to start yet another Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 3 folks.

We should arrange an Indyref meet up at this stage.

NC - first rule of MN, don't post after
Are you a politician

NCforAye I'm sorry if I come across as being a bit snippy. I have also had a couple of

I am eligible to vote, have lived here for yonks but have pondered not voting as I'm not Scottish and don't see myself living here long term.

I appreciate that you believe that 'Yes' is the best vote for Scotland. You may well be right. I love that people I meet every day have such passionate views on the subject. That has to be a good sign for democracy. Half my friends are ‘Yes’, half my friends are ‘No’. I will continue to weigh up the odds.

Anyway, roll on the 18th………….I can’t believe it’s actually going to happen.

I think that disagreeing with the foreign policy of the uk Government wouldn't be my sole reason for voting yes, but it does help tip the scales for many.

I can see why it would be an upsetting argument if you're voting NO though. Especially if predominately the reasons you were voting NO were economic self interest and fear of change.

And that'll be why there's this kind of argument cropping up. Everyone has their scales to tip.

Totally agree with NCforAye.

And I'm not saying that the whole threat level thing is completely manufactured. The best lies have to have an element of truth in them. But there's massive advantage to be gained in keeping a population controlled and silent by keeping them scared. You are very nuance if you don't see that.

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/uk-threat-level-raised-to-underpants-20070701251

Even the daily mash sees that

Naive not nuance. Sorry for my continued inability to proof read before posting on my phone

I think the timing of the enhanced threat level is highly convenient. But a bit pike the bedroom tax, its almost morally repugnant to argue against it. I'm sure Salmond would do similar if he were able.

Craig Murray I find unreliable. I'm not saying there isn't some truth in some if the things he said, but he has to earn a living somehow as I suspect since his sacking as after his two year ambassadorial stint he is unemployable. Not because of his views on WMD, but because of all the other stuff at the time. He became notorious and known for bad behaviour more than for authentic views. If he was someone that had held down a difficult, respected job for years and published widely respected books and articles, I would give him more credence, but he isn't.

The line that Scottish independence would ensure freedom from domination by political elites is naive and driven by his own failure in has holding down his role. In Aberdeen, local government, business and housebuilding is dominated by ex Robert Gordons boys and Stewart Milne. In Edinburgh its dominated by thugs and the members of the legal profession they have a hold over. I'm sure in Dundee its something else.

Ok mumsnetindyrefthread, your Saturday role is to respond to this video of Robert McAlpine.

m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=kktV6Hp7Pw8

I'd be really interested in what you think!

Wow Chelsy, that has to be a first that you and I kinda agree about something. I think it's convenient too. I can see an impassionated plea by David Cameron coming up next week for the UK to pull together in the face of these uncertain times . But please could you explain your point about the bedroom tax? I'm not sure I follow.

Watch the video if Robert McAlpine if you have time and revisit your point about the political elite? I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts?

Sorry, robin macalpine! Bloody phone! That's a really weird typo too. Got to learn to proof read, or turn off auto correct! Gah

Just received my postal vote and wanted to say I've really appreciated the contributions on this thread. They have been so helpful in finding info/ establishing how others are coming to a decision with the wooly info available. I have been trying to construct a diagram with numbers attached as there are so many facets to consider, I keep going round on circles. The points I'm struggling on what % increase we could improve the economy by, £ costs of the change management required to establish independence, and what actual independence we
can have in a long term currency union.

As an aside, 16 year old neighbour received 2 votes, an additional one with her middle initial.

The hashtag #threatlevel on twitter is pretty funny though.
I laughed at loud at a few yesterday, the photos in particular, the pure randomness of it is ace.

Agree that it's all rather convenient.

ex Robert Gordons boys

Chelsy, I have to ask, have you a problem with people who were educated at Robert Gordon's College?

Arguably, voting yes because of disapproval of Westminster foreign policies/decisions would be counter-productive as rUK will still be at the G8 summits etc, but without the moderating influence of the Scottish opposition MPs. Leaving UK wouldn't stop rUK making immoral decisions.

Andrew Neil presented a very interesting programme about the possible/probable effects of a yes vote on rUK. Food for thought IMO. One of the effects was that rUK would have less international influence - obviously that's debatable - perhaps a good thing. But I'd worry that it would allow undemocratic powers to have more international influence.

You can look at the morality of leaving the uk in two ways IMO - it might result in a fairer and more just Scotland, which would be a good thing, but only for the people of Scotland (obviously) or if it's a protest against the way things are going in Britain then it's also giving up the fight to have more fairness for the people of uk. It's at the expense of rUK population who are unfairly treated.

DD's friend who plans to vote yes and I were discussing the ref. (At my request - I was openly trying to change his mind as I would be very worried and disappointed in the event of a yes majority vote. I've never tried to influence anyone's vote before, but this would be irrevocable.) We were struck by how much we agreed about politically. I feel his arguments were really for proportional representation and/or more regional government. He started off claiming a right to self-determination - and didn't take my point that only in the event of a huge majority yes, given that some of the electorate won't vote, many Scottish people are non-resident so don't have a vote and some of the electorate are non-scottish relatively new residents - vote could it be said that there is a strong wish for self-determination.

Then he said, as AS does, that his main reason for voting yes is that Scotland is more socialist than rUK so an independent Scotland would be 'fairer'. Then he admitted he doesn't really care what would happen to rUK in the event of a yes vote.

I was originally on the fence about how to vote for Scottish independence, at one point I was considering abstaining however I have firmly decide to vote yes.

I was unsure about a yes vote because, I see Scotland and England and the rest of the UK as one people and I feel many of the barriers we use to define and separate ourselves are really in the past and not so relevant anymore. I would like Britain and Europe and the whole world to change for the better together. Therefore why do we want to define ourselves as a separate country and go it alone and strive so hard for us to be seen as separate? I have debated whether there is an element of selfishness within us: have we realised that we could be wealthier and better off with a split and also in turn enjoy revelling in an increased notion of Scottishness.

I have however decided to vote yes because;
Scotland has always voted differently from England and has traditionally had different political alignments to the controlling powers of Westminster. In this sense we can define ourselves as different and unique from England. England’s different voting trends have allowed Scotland to be governed by politics we never wanted and this is still happening and will likely to continue happening: poll tax, bedroom tax, the war on Iraq, privatising the NHS and so on.

We can set an example and act as a catalyst for other countries to govern themselves in a different manner, which is less in line with the ideals and policies from countries such as the USA who are insistent on the free market and being a world power. I don’t believe the scaremongering at all and I feel we are more than capable of achieving prosperity on our own and can be seen to do so by other countries. I feel the UK needs to separate itself from these ideals and if England won’t Scotland can. We can set an example. I don't have any confidence that Scotland's vote will influence the Government at west minister. If we can't do it from being part of the union then we need to try to do it from outside.

One of my biggest inspirations for voting yes is the amount of non-native Scottish people I know who are voting yes through nothing to do with historic nationalist concepts, but instead want to allow a county to create a different society that takes advantage of the way its people vote and choose to run themselves in a respectable way they can be proud of. Scotland can lead by example.

Ha Angenlina, my DH works in change management and analysis and has a spreadsheet with all the information your talking on it, so he could work out how to vote! I'll ask him where he got his info from!

All the folk in Edinburgh working in financial services in change management and associated sectors can surely be confident of a job post independance eh? There will be a lot of changes to be managed. Maybe they all won't have to move down south after all? ;-)

Wouldn't dream of lumping you Lady Cordelia. I shall be respectful of the fact that you voted conservative.

I think that the rest of the UK will be watching us very closely. and the rest of the world will be watching the UK.

angelina - my thoughts on your questions

1 - it's unknowable isn't it? anyone who says a figure will be countered by someone who says another figure. 0% would do me
2- at least billion? creating many new jobs for the experienced workers in change management from the divestment of RBS in Edinburgh that are worried about losing their jobs in an independent scotland? create new jobs, keep the economy going?
3 - Ultimatey not much. but as much as devo max, which is why it's not on the ballot paper. I think that all this will become clearer in negotiations post a yes vote. We need the vote first in order to give our politicians and spokespeople the power and the authority to argue for the best for scotland short term and long term. At the moment they don't don't have that, they are stuck in a campaigning impasse.

All the folk in Edinburgh working in financial services in change management and associated sectors can surely be confident of a job post independance eh? There will be a lot of changes to be managed. Maybe they all won't have to move down south after all? ;-)

Not sure how big you think the change departments are in comparison with all the other ones. But financial services jobs are only a very small part of why I am voting No.

Do we have any really undecided voters or new issues to discuss here? I feel this is descending into endless rehashing of the same questions over and over again. Lots of us have done our own research and thinking, and have come to different conclusions.

And as I see the threat level thing is still being discussed - yes, it might well be convenient. As someone said, I'm sure the Scottish Government would also leap on anything convenient at this stage. But we do also happen to living through times of international volatility, and the UK is about to host a NATO conference.

I'm also a bit shocked by all the stories of multiple voting cards - FFS it feels like this vote has been coming for ever, there have been multiple registration announcements, can we not even get this right? The one thing we should be able to rely on is the integrity of the result. After two years of campaign, we deserve that.

I used to feel much the same way as you, chocoluvva. I felt that as bad as the democratic deficit in Scotland was (the fact that every other electoral cycle we - that's the vast majority of Scottish voters, Flyte, not you as an individual - get a government we soundly rejected at the ballot box) it was, perhaps, a (heavy) price worth paying in order to prop up a slightly more leftist, or just more moderate party in the UK.

But then I looked at more closely at election results, which I'm sure you've all gone over half a dozen times in these threads. The 'impact' of Scottish votes on UK elections is obvious - there's no impact at all. Since 1945 the outcome of general elections has only been marginally influenced by the Scottish votership 3 or possibly four times - all in the cases of hung parliaments/minority governments. Whenever the largest voting bloc in the Union, England, has voted decisively for a Labour or Conservative government, the UK has got one. It's a simple numbers game. The Labour party doesn't need Scottish votes to prop it up. Couple this with an outmoded first past the post system and an electoral strategy which sees both major parties focus their campaigning and policy direction on a tiny number of swing voters in a tiny number of constituencies, and we have seen UK politics drift ever rightwards.

The idea that Scottish MPs have a moderating influence, on international or domestic affairs, is a nice one, but there's no evidence of this. Even while in government and not opposition, Scottish MPs have helped to introduce disastrous neoliberal policies, like 9K tuition fees in England, safe in the knowledge that it doesn't affect their constituents. At the same time, I have heard Scottish Labour MPs argue against the interests of their very own constituents when it comes to postindependence arrangements. There's no attempt to exert any moderating influence at all, they just take the votes of their constituents entirely for granted, and concentrate on playing Westminster politics, lazer-focused on a tiny number of swing voters in England.

As a voter in this referendum, I can, for once, choose to use my vote to secure greater representation within a Scottish polity, ensure that my vote is counted as one in 4.1 million, and ensure that Scotland always gets a government that the majority of people in Scotland have voted for. Or, I can choose to let the opportunity of greater representation go. I can choose for the outcomes of elections to be decided by almost 48 million, and realistically to be decided by a tiny number of swing voters in marginal seats, which I have no chance of ever influencing, and simply hope, against hope, that I don't end up being subjected to yet more rightwing policies (from either party).

Basically I can use this vote to take responsibility for my democratic representation, or I can give it away.

I did wink after that comment. I'll admit that I haven't researched this thoroughly ( or atall) but it seems a reasonable idea that the process of
independance will create jobs as well as risk them

gosh you are cautious , cautious visitor

So to be upset at Craig Murray's trashing of no-voters is likely to be due to fear of change and economic self-interest deedee?

No in my case it's because it's a comment of hyperbolic nonsense, which when retweeted about the interweb just causes mischief!

So cautious that message has been deleted.