Independence Referendum: Have you decided?

[lkc]

Not had time to sit and write a full reply :laugh: i think i'll just condense it and trim down the replies to more direct points :laugh:




Yet not one has even attempted to re-join a union and not one country as wealthy as us has "failed", yes, failure IS possible, but it's also possible in the union, as we saw recently.

If they voted for it in the first place then they're hardly going to want to rejoin are they. And I'm not talking about failure I'm talking about struggling to deal with unemployment and dodgy economies. Kosovo still isn't recognised fully as an independent state and Ireland suffered dreadfully in the last recession even with EU support.

We also have no clear idea on what will happen after a no vote, they can't even make up their mind what powers we will get and there is rebellion backstage about the Barnett formula continuing, it will likely not go through! what happens if it doesn't? no answers.

We probably have a clearer idea with a no vote than a yes vote. It's not like the last 300 years can't provide us with any clues both good and bad. The fact is we're being asked to choose between remaining as we are with a few more devolved powers or separating without a clear idea of how it's going to work.

In an independent Scotland? no. If a yes vote goes through, her position is totally untenable. The only real option for Labour (and the tories, up to a point) is to re-brand to become more desirable to voters. I also believe in a Yes vote, the SNP will somewhat disband having achieved their aim. I could see a few new parties forming.

Scotland has traditionally voted Labour since the 1960s with the SNP only coming to prominence recently due to the fight for independence. As you say the SNP will probably disband and form new parties which will splinter them somewhat leaving who in charge? Yep, Labour!

Scare tactics. Do you really believe that just because we're independent politically, the UK will stop trading with us? Do you really think they trade with us now because of a political union or is it out of pity? I'm liable to believe it's more because the products are good and relatively local, neither of which will change if we run our own affairs.

Not scare tactics at all. We don't know what will happen to our interest rates and currency if we go independent which may have a huge knock-on effect on how we trade. Consumers will go elsewhere if goods start costing more due to increased interest rates, extra taxes or simply items costing more to make as the price of raw materials goes up.

Ability to control tax revenues, set our own rates of vat, laws on wages etc would be a start.

We have a certain amount of control over our tax revenue but we choose not to use it. It's also one of the things promised to us if we remain in the UK. What confuses me though is how iScotland think they will be able to have control over taxes, minimum wage etc. when a currency union will have financial constraints to keep things on an even keel for both countries

I don't think anybody has claimed that. The problem is not just healthy eating as such, it runs deeper than that in more deprived areas. Just saying they will eat healthier because we are independent or will still just eat **** because we're not is skimming over the real problems and actually borderline insulting to those who live in such areas.

The emoticon at the end of that sentence was a clear indication that I wasn't being serious reinforced with the next two words in the paragraph written to demonstrate what was my main argument. But you knew that didn't you

However, as you wish to discuss it the fact remains that both Holyrood and Westminster have been throwing money at why life expectancy is so low in parts of Scotland through both medical and sociological research. Yet despite some pretty clear results and various initiatives to improve quality of life they have not been able to solve the problem. Is independence the magic bullet? If it proves to be the case I will be very happy but sadly I have my doubts. It's a complex problem which will be part of a multitude of complex problems a new government will need to tackle and it will depend on who we vote for in 2016.

And there in lies the problem. I've highlighted one phrase in particular. Something else is indeed broken... and partly it is money. The cost of living does not match what benefits give but that is (almost) another matter and we could go on all night about work and getting people off of benefits (some are in such a rut it is not always a quick process). Independence will not sort it? neither will staying in the system that has lead to this. People can sort it? well maybe if we had a government that had the tools to give to the people, they could.....

Actually in relation to child poverty I'm not sure it is money. Our benefit system is very generous where children are concerned so there has to be another reason for those living in poverty. Parents not knowing what they can claim? Possibly... I have other thoughts about this but it feels a bit Daily Mail and that makes me feel dirty *shudders*
What does concern me is the lack of social housing for families and youngsters starting out and that's a problem I want to see fixed. I think we all agree the current system doesn't work too well and needs to be changed but a Labour government won't do it. They could have worked to reverse the right to buy schemes and changed legislation so that councils could start investing in housing stock again the last time they were in power and yet chose not to. Unfortunately we are at a real risk of having a lacklustre Labour government after 2016

But that's the problem.... Aberdeen is just a glorified depot for Westminster. It's getting the money in, so why bother putting money into it? As a percentage of the economy, iScotland it will be much greater than UK at present, so to say nothing would change is pretty bleak.. if i were you i'd leave! sounds like those up there have accepted their fate! must be all the grey..... :laugh:

And it will remain a glorified depot for Holyrood too as most of Scotland's population reside in the central belt so that's where the money will stay. And yes it is pretty depressing but never fear there are quite a few of us who haven't accepted our fate yet. If we don't get the investment we badly need we're going to annex the region and keep our lovely oil money to ourselves iAberdeen&shire come 2020

It's not that simple... Firstly, why? security and ease of trade. Particularly in the first few years of iScotland. This is not a position we are fixed to... we could theoretically have CU for 5-10 years then change currency. There is a school of thought that Sterlingisation may be better long term however if we get it right, which is more of a risk to start off with, basically it is risk management.

My bold. Except the risk is not being managed that well and yes, I know you're going to argue that it's rUK's fault for not allowing negotiations in the first place but seriously? We're voting on the future of our country based on ifs and buts which is completely irresponsible. The fact the SNP thought they'd still go for independence knowing they were asking us to gamble does not inspire confidence in their ability to run the country successfully.

Why would it?

Can you really not see that the promises the Yes campaign are making are with little or no guarantee? Anything can happen in the negotiation stage and there is a strong liklihood of us not getting everything they've promised us in a Yes vote. Once again the reason there is not a clear Yes is because we're being asked to vote for independence without having the infrastructure in place for the electorate to know that it will succeed. Some of us have enough doubt in our mind to way up the pros and cons and decide that it isn't worth the risk.

Why would we be? People will go for the products they want at the price they are willing to pay. They aren't going to say "oh, they have their own government now? **** that". In fact, most foreign countries are supportive of this, not that it will create more trade either, they equally aren't going to go "oh, they have their own government now? great, i'll buy more" (at least not long term, the interest in the indy ref may increase exposure for scottish products worldwide for a while).

By shunned economically I mean because if our economy suffers our goods will become more expensive to export and the rest of the world will simply go elsewhere to buy at a cheaper rate what we sell. We honestly don't know what is going to happen to our economy but we will be the ones who have to weather it. The fact that Mark Carney has stated that the Bank of England has contingency plans in case of economic instability in the wake of a Yes vote indicates there is a risk and we don't know how big it is.

Maybe they assume (rightly or wrongly) Westminster will then do what is best for their country too?

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean Westminster will do what's best for rUK or Scotland? Because when it comes to sharing assets I don't think they'll care much about us and simply look after rUK

what do they gain by saying no? people go on about banking security "should the worst happen", they'd need to bail us out...but seeing as the banks are already located there (and some say they may move their plaques), they would have to anyway in the event of a yes or a no vote! Meanwhile, if they say yes, their currency gains some security of value.

They don't need to gain anything. they can quite simply decide that we voted no so we're on our own which also means no commitment to help should things go wrong. If you're all so convinced they will be petty enough to punish us in the event of a no vote why are you trusting them with a shared currency.

Doing so would see us walking away from uk debt. As said, if we get it right, that is desirable (as AAM have already stated). However it harms our security and credit rating and given that we will need to borrow to set this up, that is not desirable at this time.

So once again a gamble based on guess work and possibilities

We would be regardless.... unless you're suggesting the UK would commit financial suicide in order to try and hurt Scotland.

No I'm not suggesting that but it's not financial suicide for rUK to simply say no to a currency union. If they did agree then it still gives them control over us through as we'd need to agree to certain financial constraints which both sides will have to agree on. Even the SNP admit to this

or we could also thrive, the Scottish government as a whole has an ok record, what makes people think they will instantly ruin us through incompetence?

Meanwhile at Westminster, they've never ever, ever ****ed up.....

The Scottish government has an ok record when they have the UK as a whole to back them up. Independently they are untried but if we take into account how they handled the spiralling costs of constructing the Scottish Parliament Building or the M74 then I think we can guess.

Agree. But it is still a case of better late than never i guess. However, also it is worth noting that oil is scarcer and we could well have huge reserves to the west (i say could, we've not been allowed to explore due to trident however on the initial survey that was allowed, a significant amount of oil was found, which has been covered up post haste).

But is it enough to cover the money we will require to set up iScotland and an oil fund? We don't know do we?

If Westminster agree to it... the only reason they did now was because they were so confident it'd be no! hell, devolution itself was an attempt to stave off full independence!!

Then let's do it differently next time and convince them it's a good idea before we even get to the referendum about holding a referendum. I'm a bit pissed off with science at the moment - politics might be my next move as I doubt I can do worse than this lot

Or now with the threat of leaving gone, they could do what they want.

Again why? Since why would having a pissed off nation attached to them make any sense?

Ermm..... we will still techincally be part of the UK until May 2016 regardless..... so we will be able to use these mean time. There will be a long period of transition but according to no, the sky will fall in on Friday in the event of a Yes vote! it all falls apart in one day, it won't no matter what happens!.

The only immediate worry I have is what the markets will do in the event of a Yes vote. But it doesn't stop me from also thinking long term about the other things we need to sort in in the event of iScotland and that includes looking after our citizens should everything not go the way we've been told it will

As for the EU, the UK are refusing to ask the process (yup we even need to go through them to find out what would happen with US!!), if people are seriously suggesting the EU wouldn't want a "rich" oil producing, resource heavy nation to join at all, that's crazy talk. The only negative voice has been from Spain trying to stave off their own indyref from the Basques. But some have alos come out and said there will be no problem, the talk of being forced to join the Euro is a red-herring, recent member states to have joined have no timetable to sign up to it.

Again assumptions and fairly big ones as we don't actually know what assets we will have until the negotiations take place. Quite a lot of Europe will not accept us unless it is quite clear we are a "rich" oil producing, resource heavy nation and not another Ireland. I would hope that if the negotiations are handled badly we get Article 48 as a way of assimilating. Otherwise Article 49 will be an absolute bugger as Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland will only accept us if it's clear we're not going to also be a burden and potentially share future bail outs.

If tomorrow's result is a Yes then we are going to need an absolute bitch of a divorce lawyer to ensure we get the best deal for Scotland other wise who knows how things will end up. I still don't want to take that risk so I'm off out now to vote no

 

[mrcinquecento]

All i'll say is i disagree with virtually every single point there.... very strongly on several of the points in fact, but you've voted now, so it's pointless going in depth and frankly, i can't be bothered :laugh:

I'm confident that Scotland could thrive on it's own having looked into things in depth from both sides and beyond the words of the publicity machines. Sure there are risks but nothing is certain in life regardless.

P.s, say what you want about Irelands struggles, but i know a few Irish lads and weirdly, their quality of life is higher that ours as a nation.... funny that!

 

[M21MFS]

I was a bit surprised earlier.

A couple of folk I had guessed would be steadfast 'no' voters have grown sick of the negativity, sick of the bullshit and sick of the exagerations. They did not vote no in the end

Ultimately, I think the no camp will win but still, a good fight to the end.

Me, vodka and a bottle of pepsi have an appointment with the telly tonight...

 

[lkc]

All i'll say is i disagree with virtually every single point there.... very strongly on several of the points in fact, but you've voted now, so it's pointless going in depth and frankly, i can't be bothered :laugh:

I'm confident that Scotland could thrive on it's own having looked into things in depth from both sides and beyond the words of the publicity machines. Sure there are risks but nothing is certain in life regardless.

P.s, say what you want about Irelands struggles, but i know a few Irish lads and weirdly, their quality of life is higher that ours as a nation.... funny that!

Let's face it we've both looked into it in depth and come to our own conclusions. They're different conclusions but that's what happens in politics so let's agree to disagree

My plan is not to stay up for the result as I have an early start tomorrow morning and a late night tomorrow night. Of course what I plan and what actually happens...

 

[Stuart]

Ah well then, that's that ****ed...

 

[lkc]

Naturally I'm relieved at the result. I'm also happy to see so much of Scotland engaging in politics - 85% turnout is fantastic and ok some (on both sides) will have gone for a knee-jerk decision rather than an informed one but I hope more of us will pay attention to politics and what our politicians are doing.

Can't let up now though as we've gotta keep an eye on Westminster and not let them weasel out of their promises

 

[M21MFS]

Like Ed Milliband already is?

What a weasel that man is.

 

[mrcinquecento]

Like Ed Milliband already is?

What a weasel that man is.

And now David Cameron too... probably due to fear of backbench revolt.

I just hope No voters are happy.

Probably best i'm banned from here for a few days tbh, i'm gutted and now equally utterly livid, it won't end well and i'm not wanting to fall out with anyone.

 

[Stuart]

I know theres no voters on here so im not going to go too mental, but for **** sake!!!

Trousers down, bend over, they are going in dry!!

 

[lkc]

And you think that wouldn't be happening now if the vote had gone the other way and we were negotiating the divorce?

Now is the time to start doing things properly. Lobby your MPs and MSPs and remind them we've been promised more control over our affairs and we're not going to let that go. If we get this right separation will be the logical step rather than a leap of faith.

 

[Stuart]

But they wouldn't be doing it with spite in their actions... right now Westminster want to hurt us, and hurt us they will...

 

[mrcinquecento]

I'm refusing to discuss stuff in depth, however they have ALREADY broke their timetable. Great start.

I'd also like to point out that there are a few alarm bells (pun intended) getting raised about the Dundee count.

Throughout the night, tv and newspapers were at every count across the country, throughout the night we were getting updates on turnout and what the vote % looked like, in almost every case, they were either bang on. Or within 1-2%.

Early in the night,it was announced by several sources that Dundee was a 90% turnout and heading towards 71% yes.

2 hours later (and 3 fire alarms), the official turnout was 78% and 57 % yes.

Either that says they got it VERY wrong, can't count (worrying) or a large pile of yes votes suddenly weren't there.

Even if there was no foul play, you can see why people are questioning it.

 

[Stuart]

Yes it certainly looks dodgy but again its all in the media etc. And the way they have been portraying it. Imo, its done now, yes I'm disappointed but the majority have won. And I can assure everyone that despite our different political views, us YES supporters still love you NO supporters the same as before the referendum.

(Keep the banter going tho folks)

 

[clock34]

dundee was 78.8% turn out officially. and one of only a few areas that had majority yes though?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2014/sep/18/-sp-scottish-independence-referendum-results-in-full


just wanna add as a englishman, i have no say in scottish afairs. but im glad were togeather. i think both economies are better off togeather for many many reasons. there are individual points people would like and as is life no one will ever agree..

but hey look at it this way.... only scottish MPs can vote within scotland.... you can vote in our goverment. i cant vote in yours.

i also understand this website was majoritivly a yes vote, and no one is happy with the outcome. but unfortunatly with over 400,000 more people voting no then there isnt much to do except get further involved in the politics and get behind your MP. if you get your bases set up and strong now with large control of scotland. the next obvious step is independance.

 

[mrcinquecento]

Aye, but reported during the night (Sky included), were at every one of the 32 counts, From every count we had updates over the night of figures like the turnout and vote percentage. Almost every one was bang on for the turnout, Almost every one was very close for the percentage, if they weren't bang on, they were generally within 2%.

Sky, the Mirror and the guardian all reported Dundee as a 90% turnout and around 70-71% yes was how the votes looked.

The hall was then evacuated twice due to fire alarms and when results were announced, the turnout was (i believe) the second lowest in Scotland and Yes margin was slashed to 57%. It is hell of a weird that turnout and yes % fell by very similar numbers. That has alerted people to the possibility of yes ballots being "lost".

How the hell did they get it so wrong here, yet very accurate (almost) everywhere else?

Dundee was always going to be a huge yes and everybody here is scratching their heads how the hell turnout seemed so good (Ballot boxes across the city reported jam packed by 12pm, queues at polling stations), how the yes support did a properly incredible job at getting voters mobilised (free taxi's to and from polling stations, people knocking on doors to check folk had voted and offer further assistance or advice in getting them there, dealing with lost poll cards etc... it was undoubtedly the biggest political ground movement in Dundee's history), yet turnout numbers ended up being so low and the yes % was well down on what was expected, despite all that effort.

The feeling..... and not mine specifically, is that the figures have been massaged to cut down the yes margin in a place where winning big was to be key.

Glasgow has also reported a number of "missing votes", weirdly the lowest after us and another yes win...another they needed to win big to stand a chance.

I'm not specifically crying foul btw, but i would like to see some clarity with an independent inspection into results because even if all was above board, the fact so many things happened to open suspicion (no exit polls allowed either.....which adds to it, along with yes votes on tables marked no live on tv

etc etc) that people don't have 100% confidence it was all above board. Which should never be the case, we should have confidence that it was.

 

[lkc]

But they wouldn't be doing it with spite in their actions... right now Westminster want to hurt us, and hurt us they will...

They would want to hurt us more if we'd voted yes hence my suggestion of a bitch of a divorce lawyer in a previous post I've made. The fact is the political landscape is now going to change with other parts of the UK requesting more powers from Westminster. I do believe they will try and get out of some of their promises that won't work their way (hence Miliband already back-tracking as sorting the West Lothian Question once and for all will significantly weaken Labour) and therefore it's up to the electorate to keep reminding them of what they've promised us.

Aye, but reported during the night (Sky included), were at every one of the 32 counts, From every count we had updates over the night of figures like the turnout and vote percentage. Almost every one was bang on for the turnout, Almost every one was very close for the percentage, if they weren't bang on, they were generally within 2%.

Sky, the Mirror and the guardian all reported Dundee as a 90% turnout and around 70-71% yes was how the votes looked.

The hall was then evacuated twice due to fire alarms and when results were announced, the turnout was (i believe) the second lowest in Scotland and Yes margin was slashed to 57%. It is hell of a weird that turnout and yes % fell by very similar numbers. That has alerted people to the possibility of yes ballots being "lost".

How the hell did they get it so wrong here, yet very accurate (almost) everywhere else?

Dundee was always going to be a huge yes and everybody here is scratching their heads how the hell turnout seemed so good (Ballot boxes across the city reported jam packed by 12pm, queues at polling stations), how the yes support did a properly incredible job at getting voters mobilised (free taxi's to and from polling stations, people knocking on doors to check folk had voted and offer further assistance or advice in getting them there, dealing with lost poll cards etc... it was undoubtedly the biggest political ground movement in Dundee's history), yet turnout numbers ended up being so low and the yes % was well down on what was expected, despite all that effort.

The feeling..... and not mine specifically, is that the figures have been massaged to cut down the yes margin in a place where winning big was to be key.

Glasgow has also reported a number of "missing votes", weirdly the lowest after us and another yes win...another they needed to win big to stand a chance.

I'm not specifically crying foul btw, but i would like to see some clarity with an independent inspection into results because even if all was above board, the fact so many things happened to open suspicion (no exit polls allowed either.....which adds to it, along with yes votes on tables marked no live on tv etc etc) that people don't have 100% confidence it was all above board. Which should never be the case, we should have confidence that it was.

The only thing that I can't think of a logical explanation for in your post is the drop in turnout from 90% to 79%, well except that it was possibly predictions rather than real figures and in Yes stronghold cities they were predicting a high turnout and maybe just went with that. It would be interesting to know if the figure of 90% actually came from within the voting stations. As for it being so busy, the turnout was at record levels and almost double the norm so even if 79% is the real figure it would still feel far, far busier than usual. However it is also worth noting that even if the remaining 25% of Glasgow and 21% of Dundee that aren't officially recorded as voting had voted yes the final tally would still have been below that required to score a win.

The fire alarms going off obviously wasn't ideal but these things do happen. Systems sometimes get glitches and alarms can go off when you least want them to. Hell, back in 2004 the fire alarm went off minutes before my viva, probably the most important exam of my life, was due to start but it I certainly don't think it was someone's attempt to throw me off my game.

As for why the actual vote was lower than in expected in such militantly Yes cities I would suggest it was because many No voters either kept quiet about their intentions or lied about them as it was the easy thing to do. You actually commented when we saw the No bus in Dundee city centre that it would be lucky to get out without any damage. That's not the sort of place you openly say you're voting against independence and even I mostly kept quiet when we were outside that day and you all know I'm not the shy and retiring type. I suspect in the privacy of the voting booth people simply voted how they truly believed.

The other thing to consider over the low turnout compared with elsewhere is that most people in Dundee and Glasgow were expecting a landslide Yes vote and some may have decided they weren't needed to turn up to secure it.

Finally, the picture of Yes votes on a table marked No was actually explained by the Yes campaign themselves. They tweeted that it was ballot papers simply resting on a table marked No prior to being sorted into Yes or No. It's also worth noting that the organisation of the referendum was done by Scotland's own Electoral Management Board and not Westminster and although not impossible to rig it certainly would be very difficult. The only logical way would be losing votes and even if that had happened it wouldn't have changed the final result. However I agree an independent inspection should be carried out if only to confirm one way or the other what happened. If there was fraud then it has to be dealt with and the people involved prosecuted.

 

[mrcinquecento]

Again, i'm going to keep my views to myself.

All i'm going to comment on is the yes votes on the no table. My point being that this should have been thought of before, even if there is a perfectly innocent explanation (and there is), this sort of thing getting seen only raises suspicion!, It is why the process at all points needs looked at for future votes, so that people can have 100% confidence all is indeed above board.