to start yet another Indyref thread?

[FannyFifer]

Round 3 folks.

We should arrange an Indyref meet up at this stage.

Sorry if I misinterpreted you!

And when I said 'really think', it was a comment driven by the fact that there are very few people in my RL who express an opinion on the referendum.

Fair enough, it came across rather differently...

I am posting on my phone and haven't posted much on online forums before now.

It all depends how you define 'country'.
Is it set by geographical limits? Population? Language?

I'd say Glasgow probably has more in common with Newcastle than with Lerwick.

If we aren't a country, then we shouldn't be having a referendum.

"each member of the Scottish population gets a vote just like every member of the English/Welsh/Northern Irish population. Therefore our system and representation is fully democratic. So they think about their vote as being equivalent to anybody else's."

The trouble is that your vote isn't equivalent to anybody else's. It's constrained by an outdated first past the post system, in constituencies of very uneven sizes, and the two party Westminster system means that all campaigning and policy direction is focused on influencing a tiny number of swing voters in marginal seats. Which, unfortunately, has meant that government policy has drifted ever rightwards for decades.

Unfortunately, the AV referendum seemed to demonstrate that there's little to no appetite for electoral reform in the UK, so independence is our only chance to get it.

That's the thing. Independence would offer a lot of things which would otherwise never happen. If the UK was different.... But it isn't....

I agree FPTP isn't perfect - I just meant that I don't view myself as having a democratic deficit just cos I'm in Scotland IYSWIM. There are plenty of constituencies in England/Wales that also aren't swing seats. The constituencies are uneven size wise but actually most of the smallest ones are in areas of Scotland/Wales where you can see, logistically, why.

The last election came very close to being a 3 party system - certainly the run up to it wasn't a clean 2 horse race like it normally is. I doubt that with the dreaded UKIP to deal with and with Lib Dems who are currently in a coalition the 2016 one will be quite as clean cut either.

I don't think the AV referendum demonstrated a lack of desire for electoral reform. I think it demonstrated that the system offered wasn't popular. There are a range of PR options and I expect another vote on PR in the medium term (depending on a whole heap of other factors, obviously including what the result is on the 19th)

The trouble is that it is the reserved powers that I personally care most about. On most of the devolved ones I can see the logic for the same policy as rUK. It's why I moved away from thinking federalism was the answer.

Yes, I am not sure AV is the answer...

Sorry, I was musing more on the negative associations with the word "nationalist" in general, sometimes it gets used so negatively so often it can automatically seem like a bad thing... if that makes sense.

Does anybody else think this "missing million" are maybe missing out? I know some people don't vote as a way of protest, or because they don't see the point... and many other different reasons, which is fair enough. But a million people not registered and not having a say seems like a lot. Surely there must be people within that group who don't realise they aren't registered, or don't realise they need to be on the electoral register to vote in the referendum?

Edinburgh is plastered in DON'T LOSE YOUR VOTE signs - you can't move for the things.

Agree re nationalist and I wasn't thinking of that when I posted. It's one of many words that have been misappropriated as negative terms. Unionist has too to be fair - whenever I see it just now it seems to be preceded by bloody or fucking, and/or followed by cunt/twat!

Independence would offer a lot of things which would otherwise never happen.

At every election, every party offers lots of good things that can only happen if they get elected. And when they get into power they find, usually for financial reasons, that they can't do what they promised.

The White Paper for the referendum is just such a manifesto. It promises lots of good things - more benefits, better pensions, better healthcare, all with lower taxes. These things are just not possible, regardless of any 'offers'.

An iScot government is going to be encumbered by not having control of its own currency, and when negotiating to get back into the EU it will have lost the favourable terms that the UK currently has.

An independent Scotland will survive because you have such a great spirit, but it is going to be a very tough time before those 'offers' because realised, and a lot of people are going to suffer in the meantime.

Those things aren't key for me. I'm also not sure it would be that bad - nobody knows. Not having nuclear weapons, a House of Lords and a foreign policy I don't agree with are key though.

I don't doubt we'd survive -although what does that even mean in terms of a country? I mean, short of us being reabsorbed in to rUK, invaded by Norway in a battle over the Shetlands or some sort of freak accident which causes us to sink in to the North Sea we'll survive. Anyone saying "Scotland won't survive" is possibly being a little daft. But what will that survival look like?

I agree that those offers seem a bit exaggerated! For me though it's about the long term. Depends who's elected post-indy how things pan out.

Reading that back, I think that probably crystallises it. If I care more about those things than the short-term disruption, which I'd be naive to ignore entirely, then I'll vote Yes.

It does also depend - not trying to change your mind btw - how big you think the disruption will be, how long it will last for etc. Some people reckon it'll be pretty smooth sailing and not last long at all, other think it will probably take decades to get back to pretty much where we are.

I also personally think that (although we will obviously have elections etc) the current politicians we have do need to be considered in as much as thinking about the objectives they have stated they will have in negotiation. For example if Salmond and co go in and demand a currency union and don't get it what impact will that have - will we refuse to pay our share of debt as promised? How will that be viewed internationally in the money markets? What currency option will we go for, and how will that pan out? Will we be in or out of the EU, what concessions will we have to make to do so. All things which will influence what iScotland looks like

Well exactly. Clearly it will be a big hassle, so it's a serious weighing up of issues on both sides. Still got 2 weeks!!

Saw it posted above 'what is wrong with being part of the UK' or along those lines. We have a massive growing divide between rich and poor and I don't think the WM govt has any interest in doing anything about it as it suits them. For some people, I believe it really couldn't get any worse, for us on here, yes we might be worse off in the period of uncertainty, but there is an increasing number being pushed into poverty who cannot afford to eat right now. I don't believe that we will have utopia at all, but things in this country are pretty crap and I do believe that it can be better in a generally more left leaning country.

As for where the money comes from? Hike up the price of booze and we will be rich!

stoppedlurking56

Not having nuclear weapons, a House of Lords and a foreign policy I don't agree with

In the event of a yes vote - rUK will probably still have nuclear weapons and you will have lost your right to try to have them scrapped.

The House of Lords is gradually evolving to become more democratic, well, kind off...

You will have no say in rUK's foreign policy. If you believe the current foreign policy is immoral - well, it will still be immoral. Do you think the Scottish electorate/Scottish government are more moral than the rUK?
Remember that business with Al Megrahi?

My teenage daughter's friend explained that Westminster should "either shut up or piss off" re policies he thinks are unpopular in Scotland. But rUK won't be going anywhere and may be more right wing after a yes vote.