better place and protected our citizens from some of the worst of the current governments attack on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. Its also worth pointing out that we can vote for whoever we like in the first elections in an independent Scotland, meaning were far more likely to have a government that truly represents the views of all of us who live here and, yes that includes Tory & UKIP voters. Its not going to be some socialist utopia but it is going to reflect the views of all of us in a way that the first past the post Westminster system doesnt. Recent propaganda from the No side has boasted that Scotland gets the government it votes for two thirds of the time. Wouldnt it be better if we got the government we voted for all the time rather than hope that the rest of the UK votes the same way?

The No campaign have based their, self-styled, Project Fear (their term not mine) on threatening Scotland with doom and gloom economic and political prognostications (which have been proven false) and by spreading uncertainty amongst the electorate about what the future might hold as if they have a Unionist crystal ball that they wont let us play with if we choose not to play by their rules. They profess to love us at the same time as telling us they'll f**k us up if we leave (even if it fucks them up too).

Id rather take the uncertainty of what an independent Scotland could be than the certainty of what the United Kingdom has become.

[joozy]

http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/07/13/the-scottish-government-is-misleading-scots-about-oil/

Here's an alternative reading on the Scottish government's oil forecasts.

With regards austerity, something the no voters tend to do is take recent years in isolation when it comes to the deficit when really Scotland has run at a lower deficit for the 30 years prior and will do in the future when we start to see the benefit of "record north sea investment" last year and the budget is based on the renewed oil forecasts.

[P45]

But but but....FOODBANKS!!!

That's your contribution?

How utterly embarrassing for you.

[MarkoRaj]

http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/07/13/the-scottish-government-is-misleading-scots-about-oil/

Here's an alternative reading on the Scottish government's oil forecasts.

Here's another.

From Andrew Whittaker in the Scotsman (hardly a bastion of independence thinking) on 12 July:

Professor Sir Donald MacKay, a founding director of an oil operating company and a former economic adviser to the secretary of state for Scotland, insisted, though, that the OBR forecasts “stand in stark contrast to the views of those who have lived with the oil industry over many years”.

He said: “Unless the oil price falls out of bed in the next two years, the tax revenue accruing will be much higher than that estimated by the OBR.”

It seems to me that the OBR - note: which is funded by the Treasury - may be under-estimating the scale of oil resources. Both the Labour and Conservative UK governments of the 1970's were not honest with the people of Scotland (or the UK, for that matter) about the scale of the oil resources. Consequently, it is not hard to understand why many people in Scotland are skeptical about trusting the OBR and Treasury analysis.

If the previous oil resources had been invested equitably around the UK, then most people in Scotland would say 'fair enough'. But the reality is that London and the SE benefitted disproportionately from the oil wealth - and as someone who lives in London, I benefit from that. But I wouldn't pretend that it is fair, because it is not.

It's all guesswork - I can accept that that the Scottish government's figures might be slightly optimistic. Can you agree that the chances are the OBR will be overly pessimistic?

The one thing we can surely agree on is that north sea oil is actually a good thing. The fact is Scotland's revenues will be higher as % of GDP so therefore the deficit could be reduced if necessary. I would actually welcome more public spending initially but I could see the argument against it.

[Confidemus]

That's your contribution?

How utterly embarrassing for you.

I wouldn't pay it any heed, every single post he makes is an absolute embarrassment.

A cretin of a poster.

[AUFC90]

http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2014/07/13/the-scottish-government-is-misleading-scots-about-oil/

Here's an alternative reading on the Scottish government's oil forecasts.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/professor-westminster-is-ignoring-a-mountain-of-black-gold/

And here's another one. Although I doubt you'll read it.

[Ad Lib]

Firstly, let me be absolutely clear - the ongoing political and economic situation in the UK is not 'normal' and the status quo, or whatever variation of the status quo might or might not be on offer in the event of a No vote, is not the best of both worlds.

It is pretty normal if you look at the wider global predicament, tbf.

We have the most expensive public transport (run by private businesses for profit), energy (ditto), the longest working hours, the most inefficient tax system, the lowest pensions, the most unequal and skewed economy, the most centralised concentration of political power in Europe and both a government and an opposition in Westminster committed to this status quo, including the dismantling of the NHS to replace it with a US style system that puts profit before people. We live in the most unequal society in Europe. I repeat - this is NOT normal.

Independence doesn't suddenly make the operation of buses or trains cheaper.

Independence doesn't suddenly cut the prices at which energy providers buy and sell on wholesale markets and then sell on to consumers.

We don't have the least efficient tax system and for upwards of a decade an independent Scotland would in any case be relying upon using a very similar one including for administration and IT.

We don't have the longest working hours. According to the OECD, we work fewer hours a year than Korea, Greece, Chile, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Turkey, Israel, Ireland, USA, Czech Republic, Slovakia, New Zealand, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Canada, Iceland and Australia. We are BELOW the OECD average for hours worked. We are within 4 hours a year of Finland and Spain and only 5 countries in the OECD work on average more than 100 fewer hours than us per year (which is about half an hour shorter working day).

We do not have the lowest pensions. We have a low state pension but our occupational pensions sector is slightly better than most European counterparts. It also ignores the other entitlements those who are old and on low-incomes are entitled to from the state outside of the strict scope of the pension. Complaining about this at a time when the UK has, actually against its better judgment, introduced a triple lock on the state pension, which means it has to rise in real terms for the foreseeable future, is quite peculiar.

The NHS is not being dismantled, nor is it being replaced with a "US-style system". People in Germany would laugh at you if you suggested this. The UK has one of the most state-orientated healthcare systems in the world. France, the country just across the water, has 40% of its hospitals in private ownership. It is consistently ranked the best healthcare system in the world across a range of indicators on quality and cost.

Thus it quickly becomes clear that we are only "not normal" if you misrepresent what the UK actually is.

[joozy]

I've already read that - unlike many of the yes posters on here I find it helps to try and see what both sides are claiming. As the FT article I posted says, predicting revenues from hydrocarbons is volatile. Indeed, the FT blog I posted has a useful chart displaying production forecasts versus actual outturns. You should try reading it.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/professor-westminster-is-ignoring-a-mountain-of-black-gold/

[Ira Gaines]

If you're talking about trolls. leave it at that. I replied to the second portion of your post, as most would have realised. As you would have realised, was your head not up your own arse,

You're a fucking moron. What part of "deliberately" do you not comprehend? Just go back to obsessing about Rangers. I'd say it's all you're good for, but that'd imply it's good.

[Confidemus]

unlike many of the yes posters on here I find it helps to try and see what both sides are claiming.

What utter, utter shite!

[boabinoban]

^^^^^WTF?

Further evidence that the guy needs help and shouldn't be on this forum unsupervised, or anywhere else for that matter.

[P45]

The ludicrousness of the yes campaign is highlighted by the response to the OP here.

I've already read that - unlike many of the yes posters on here I find it helps to try and see what both sides are claiming.

Well at least you made some points without coming on and trolling straight away.

Oh, no wait.

[placidcasual]

I wouldn't pay it any heed, every single post he makes is an absolute embarrassment.

A cretin of a poster.

Hip Hop Henman speaks.

[joozy]

Well at least you made some points without coming on and trolling straight away.

Oh, no wait.

Why not try and address some of the points made then?