IndyRef 7

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

...

At the moment I see doom/gloom with both options tbh, and that's my dilemma. I've been posting elsewhere on this & I'm sorely disappointed in the better together campaign as I think all those involved/behind this have completely misjudged/misread the reasons why we are in the position of facing a real possibility of a yes vote.

I'd have taken devo max if it was an option. Had it been seriously thought through & carefully considered, then presented in time for us all to get a sense of how serious they were about that option, I'd have taken that option. Now, I'm not seeing much in the way of hope/positivity for either option given the consequences both options pose.

I have serious concerns about the possibility of another Tory government/coalition & god help us if UKIP get a sniff of power. I'm seriously worried about my financial security and neither option presents a particularly pleasant picture for me.

It genuinely feels like I'm stuck between a rock & a hard place.

There is discussion on the media this morning - WM politicians and commentators about the WM system (there was on R4 anyway) arising from the ref debate. That's not just my opinion.

Re the NHS. NHS Scotland is devolved that is correct. But the funding comes in a block grant from WM. The size of the block grant is determined by the spending on the NHS in England. More privatisation = less spending from government = less money for NHS Scotland.

In real terms the money has decreased the last two years. The Scottish NHS is under massive pressure due to this decrease in funding, and it is not sustainable. What Labour/Tories have done to the NHS in England is fast approaching a point of no return, hence the massive protests.

She's in cloud cuckoo land

*Tension

I agree that the refusal to offer devo max was a mistake/act of arrogance.

This is, of course, only my opinion, but if No do win, and if it's any closer than 70/30, which of course it will be, Scotland will get increased powers.

WM do not want to break up the union. They have gauged the public mood (and how!) and will respond to it. Unless they respond radically, (I've read articles about introducing some sort of federal rule for the different countries within the UK linked to on these threads), they know that there will be Scottish independence in the next 10 or 20 years.

Whatever choco you can twist whatever i say as much as you like. You're sounding a bit desperate now. In a couple of weeks time you will either get to stay in the union or you won't,- simple. Everyone will have to live with that decision, and hopefully make the best of it,- though i suspect it will not be the end of the Independence debate if it's a no.
I'm off to do some work. Have been sucked on here for too long

That is an encouraging post Latin

latin WM fixes the budget for NHS in Scotland. So while it can be spent as Holyrood sees fit, WM are always in control of the £££. These budgets are to be cut.

Tension on the sort of dull financial side I posted some facts and figures on the last thread -a few quite early on and some right at the end -which were generally agreed to be not too biased given I'm a no. I can't copy them over just now but it might help.

Itsallgoing I don't think that is strictly true re nhs spending, will track down the numbers but nhs UK spending has increased in real terms for, I think, 4 of the last five years. Our grant reflected that but scot govt priorities were different

As Celticlass has just accused me of twisting her words then gone away - could anyone else explain how I am twisting her words?

I was deliberately not lumping her in with all yes voters - yes voters like no voters are voting for different reasons. I am arguing that the argument for independence based on a 'democratic deficit' is weakened by the undeniable fact that WM politicians of all the major parties are now responding to the issues raised by the Scottish people.

Latin - if the result is no, you need to accept that graciously and run along. There can be no further time wasted on this divisive nonsense once Scotland has had her say.

And in the same way, we need to graciously accommodate a yes result.

Re NHS in Scotland. If we become independent then the cuts start immediately on 19th September. Scotland has to somehow find £6 Billion (half the NHS budget) in spending cuts to plug the debt. This will have to come from Health, schools etc.

Isn't NHS and education spending protected?

Itsall NHS Scotland frequently use private providers. My DM has had 2 hips replaced in private hospitals on the Scottish NHS. She said it was better than a holiday! Is this the way you would like to see NHS Scotland go, or is it all WM fault? or will it all be different in an independent scotland?

If Scotland votes yes, independence will be on 26th March 2016, not 19th September 2014.

Tension I have argued the moral case for remaining in the UK in the last thread. I agree that it is not an easy option to take. But I think it's the right thing to do.

Might have been the last but one thread. Sorry. So fast moving.

I also raised the question about spoiling your ballot paper if you are still undecided on 18th.

I think we should stay in the UK. And I think the Scottish economy will be devastated if we vote for independence.

I would advise that you read Statistically's posts on the economic consequences of a yes vote.

I do not think anyone in Yes has thought through the serious economic consequences of an independence vote. Currently the UK runs at a deficit (ie has to borrow to meet its budgetary commitments). Scotland, when taken as a whole, including average estimates of oil, runs at more of a deficit that the UK as a whole. That deficit is financed by borrowing. Currently the UK can borrow fairly cheaply because we have a good credit rating. Scotland alone will be at the mercy of the markets for borrowing so interest rates will be high. The solution is going to be cuts - either to take down the level of borrowing (ie spend less money) or borrowing less (ie, having less money to spend). Either way, the NHS will no longer be protected by the manifesto commitment of the Westminster coalition to maintain NHS spending. Education, Roads, everything - devolved or otherwise - will have to be cut.

Additionally, the UK will go into recession as a whole. This will be expensive for both the UK and Scottish governments as tax receipts will be lower and there will be job losses - so more on benefits.

I do not think people are thinking this through. A Yes vote is a vote for cuts, austerity and hardship on an unimagined scale. But, hey, who cares. They are just the poor, children, the sick, the elderly. As long as Scotland can get its own way, what do they matter?

Polonium, I am a No voter, so if the result is a No, I will accept it delightedly!

But I still think that for a close No, there will be increased powers for Scotland. (On earlier threads, folk were talking about Scotland being 'punished' in the event of a No vote, and I just don't think that's true.)

border controls, prices going up, job losses, tourism going down, a different currency...

Totally agreee Roseformeplease. I've said on an earlier thread, I think people have no idea of the forthcoming hardship, in the event of a Yes vote, to get their promised land.

I think Alec and Nicola are starting to look a bit crazed, much like Tony Blair and his religious war fervour.

I've been reading a lot of posts about the financial consequences of yes. I'm equally concerned about the financial consequences of a continued Tory/coalition. That's my dilemma. My job/livelihood/security isn't rosy no matter which way I vote. Labour aren't saying much that convinces me they'll win enough to prevent the result I fear most.

I have a real problem with how BT have conducted their campaign and unfortunately that compounds the concerns I have over voting no. I'm staggered that BT have not spent more time, much earlier, looking at the possibility of devo max, which does lead me to distrust their intentions on that score. WM are so far removed from reality that I still fear how we'll fair under another Tory/Tory coalition if it happens. The mood down South re UKIP is another worry.

It really is a difficult decision for me, and I guess everyone else. I'm just continuing to read as much as I can over the next week or so & hope I can be clear what's the best way to go once I get in the voting booth.

I understand why people are disillusioned with WM gov'ts.

I understand a genuine feeling of being distinctly different from rUK and therefore wanting to claim self-determination.

But IMO the consequences will be awful. And the case for self-determination, even if you agree that Scotland is a distinct country with different needs in the case of UK cannot be made IMO. Given that we are not an oppressed minority unable to express our cultural/religious/political differences. To break up the longstanding union for the sake of a feeling of being Scottish with all the consequences is (at least for the foreseeable future) IMO unjustifiable.

Let's stay in the UK and work to ensure that UKIP doesn't become more influential.

Honestly I despair sometimes. I know that for some the economics don't matter -fine. But stop lying to those they do matter for

Sturgeon on £ drop: "would suggest the financial markets see Scotland as a strong economy". Utterly delusional!! She will say ANYTHING. You can't reason with these people

Yup, more lies from Salmond/Sturgeon

But the financial consequences of the current coalition will last only until 2015 and the general election. Whatever the results of that election, there will be change. There have been Labour governments for large parts of the last 100 years, and there will be again. A vote for Yes is forever and should transcend party politics.

Genuinely, I am convinced that extreme hardship is coming with a Yes vote - really painful for everyone and especially for the poor.