A Question For No Voters

[Gaz]

This is a question I've asked the few people I know who are No voters, but haven't (by their own admission) received a reasonable response. I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely interested in the answer. I'm going to lift my question almost word-for-word from a post I made the other day.

I can fully understand that people are concerned, however rationally / irrationally you want to look at it, about finances after independence if the Yes movement wins - pensions, savings accounts, interest rates, welfare, etc.. I can fully understand that people believe finances in an independent Scotland will be a risk.

My question is thus: what is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union, which is currently one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt (and this debt is rising by over a hundred billion pounds a year) and has a basket-case of a failed economy based largely on financial speculators and the London property market, and an upcoming pensions crisis caused by a refusal to admit that immigration is the solution? What is it about this financial situation the union is in that makes you believe your finances are safer than in an independent Scotland?

As I've said, not having a go - I just haven't had a No voter give me a satisfactory (again, by their own admission) answer.

Over to you.

[Casual Bystander]

My question to No voters is, "why do you hate Scotland so much?"

[Homer Thompson]

This is a question I've asked the few people I know who are No voters, but haven't (by their own admission) received a reasonable response. I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely interested in the answer. I'm going to lift my question almost word-for-word from a post I made the other day.

I can fully understand that people are concerned, however rationally / irrationally you want to look at it, about finances after independence if the Yes movement wins - pensions, savings accounts, interest rates, welfare, etc.. I can fully understand that people believe finances in an independent Scotland will be a risk.

My question is thus: what is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union, which is currently one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt (and this debt is rising by over a hundred billion pounds a year) and has a basket-case of a failed economy based largely on financial speculators and the London property market, and an upcoming pensions crisis caused by a refusal to admit that immigration is the solution? What is it about this financial situation the union is in that makes you believe your finances are safer than in an independent Scotland?

As I've said, not having a go - I just haven't had a No voter give me a satisfactory (again, by their own admission) answer.

Over to you.

Its something I cant get my head round either. In much the same way, I cant understand this need for "definitive answers" to questions about independence. There are no guarantees things will stay the same in the event of a No vote. Why are they not asking for "definitive answers" on what will happen to things like the NHS, Scottish gov funding etc if the vote is No?

[Well Well]

So Salmond with his increase in Haggis and Whiskey sales has you convinced? It's a global recession mate. What a terrible argument

and what a terrible response

[Gaz]

So Salmond with his increase in Haggis and Whiskey sales has you convinced? It's a global recession mate. What a terrible argument

We don't export whiskey. 0/10

[Ross.]

So Salmond with his increase in Haggis and Whiskey sales has you convinced? It's a global recession mate. What a terrible argument

Are you one of the "Brits out of Ireland but keep Scotland British" brigade?

The question that was posed is a very good one. A no vote carries just as much, if not more financial uncertainty than a yes vote.

[Confidemus]

So Salmond with his increase in Haggis and Whiskey sales has you convinced? It's a global recession mate. What a terrible argument

I want you to go and sit on the stairs and think about what you've done here today.

No one is impressed.

[Biscuits]

So Salmond with his increase in Haggis and Whiskey sales has you convinced? It's a global recession mate. What a terrible argument

That's not what he's saying - read the post again. He's asking why is it more of a risk to be independent than to stay in the uk.

So what's your answer?

[Mr Bairn]

upcoming pensions crisis caused by a refusal to admit that immigration is the solution?

Wait, what?

Immigration is only the solution if it increases total tax revenue. Now of course the majority of immigrants do work and pay taxes, however them coming over and getting a job is at the expense of a British person getting a job. The total tax revenue is exactly the same, and the government is on hook for social money for the Brit who is out of work.

Now, if the total number of jobs in the economy was increased, now we're talking. Large scale projects like HS2 and the proposed Heathrow expansion will provide this short term, but at the government's expense. Perhaps the real solution is encouraging more people to start small and medium sized businesses.

[Gordon EF]

Wait, what?

Immigration is only the solution if it increases total tax revenue. Now of course the majority of immigrants do work and pay taxes, however them coming over and getting a job is at the expense of a British person getting a job. The total tax revenue is exactly the same, and the government is on hook for social money for the Brit who is out of work.

Wrong. Immigration also works against the aging population.

[strichener]

Wait, what?

Immigration is only the solution if it increases total tax revenue. Now of course the majority of immigrants do work and pay taxes, however them coming over and getting a job is at the expense of a British person getting a job. The total tax revenue is exactly the same, and the government is on hook for social money for the Brit who is out of work.

Now, if the total number of jobs in the economy was increased, now we're talking. Large scale projects like HS2 and the proposed Heathrow expansion will provide this short term, but at the government's expense. Perhaps the real solution is encouraging more people to start small and medium sized businesses.

This is exactly what has happened.

[Mr Bairn]

Wrong. Immigration also works against the aging population.

Huh?

This is exactly what has happened.

How exactly does bringing immigrants in to the country entice businesses to take on more staff?

[Gordon EF]

Huh?

Immigrants tend to be younger than the average age of the population and have more children. Paying for pensions was easy when 5% of the population were pensioners. When they're hitting 30%, we're deep in the shit. Immigrants keep the working age:pension age ratio higher.

[Taza]

Whilst doing my rounds last night, I thought I'd try out a new question on No voters. ''Whit the f**k min?''

Seriously, at this stage of the campaign, I'd have thought all the misinformed would have been totally savvy and Yes would be skooshing all polls. There is obviously a lot of 'enlightening' still to be done, as the majority of our electorate surely cannot be the selfish, spineless, stupid and racist, sectarian bigot demograph.

Luckily, I have finally taken delivery of 'The Wee Blue Book' to aid my mission.

One total muppet asked me last night, ''How am a meant to pay mur rent, when they take the pound aff us?''

[Mr Bairn]

Immigrants tend to be younger than the average age of the population and have more children. Paying for pensions was easy when 5% of the population were pensioners. When they're hitting 30%, we're deep in the shit. Immigrants keep the working age:pension age ratio higher.

More people of working age in the country doesn't necessarily mean more tax ratio though.

[Broken Algorithms]

This is a question I've asked the few people I know who are No voters, but haven't (by their own admission) received a reasonable response. I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely interested in the answer. I'm going to lift my question almost word-for-word from a post I made the other day.

I can fully understand that people are concerned, however rationally / irrationally you want to look at it, about finances after independence if the Yes movement wins - pensions, savings accounts, interest rates, welfare, etc.. I can fully understand that people believe finances in an independent Scotland will be a risk.

My question is thus: what is it about an independent Scotland that you believe is more risky than staying in the union, which is currently one-and-a-half trillion pounds in debt (and this debt is rising by over a hundred billion pounds a year) and has a basket-case of a failed economy based largely on financial speculators and the London property market, and an upcoming pensions crisis caused by a refusal to admit that immigration is the solution? What is it about this financial situation the union is in that makes you believe your finances are safer than in an independent Scotland?

As I've said, not having a go - I just haven't had a No voter give me a satisfactory (again, by their own admission) answer.

Over to you.

Previously a No voter, now undecided and if anything, pretty much siding Yes.

Its a completely valid point, and one where the more it is considered, the more incredulous in initial statement is. For years people were under the impression that the financial side of things were off. Naturally, nobody questioned the UK economy prior to late 2007 when the recession started. Its clear that neo-liberal politics isn't working. While Britain is no longer in recession, we have trillions of debt as mentioned, and yet the South of England is seeing yet another housing bubble which has even been highlighted by the IMF as a concern.

Meanwhile, it is more and more prevelant that we've got a different political outlook compared to those in that area. We're involved in various conflicts across the globe, and we've seen heightened surveillence through GCHQ. This is on top of our nuclear weapons system which is, with no pun intended, costing us a bomb. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister comes out at compares Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler.

We've not even touched base on London yet too. We're told that we're better together, and that a pound spent in Croydon has more monetary value than in Strathclyde. While London is undoubtedly a key financial center, why should we suffer in terms of investment to it. It isn't even just ourselves. Even the North of England could have similar investment. Instead we get more spending on the likes of HS2 and Crossrail. Meanwhile, we're seeing cutbacks to those who need it the most.

The UK offers us a chance to remain as a world power. But more and more I'm asking myself the question why do we need to be a world power? We can't even look after our own affairs when we're passed something on. Is it necesarily a good thing to even be a world power? What does it mean? A shit tonne of debt and getting involved in conflicts abroad? Threatening more sanctions against Vladimir Putin over Ukraine? Sending more data to the USA for surveillence analysis?

If anything, the one thing holding me back from either side is the fact that major corporations seem to be getting away with murder in terms of tax evasion. Which in turn raises the question, if Scotland gains independence, how would this be handled?

In terms of financial risks, as I said to my friend a few days ago, we could financially collapse but then long term Britain is anything but solid at the moment. Even still, I keep thinking about the quote in Fight Club: It's only when you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

There's definitely an issue with scepticism with older voters.

I think that might have been a lot less if the SNP had said they were going to disband when independence had been achieved.

[Gordon EF]

More people of working age in the country doesn't necessarily mean more tax ratio though.

Yes, in the same way a whale isn't necessarily heavier than a mouse.

[Well Well]

There's definitely an issue with scepticism with older voters.

I think that might have been a lot less if the SNP had said they were going to disband when independence had been achieved.

I don't understand that why would they, they would have as much right to shape Scotlands future as any other party post independence.

[ayrmad]

Previously a No voter, now undecided and if anything, pretty much siding Yes.

Its a completely valid point, and one where the more it is considered, the more incredulous in initial statement is. For years people were under the impression that the financial side of things were off. Naturally, nobody questioned the UK economy prior to late 2007 when the recession started. Its clear that neo-liberal politics isn't working. While Britain is no longer in recession, we have trillions of debt as mentioned, and yet the South of England is seeing yet another housing bubble which has even been highlighted by the IMF as a concern.

Meanwhile, it is more and more prevelant that we've got a different political outlook compared to those in that area. We're involved in various conflicts across the globe, and we've seen heightened surveillence through GCHQ. This is on top of our nuclear weapons system which is, with no pun intended, costing us a bomb. Meanwhile, our Prime Minister comes out at compares Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler.

We've not even touched base on London yet too. We're told that we're better together, and that a pound spent in Croydon has more monetary value than in Strathclyde. While London is undoubtedly a key financial center, why should we suffer in terms of investment to it. It isn't even just ourselves. Even the North of England could have similar investment. Instead we get more spending on the likes of HS2 and Crossrail. Meanwhile, we're seeing cutbacks to those who need it the most.

The UK offers us a chance to remain as a world power. But more and more I'm asking myself the question why do we need to be a world power? We can't even look after our own affairs when we're passed something on. Is it necesarily a good thing to even be a world power? What does it mean? A shit tonne of debt and getting involved in conflicts abroad? Threatening more sanctions against Vladimir Putin over Ukraine? Sending more data to the USA for surveillence analysis?

If anything, the one thing holding me back from either side is the fact that major corporations seem to be getting away with murder in terms of tax evasion. Which in turn raises the question, if Scotland gains independence, how would this be handled?

In terms of financial risks, as I said to my friend a few days ago, we could financially collapse but then long term Britain is anything but solid at the moment. Even still, I keep thinking about the quote in Fight Club: It's only when you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Can I just say that I took myself to the gutter, the best thing that ever happened in my life.