Scottish Referendum debate - watch with Mumsnet

That's interesting re your Danish relatives - we have friends over in Denmark and friends who used to live there. Both find/found it incredibly expensive to live there - they have a much better standard of living in the UK, and both were well paid (civil engineering, some senior scientist for the Govt). One of the friends is very anti inde - she feels that we are much better within the UK as her DH (the engineer) can compete for more contracts. Norway too is incredibly expensive - and that oil fund was used to invest in foreign banks (iirc) which has not translated to huge personal wealth for the Norwegians who have (again, iirc) a high level of personal debt.

Weatherall, that's no different to any time in history. Change can and does happen, but a no vote is to keep as much status quo as we've ever had. Current times are no more in flux than any other time.

So basically you're saying that you have it on good authority that the Yes campaign will ignore the results of a democratically held referendum if the majority vote No, but will instead put the date in the diary for another referendum and will start working towards that. And will repeat that process over and over and over and over until they finally get the result they want?

Really? On whose authority do you have that?

Thanks for answering SirChenjin

I come from a perspective that all my Danish relatives are genuinely that we don't think we would be better off, given the resources at Scotland's disposal and who keep asking me what it is that makes us better off in the larger country, when the majority of countries with higher GDPs than the UK are smaller than the UK and many are a similar size to what Scotland would be. I can't answer them.

I think the 'we will immediately start a campaign for another referendum ' approach is pathetic. Honestly. You can't just keep taking votes until folk get so bored they agree. Whatever the outcome, both sides need to work together post referendum to make Scotland work whatever our political system.

I bet you would be none to impressed if there was a yes vote and the no camp immediately started campaigning for a referendum to take us back in.

All that will result from that is an ever more divided country facing the worst of all worlds

It is normal, absolutely. I didn't vote for the SNP (no surprise there!), but have to live with their politics. My Dad lives up in the NE of Scotland - he doesn't feel anymore represented by a Scottish Central Belt Govt than he does by a UK Govt in London.

Can I ask what the day to day concerns are for regular Scots? When you say that your politicians have no power in Westminster and your votes are ignored, what incidents do you refer to specifically? I live within throwing distance of London and I don't feel like my voice is listened to either! Isn't that normal to a certain extent?

And equally the no voters won't go away weatherall...

You charmer you, prettybird .

I suppose I'm just slightly weary of the whole thing (although I do seem incapable of stopping myself from posting on the indy threads ) - but basiscally I find myself agreeing with the BT far more than I do with the SNP. If I genuinely believed that we would be better off an an independent country then of course I would vote Yes - I'd be mad not to - but I honestly don't believe we will. I think there are a lot of people for whom the facts and figures don't matter - they are voting for an ideology, come what may. Perhaps they can afford to think that way, but I can't - and I don't believe that an independent Scotland will benefit our future generations in terms of economics, job prospects, health and social care, education, and so on.

Morris- a no vote isn't a vote for the status quo it is vote for uncertainty about us staying in the EU, uncertainty about the future power of UKIP, uncertainty about where the further cuts and tax rises that have been promised Will come from.

With a no vote, yes supporters won't disappear. In the 19th September the campaign for another referendum will start. Therefore uncertainty will continue. Until there is a yes vote this issue will never go away.

You're right SirChenjin - it doesn't really matter. It's just that you are one of the most articulate people I've read on the matter (and I've done lots of reading! ) and as I'm getting frustrated at not getting an answer. I thought it was worth asking you, as I presumed that you would have some thoughts.

Guess I'll just have to continue to be frustrated.

I mentioned one myth: the NHS. Even though it says that healthcare is devolved, it implies that we can only afford it because of the 31 million taxpayers in the UK. It has also, elsewhere, implied that we wouldn't be able to make use of cross-border services, despite the fact that that is already the way that it is set up (and we already have mechanisms for "cross-border" services with Ireland and other European countries. When I worked in NHS England over 20 years ago, they were sending people abroad for some operations as it was actually cheaper or quicker).

The other one is cross-border controls: why, if we don't have border controls with Ireland (which has a different immigration policy), would controls need to be set up? An immigrant into one country still wouldn't be able to claim benefits or work (legally) if they travelled to the other. I also really, really resent the implication (to be fair, not explicit on the YouDecide2014 website but part of the message of the Vote No Borders campaign) that "foreign" relatives are something to be sad about. All my "blood" relatives, with the exception of my immediate family (father, brother, son) are "foreigners" .

When you read the YouDecide website, there are an awful lot of "coulds". There are also lots of statements about benefits that we currently receive - yet they could be changed tomorrow if/when the government changes/chooses. Ditto with the debate about Europe: there is no certainty that the UK, let alone Scotland, will be in the EU in a few years time. The future is not certain, whichever way people vote.

Having said that, I'm agreeing more and more with my father that the decision shouldn't be based on the economics. It should be based on whether or not you think it is the right thing to do as it is a long term decision. That's why I'd like to understand why it is that we are better together. I can understand it from a gut feel perspective - but that's the only one I "get".

I'm a no voter and while I think there are a million flaws in our system of UK government, I don't want to risk something worse.

I'm very concerned about the currency issue and don't see any clear answers on this.

Personally, I loathe the Tories and I'd love to scrap trident. But that doesn't swing me to yes as I'm too cynical about government in general and feel we'd end up feeling pissed off and let down no matter who was in power.

Does it really matter to you why I think we're better together? Why are you so interested in what a complete stranger on an online forum thinks? I've looked at the arguments from both sides and have made up my mind - I'm not sure why you are looking to me to help make up your mind?

What are the myths from the Govt re the NHS on the You Decide website?

In general, a vote for yes is a vote for change, and a vote for no is a vote to carry on as we are.

So I'm not sure that the 'stay the same' campaign have to put forward a positive case.

The side that wants change has to say why, surely.

SirChenjin - can you answer the question why, in your view, we're better together? I genuinely want to understand the argument. Nobody has yet articulated that, despite me asking the question on a number of occasions (not just on here).

I've looked at the You Decide 2014 website and it just perpetuates some of the myths from a Government perspective (like the NHS - which I know, having worked in both NHSs, are totally separate) which makes me cynical about some of their other facts.

questioning the decision to leave the UK, not the marriage

I suppose it depends on how you're approaching it prettybird. If you make the decision to leave the marriage because you are so unhappy that you don't want to stay at any cost then of course the details are less/not important - the same works for voters who are unquestioning Yes voters.

For those who are questioning the decision to leave then my analogy stands firm - you wouldn't take on another job elsewhere without being absolutely clear on the T&Cs before you jumped ship.

Re the DK - I would be very interested to know why they had changed their views, does anyone know?. Regardless of that, however, the Nos are still out in front.

Feeling slightly smug that I retuned the sat box to get STV rather than rely on the player.

I was left feeling like SirChenjin - the vision for Independent Scotland sounds great & resonates with my heart BUT were I afforded a vote, I'd vote no. Not because I believe that AD demonstrated appreciable positives for the Union (except maybe more tax/NI payers to meet the pension bill) but there is still a lack of practical detail.

Ultimately, it's better the devil you know than voting blindly for a vision which appeals but can't practically demonstrate how it would be achieved.

Neither side can ever offer absolute certainties about everything.

But the no side's tactic seems to be to play on undecided's fear of an apocalyptic collapse of the economy.

Didn't darling already deliver that?

There are no absolute certainties. The issue is trust. There is plenty of evidence that Westminster can't be trusted with Scotland's economy. The Scottish government whether the pre or post 2007 one has proved itself to be more trustworthy.

Re: the currency, it is obvious the 'Plan B' is sterlingisation before a move to an independent currency (which is the preferred option by many in the yes camp). Why both sides don't acknowledge this and debate it, I don't know. Scotland would still be better off than now, and with the red and blue Tories vision of a future.

I didn't explain myself clearly enough SirChenjin : in such a scenario, the other party would've come back with detailed counter proposals (or clauses) - not just statements saying "you can't".

I suppose a better analogy would be a marriage break-up: the leaving partner doesn't know the detail of what the final settlement will be but they make the decision to leave anyway. It's up to the people of Scotland to decide whether or not the "marriage" is intolerable and whether they want to take the leap of faith and then negotiate the detail.

I agree with one of the comments I've read on FB that both sides concentrated too much on whether or not we could be an independent country and not enough on whether we should be an independent country.

I still don't know (from the debate or even from many of the more articulate people on here) WHY we are "better together". I don't accept the argument "because we're bigger" as there are many countries that are the same size as us or smaller which are successful (even when you take oil out of the equation). I can understand why we're better together works for England - but I want to hear why it's better for Scotland . Or am I just being selfish?

I was leaning towards a no vote......now I know I'm a 'no' No answers from AS, ridiculous statements about aliens, pandas, showing himself up quoting a joke about driving on the right hand side as if it was fact.....cringe!! Smug, sneering, the gentleman who said he was disappointed in him because his remarks were snide was absolutely right! I understand independence is not about AS, but he cannot give any answers to the important questions!

Salmond lost last night, and the polls seem to back that up. It could all change next time round though

Just a wee correction: pre the debate DK AD 45? AS 55%, post debate DK AD 26% AS 74%

Obviously the Yes/Nos in the audience thought that "their" side won, it is the DKs that matter.
goo.gl/TzdN6m

I thought the debate was awful, and both sides came across badly, though Salmond I think was worse. Debate format was pretty dire too - shouldn't have had an audience asking questions/having thoughts during debate in that way.

Also thought there wasn't enough focus on why should Scotland be independent. Both sides were more focused on could Scotland be successfully independent, when both sides already agree that it could.

Do you think we have enough detail to understand how it will work in practice?

Totally agree statistically challenged. It's just too easy to say lets spend loads of money and make it all lovely and fair when it's a theoretical discussion.

How will it work in practice, that's what matters.

you'd be given (or provide) a proposed contract with the details outlined and you'd negotiate any details you didn't agree on before making an informed decision

Precisely my point prettybird - the SNP haven't given us any details. They've given us a vision (as they see it) of the wonders of an independent Scotland ie Head Office have told us we're getting a wonderful new shop - but in reality that wonderful new shop could be in some out of town location you've got no way of getting to, working long hours for not much more money on a zero hours contract. You wouldn't take that job without checking and rechecking the small print, unless managing your own shop was the be all and end all - and yet the SNP want us to jump ship and say 'yes' without answering some of the really important questions.

The papers are pretty unanimous - Salmond lost last night, and the polls seem to back that up. It could all change next time round though.