To wonder how you're voting in the Scottish Referendum and why?

[deeedeee]

a month away from the vote thought it would be interesting to ask

( no bunfighting , derision or soundbites please. just yes or no and why. feel free to post more than once with different reasons. No links unless independent fact or opinion, nothing from the official campaigns)

I'm a YES

because Westminster's failed to protect the vunerable and the UK's me first politics have taken us down a particularly nasty path. An independent Scotland leans towards to left and can potentially choose a better route. And if a change happens in scotland then I think that that could inspire a change in the direction of politics in the rest of the UK.

Yes, what I meant was not what iScotlands currency is called, but whether there is an exchange rate between the two currencies.

My poor brain hurts. If we assume that in five years, iScotland is running independently and iScotlands economy has an interest rate of say 5%, and rUK has an interest rate of say 4%, and Mr Big Forrin Investor thinks, ill have some of that 5% and moves his money into iScotland, what's the exchange rate and how is it different from rUKs exchange rate?

There are British Navy ships being built now in South Korea and Denmark. They go out on international tender and are quite often build by foreign countries. I had no idea.until recently. Ship yard work is always political and have been used in arguments for decades.

A question for the economists.

I believe it is fairly important that a countries currency is backed up by some sort of an asset, which is why we have central banks - is that right?

And Scotland already has its own currency insofar as all the Scottish Banks print their own bank notes. And every bank note printed is backed by UK£ held in the the BoE.

So come independence why can't Scotland take its deposits from BofE and use them in a national bank in Scotland to back the Scottish pound notes/another currency of Scotlands choice?

Leaving shipbuilding work in iScotland would be

Why? Surely if Scotland offers the best job at the best price it should get the job? Or would this be part of the whole rUK punishing an iScotland thing?

So rUK would happily see naval ships being built on the other side of the world but not by Scotland?

And where ship building contracts are awarded has always been a controversial issue.

I will be a no as will DH. Again for the reasons stated, no clear plan on currency or membership of the EU. Financial services industry will be decimated and finally Alex Salmond is a complete weasel and despite what he says this is a lot about him wanting to go down in history.

An independent Scotland will not have the same financial security as it has now and I want that for my DS.

Aaaargh! I still don't know how to vote! my head says no 'No' but my heart says 'Yes'! I am too risk averse to plump down firmly for a Yes vote at the moment. I don't think I'll know for sure until my pen is hovering over the ballot paper in September. I don't think I'm alone in this.

dotdot how about going along to some of the meetings organised by both sides to hear and discuss it with others?

Ships are being built in South Korea now because they are cheaper than the Clyde or Belfast or Portsmouth.
Regardless of that, some orders have been placed with the Clyde in order to keep those yards working - it's the only work they can get.
Once Scotland becomes a foreign country, there will no longer be that political incentive in the UK to help the Clyde. It will be the Scottish government's job to support them.
That's the simple reality.

Exactly, Sallyingforth, and rUK media would slaughter any politician who commissioned work on the Clyde ahead of Portsmouth.

That's quite a xenophobic attitude. So it would be okay to send work to one foreign country but not another?

We will need to build our own ships for Scottish Navy so won't be a problem.
Currently pay more into the UK military than gets spent in Scotland, so for less cost we can set up & run our own.

Voting yes. I think Scotland's future in the event of a no vote will be nightmarish, definitely. Voting yes is a massive opportunity to give ourselves the chance of a different, positive, future. I believe the vulnerable in society will benefit most.

Anyone swayed by Sir Ian Wood's statement should note that he completely contradicted his statement on recoverable oil made in February this year. He has already backtracked and Oil and Gas UK have disagreed with the statement. It was littered with BT catchphrases yet he claimed it to be non political. I wonder what was in it for him. It is also worth noting his company has recently moved it's payroll from UK to Guernsey in an apparent massive tax dodge.

As far as I can see it, NO-ONE knows what would happen in the event of a 'Yes' vote, that is why we are so bereft of 'facts'. On September 18th, we are merely deciding whether we go for a divorce, with the next 18 months allocated to thrash out the terms that, ultimately, would have to be in the best interests of both sides. Then, in 2016, Scotland would go to the polls to vote for which party they want to govern them as an independent country.

I'm in England, and don't have a vote, but I've been watching the debate with interest. I'm neutral on the subject really - I think the Scottish people have a right to decide how they want to be governed, and it's not really my place to have an opinion on that. Part of me would be sad if Scotland left the UK, but part of me would be rather excited to see how independence might work out.

DSis and Scottish BIL live in Scotland, and are still undecided. However, they both seem to be leaning towards a yes (BIL more so than DSis). I think they are very conscious of the tremendous weight of their decision - it is not one that anyone can afford to get wrong.

As a relatively neutral bystander, I would agree that the better together campaign hasn't put forward much in the way of a positive argument. It does all seem to be based on fear-mongering, but as others have said, there is uncertainty about the future no matter which way Scotland votes.

Having said that, a lot of the yes campaign seems equally unconvincing. A lot of people seem to have bought into the idea that Scotland will somehow become a rich socialist utopia after independence, and I just can't see it myself. It all seems rather naive and unrealistic - though I'd love to be proved wrong!

I do feel that the debate so far has been very divisive, both within Scotland and within the UK as a whole. Whatever happens next month, I hope that people will be able to accept the result and move on, putting the divisions behind them. We'll all still be neighbours, no matter which way people vote.

That's good, FannyFifer. You understand the issue perfectly. Both countries will look after their own.

Anyone swayed by Sir Ian Wood's statement should note that he completely contradicted his statement on recoverable oil made in February this year
There is probably twice as much oil out there than any of the published figures. The problem is that it gets increasingly difficult and expensive to extract. The amount that can be got out depends entirely on the price of oil in 10 or 20 or 30 years time. That's the gamble - no one knows.

ChubbyChez it's not about being xenophobic or punishing iScotland. The UK government have a duty to try and help the Clyde ship-building by giving them contacts that don't necessarily make commercial sense (because they could be built cheaper elsewhere) because otherwise the shipyard will close and thousands of people will lose their jobs.

If Scotland is no longer part of the UK, the UK government won't do that. They will either send them to the cheapest place (Asia) or subsidise it in the UK in Portsmouth.

Which is completely fair.

It's a Yes from me and DH

itsall I think that's right, iScotland could hold its own deposits to support its own currency. I'm not sure if they would have to hold a bit more, because being a smaller bank and a smaller economy would mean that the risk would be judged by the regulators to be higher. But I would think you could do it. I didn't think that was actually the main problem in an independent currency.

My understanding was that iScotland doesn't want to do it, because given the other plans, they predict that interest rates would go up in iScotland, and if your interest rate goes up, your currency becomes more expensive (because more ppl buy some in order to get your high interest rates) and when that happens, your exports become more expensive.

The whole parallel currency thing is a bit unsettling to me. I would like to understand what would be so bad about the euro. The euro already allows lots of smaller independent countries to share a single currency without sharing political and economic union - that's what it's for. Why reinvent it? And to the extent it has problems- do we really think we would avoid those same problems ourselves in a new system?

The "yes" voters seem to think that the RBS fiasco wouldn't have happened in an independent Scotland. BUT, Alec Salmondwrote to Fred the Shred, in support of the RBS takeover of ABM Ambro, the takeover being one of the main reasons for the collapse of RBS!

My colleagues in Portugal, Spain, Greece etc feel that they are being governed from Berlin. So, if the Euro is the answer, then Berlin has to be preferable to Westminster.