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.

It's true that health and education are devolved issues. However, how much we have to spend on them is decided in part by how much block grant we get from WM, and since the noises coming from London are talking about slashing that by £7billion pa, plus the rest of the promised austerity measures, the Scottish gvt will not be able to protect the relevant budgets. So, precription charges re-introduced, universities charging fees... Brilliant for our vulnerable and youth.

Not sure that Andy Burnham, Shadow Health Secretary agrees with you LadyCordelia

"Burnham also revealed that he hopes to see greater consistency of health policies across the border. Since responsibility for health was devolved to the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it has used its powers to pursue separate flagship policies such as free personal care, free eye tests, and free prescriptions, and also chose to introduce the groundbreaking ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces a year ahead of England. However, while Burnham professes to be a “huge advocate” of devolution, he suggests that it now needs to enter a “different phase”.
“That is why I am talking quite passionately about getting English Labour MPs back up the road and for me, sitting down with Neil [Findlay] and Richard [Simpson] and Rhoda [Grant] and others and saying, let’s get health policies that can be consistent across England, Scotland and Wales. Wouldn’t that be a good thing, pulling in the same direction as opposed to pulling our separate ways? Devolution, in its early days, was about doing something different and it needs to enter a different phase where we start talking again more about a UK-wide policy because in the end, that helps everybody. ” (from the Holyrood Magazine, September 2013

But there again, Labour would need to get into power next time in order for that to come about

I know that OldLadyKnowsSomething. But I think they are quite correct that to even consider a union the terms would have to be extremely tight - to the point where it would be totally undesirable for Scotland. They've seen what happened in the Eurozone, they'd be in a position where they could bail Scotland out if required, but Scotland would probably not be large enough to bail out rUK. So it's an asymmetric relationship and as a result the terms would be extremely restrictive. It's logical and common sense, and the event I was at wasn't some big publicity drive type thing.

But are tight restrictions on doing risky things with money a bad thing?

I'm a research scientist and work with the NHS both north and south of the border. Everything I've seen and heard has led me to believe that the Scottish NHS is run far better and more efficiently than the English counterpart. Same with education. I would fear for these systems if the vote was a No. And another point - my industry invests heavily in Scotland because we are recognised as pioneers in the fields of science, medicine and engineering. That's not likely to change with a No vote. There's not much mention of that in the press and it's something that people forget we are very good at.

Was America that bailed out the UK banks, so UK can't cope by itself either then?

It's not "tight restrictions on doing risky things with money" - it's serious limitations on what we would be able to do from a budget perspective including taxation. Given that we already have devolved power for something like 60% of issues, what would we gain, really, if every significant economic decision was curtailed by an economic union.

The perspective was also that there is a significant fear that even with tight restrictions it wouldn't be safe enough - i.e. it wasn't safe enough in the Eurozone, which had restrictions. So it very likely wouldn't be agreed to. Which takes us back to which rubbish option would you like

Frankly I agree with LadyCordelia - the divisions this is creating are awful

It's absolutely hilarious that the Yes campaign is hanging on that report from the Adam Smith institute given it's a body usually rubbished by socialists as being made up of right-wing ideologues.

Oh and for all of you who think Eck and his cronies are so wonderful and democratic I suppose you are unconcerned by the fact that we are heading towards having police routinely armed in Scotland ?

Eck thinks this is just an "operational matter" My husband has a collection of personal responses from meps of all parties, apart from Eck's bunch, condemning the Scottish government's stance on this. In response to my husband s letter Eck and Nicola clearly just sent the same bog-standard "don't worry it will be fine because we know best" response.

I don't have a vote as I'm English living in England. If I did have a vote I would vote NO. However if YES wins I wish Scotland well for the future.

Obviously there will be no currency union with the UK (all parties have agreed) and Scotland applying to join the EU may meet with problems. I read somewhere that it's likely Spain would vote no - they don't want the Basque region getting any ideas of splitting off and doing their own thing like Scotland.

I don't think anybody on this thread is going to convince anybody else

prettybird

"they don't want the Basque region getting any ideas of splitting off and doing their own thing like Scotland"

This right here is the attitude which makes people want to vote yes. It's the tone, the anger, that we've had the audacity to wish to handle our own affairs.

Phaedra I know, I think, 2 Yes voters who support the SNP. Only one likes Alex Salmond.

This thread seems to be turning into posts rubbishing the other side's view. I don't think it's what the OP wanted to happen.

If Cascaida ever becomes a reality, I'm emigrating there - Northern California has its separatists too it seems.
However, Northern Californians are not a separate nation with a separate national identity like Scotland and Scots are. And the Basques, I suppose, although I really don't know how they'd do economically.

I actually don't see division just now. I have manned some Yes stalls and occasionally have had No people shouting at me or making rude gestures, but in conversation it is always good-humoured and respectful. I think if it's a Yes we will move forward as we must and start work on building a nation as we want it, and hopefully without bitterness (although I believe there will be bitterness because of course there will be challenges, setbacks and disappointments and unionists are likely to point the finger of blame on independence). If it's a No then the pro-indy movement will dust itself off and regroup before continuing with their aim. When 50% of a country wants something they aren't just going to shrug their shoulders and quit, are they?

Cascadia, sorry

I'm voting yes!

Phaedra as I'm sure has been pointed out many, many times...this isn't an election for Alex Salmond or the SNP, it's a referendum. If sp desired we have the capaci to oust e SNP at the next election. Making this about AS's policies is blurring the issue.

I am just saying what I have read somewhere about why Spain would probably vote no to Scotland joining. That's all. Not sure what you're reading into my post affanfoosh. I have zero anger about this subject.

Oh dear damned iPAd. Well, I'm sure you get the jist.

It wasn't personal, silver, but it's an attitude that we have been subjected to so much and it's vile.

I'm a yes. The longer this debate has gone on, the more determined I've become.

For this of you swayed by Sir Ian Woods' comments this week you should be aware that a report issued by him in february on behalf of the UK government put the estimated remaining oil at 24 billion barrels. He then claimed this week that the figure of 24 billion quoted in the Scottish government's white paper was too high by 45 - 60%, i.e the same figure he apparently put over a years worth of research into and delivered in February!

SIR Ian Wood, Tory crony and tax avoider now shown to be a pro UK liar.

Now imagine that a pro-independence industry figure had completely revised his own figures from a few months ago to suit his friend. Would he be paraded over the media as a respected expert without being asked why his initial report was so vastly wrong, or would he be attacked and called out for his change in stance? I wonder.

This nation isn't better together for any of us unless you are one of the Tory 'elite' who want to steal from the poor, demonise the needy and decimate our natural resources. They make me sick.

Unnamed sources in Westminster have said that an independent Scotland may keep the pound to ensure fiscal and economic security on both sides of the border. Maybe England is more scared about the consequences of independence than people realise. I am not Scottish but would love to see a Yes vote for a variety of reasons including the fact that Scotland, despite being tiny country like Ireland, has managed to have a huge profile across the world. For some reason everyone knows about Scotland. Fair play to the natives I say!

I really believe that Westminster and Scotland's ideology are about as far apart as could be. I don't mean to offend the Unionists but maybe it is time to cut the apron strings and let the baby fly.

Spain have made mutterings about vetoing our EU membership, but it's politicking to keep the Catalans on their toes. In practice, the Spanish fishing fleet gets much of it's catch from our waters, and they won't want to risk that.

Thing is, silver, those of us in Scotland who have been following this for months, if not years, are a bit fed up with the same old scare stories being recycled. Where's the positive case for the union? In what way will we be better off when WM cut £7billion and more from our budget?

And ladycordelia, what absolute nonsense. Only poor uneducated people will be daft enough to vote yes? I'll take my 2 degrees, my postgrad and numerous professional qualifications and fuck off then I suppose?

There are many, many highly educated intelligent people voting yes and the calibre of debate being held around the country should be proof enough of that.