IndyRef 7

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

...

Brilliant post, OddCommentator!

If you were in a room with Alistair Darling and Alec Salmond, you would hear a debate in which point for point was answered. Every set of 'facts' used by one side is immediately countered with another set of 'facts' - and they are all based on 'statistics' ... There are no certainties about the future, no matter what is promised.

So how do you decide? Every time my son leaves the house, he is pounced on by the Yes team, who tell him what appears to be a combination of lies and promises, guesses and hopes. Given the facts, he is capable of making up his own mind, but being fed lies, he doesn't know what to vote for.

If the two sides were really interested in democracy, they would not be telling us what to think. They would state their cases clearly and then stand back. Democracy can't function in an atmosphere of lies. It's important that people vote with their own common sense and don't believe unbelievable promises. But in order to enjoy democracy, we do have to use our votes - what was the turn-out in the last election? Did more than a third of us actually vote? It's been said before, but at least we are having this debate.

Phaedra Carolyn is no fan of Tommy's www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jan/28/tommy-sheridan-perjury-sexism

" if you are voting in the belief that it will create a parliament that will create a vision of YOUR idea of independence then this is a mistake."

that kind of sums up what I've been trying to say for a while when people say we could do x, we could use the common weal, we could do y bla bla bla. If it's a stated policy in the white paper etc then at least there is something to go on although obviously the affordability needs questioned. But I think some people are basing a voting decision on a Scotland of their imagination.

...or they want to be governed by a government they voted for in their own country.

Didn't say it doesn't help women - although for most the current provision doesn't support them to work particularly. The local nursery provides one session a day - for 4 years olds its 8:30-11:30. There's no wrap around so you need to do pick up yourself, or arrange a childminder. There's only one of them. And quite rightly they would charge you for the full day for providing that service anyway as they can't fill a space until about 11am when they'd go to collect the nursery child. So it doesn't really help most people out to work.

So many great posts on here.

If the SNP truly had the welfare of the nation at heart, it would use the powers it already has, rather than by making it look as if it is being prevented by Westminster from doing what they Scottish people want.

And all these empty promises are so self-defeating. If they were to win, there'd be more money for everyone, more democracy ... No-one can promise either of those things. It's like lying on your CV, then getting a job that you can't actually do. No government is going to give you something without taking something, either from you or someone else. Every measure that is good for one person is bad for another - you can't get a system that pleases everyone.

So I think we have to use our common sense when we vote, but we have to remember some key facts. The results of future elections are unknown, the international situation is unknown, our economic situation is unknown - both with and without independence. So what is more likely, in your opinion? What do you believe in? In my case, I think it is likely that we will vote No by a narrow margin, and that the Westminster Government will have been shaken into taking us seriously, and will deliver the programme of Devo Max in all but name that has been outlined by G Brown. Also I believe that nations work better together for the common good. As part of the Union we have more democracy, not less, as our votes can affect more people's lives.

Shenanigans- the Scottish parliament has 35% women compared to 23% in the House of Commons www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN01250

Women's increased representation here has generated progressive legislation and policies that have improved women's lives in Scotland such as the breastfeeding in public act, funding for women's aid and rape crisis as well another women's organisations, a gender based approach to violence, 2009 sexual offences act, a proposal in parliament to criminalise demand, the extension of childcare.

Women will make up 50% of the Scottish parliament before long. I don't see that ever happening at Westminster.

Women in Cuba are apparently more equal politically, but I'm sure most of us don't fancy the Cuban political system.

Carolyn Leckie probably would given she was a Scottish Socialist MSP. Her views are hardly mainstream or facts credible.

www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/17420-yes-to-women-s-equality-scottish-independence-a-feminist-response

I have to work today, so only one post.
It would be fascinating to see an opinion poll on independence day, after the negotiations are (possibly) completed and the most obvious of the lies are exposed, to see whether there is still the same majority for independence.
But I would rather it didn't have to happen.

that kind of sums up what I've been trying to say for a while when people say we could do x, we could use the common weal, we could do y bla bla bla. If it's a stated policy in the white paper etc then at least there is something to go on although obviously the affordability needs questioned. But I think some people are basing a voting decision on a Scotland of their imagination.

But this is the whole point! We could do x IR y or follow the white paper or the Common Weal. But we need independence first. After independence, Scots as a country can mould where we go from there. Independence doesn't make Scotland a "better" country, it gives the population the means to do so, or not, depending on the decisions they make.

Well true Phaedra, very true.

If the SNP truly had the welfare of the nation at heart, it would use the powers it already has, rather than by making it look as if it is being prevented by Westminster from doing what they Scottish people want.

Well doing so would mean devolution is working, which they can't admit.

Doing so would involve using the tax raising powers which they won't do as that would alienate people like Weatherall who think only other (rich) people should pay more.

Doing so would mean Salmond doesn't get a chance to be President Salmond

Is this a case of fear of the immediate aftermath and an inability to see the long term benefits because of that (understandably). In every big change there are winners and losers

Oh god, we're back to the "no voters are short term and selfish" argument. We've had pretty lengthy discussions about that

There are no guaranteed long term benefits, just what people hope for. Folk weight different scenarios different ways in their head.

weatherall - you misunderstood my point

NS told the woman at the meeting that more women would be able to work as a result of increased provision of free childcare.

Therefore there will be more competition for jobs. Therefore making it even less likely that the questioner's sons will find work.

Free childcare will benefit parents who want to work. You are the one assuming the free childcare will release women from "the kitchen drinking our tea",

No state-provided childcare is completely free anyway, unless it's provided by volunteers. It has to be paid from our taxes if it's free at the point of delivery no pun intended

Westminster...will deliver the programme of Devo Max in all but name that has been outlined by G Brown

Fabulous. History repeats itself. Let's all forget the past and believe them this time

Notice how they wheeled out Gordon Brown, former Chancellor of the Exchequer let's not get into the pensions and him selling UK gold reserves when prices were rock bottom and unelected Prime Minister. Nowadays an opposition back bencher. Opposition back bencher, it stinks. Why not David Cameron himself?

What about the postal voters? Some do them may have changed their mind on what they voted because of this.

Anything promised by Nick Clegg should be roundly ignored too, as he'll more or less disappear off the radar come the next General Election.

Interesting post chunderella. In the event of a yes vote, I wonder if Alex Salmond and his other SNP colleagues will give up their British passports on the first day of independence?

I'm betting they wont

Where did I say selfish? But any change involves risk. I would say fear rather than selfishness. Things are so bad in the UK that literally some people have absolutely no leeway for things to get a bit worse before better. I think if the economy was stronger it would be a different story

Raising income tax is not a mechanism for improving 'welfare'.

The wealthy who can afford accountants find ways to reduce the amount of tax they pay as much as possible- look at all the high earners who claim they are self employed.

Increasing income tax will hit low to middle earners.

Taxes on capital are harder to avoid. But Scotland doesn't have control over stamp duty or capital gains tax or inheritance tax.

Sums my last post up.

There will be no 'president Salmond' why do you have to bleat out misinformation like this?

Do you have no real arguments?

No one is suggesting that the queen won't be the head of state in 2016.

The problem is NoddyHolder that many people seem to think independence will protect those who are the most vulnerable, the people who have no leeway. My personal view, and that of a lot of very reputable economists, is that in the "short term" at least (by which I actually mean a pretty lengthy period btw) the economic situation in Scotland will be considerably worse.

Stamp duty is about to come under Holyrood Weatherall. The Land and Buildings Transaction Tax Bill will come in to effect 1st April 2015

Women will make up 50% of the Scottish parliament before long. I don't see that ever happening at Westminster.

How do you know that 50% of the Scottish parliament will be comprised of women 'before long'? I would like to see that by the way. Could I add to your list of work done by the scottish parliament to promote gender equality the fantastic support it has given the No More Page 3 campaign?

Would you like to see more women in Westminster? Or don't you care about the lot of women who live outwith Scotland? An independent Scotland will have almost no influence on policies that affect women in rUK.