Indyref 11. The home of good manners

[grovel]

!0,000 and counting.

Impossible to say, Team, but I think a lot of people would have taken the middle road

With independence, all the powers are yours and you make all your own decisions, not just the ones you are allowed to make by someone else.

Unless you sign up to a CU.....

Oh yeah, that's the plan!

I think what the No's amongst us have to realise is that for the Yesses no price is too high if they gain their independence. Lost jobs? Recession? They're all a price worth paying to them. It's an ideological stance and it's imossible to have any kind of debate with them. I've given up and am just hoping against hope that there are enough people who can see beyond the rhetoric and assertion and see that the economic case has not been made.

I can see why this thread requires a tin hat!

I'm not voting no because I'm worried about my job, mine is safe - though that is a real and valid concern, especially if you have a family to support and/or other commitments - it's not as if jobs are particularly easy to get at the moment.

TeamScotland - what do you mean 'eh?'. My post was perfectly clear.

This seems to be the only topic on Mumsnet where victim blaming is acceptable - to some.

How would a Devo Max have worked ?

Would whichever got the most even if less than 50% have won? So Yes might have won on less than 50%? 30% No 30% DV 40% Yes so Yes wins?

If that is how it would have played out no wonder Cameron said no to it.

I hear what you say JCW but I still find it difficult to believe that people are prepared to ignore (when they have an option) the hopes and aspirations of some half of their countryfolk. That is very dangerous territory with some unfortunate geographical and historical precedents.

I get a feeling that some Yes voters don't grasp what CU actually means.

I'm trying to find a better analogy than:

You know when you get divorced yeah and you split the money? Well it's like that but you keep a joint bank account.

My job would be threatened flippinada, but it's not the main reason I'm a No. I'm a no because I think the economic issues are just too big and that they will lead to greater poverty for a large number of people.

I also have a lot of positive reasons for voting No which I've posted on other threads.

Absolutely John.

I don't think they (SNP) have empathy with the countrymen they purport to serve.

Here's a useful and thoughtful discussion which touches on the role that identity plays in people's decision making. Not what the stereotypes say. I thought this was one of the best things I've heard throughout the campaign.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gcph3

There are some pretty shocking posts appearing on my Facebook feed from Yes supporting friends. If you vote No, you are a disgrace to Scotland, etc, etc. the No posts seem to be people explaining why they are voting No along with people sharing stories. I am not a Scot, but find the notion that to be considered one worthy of the name by the Yes campaign, you have to agree with them.

Isn't that a very worrying point of view. Almost as if disagreement makes you a traitor, anti, against, other?

Very difficult to look the friend in the eye when I see her after reading that kind of opinion.

JohnCussacksWife Yes to all of your post.

I'm not sure how my job would be affected. Possibly survive but with reduced earnings but contrary to the assumptions being made by many Yes voters about No I am looking to long term well being too.

Families, friends and communities are riven by this Rose.

Statistically I agree with you! I didn't phrase my post very well.

To be clear, I am voting no.

Oh I know, I was agreeing with you!

Phaedra

I would have thought that having 3 options on the ballot paper it would have been a transferable vote system - so you would rate your options 1, 2, 3. If none of the options got over 50% then the lowest rated would be discarded and the second choices on the ballot papers which put the lowest rated first would then be added in (so you could vote for Devo Max first then No second, and if Devo Max was the lowest option then your vote would become a No, for example).

Let's be realistic, DC did not turn down a Devo Max option because he was worried about how the vote would work on a technical level...!

Oh my for heavens sake. You blink fir 5 mins and there's a whole new thread with a huge no of replies.
Sallyingforth -I think you suggested I was being unfair - but I do believe that it is wrong to judge between the yes and the no campaign.
There are rational and sensible people on both sides of the debate, it doesn't necessarily help to suggest one side is sensible and the other isn't.
It just adds to the confusion tbh.

We'd have to wait weeks for that result to be calculated NCforAye

In the last couple of days I've been told, on my FB feed, that you can't be a decent person if you vote No, you're a bad parent if you vote No (by an ex-weatherman, no less), I'm a traitor, not a true Scot, am uneducated and ignorant. All comments made on Yes campaign videos/memes etc and shared by people I thought were friends/family. How we're meant to forget this after Thursday I just don't know. I've tried very hard to be reasonable all through this campaign but am finding it increasingly difficult to take. How am I meant to forget that people said these things?

Ah, OK. We're both good.

In my defence, it's getting past my normal bedtime and my typing, grammar and spelling goes to pot when I'm tired

LatteLoverLovesLattes
I do see that some posters have worries about their own personal situations. This has been a recurrent theme on all these indy threads and I realise that they are genuine concerns. The problem is that there is so much posturing and concerted manipulation happening on the Westminster side (and among their many friends in the old boys network) that I think that people are crossing many bridges that may never materialise. If you read a lot of the statements closely, they are not saying that they would definitely do x or y if there was a Yes vote; they are saying that ONE of the possible implications of a Yes vote is that they might do x or y. I think that if there is a Yes vote and after the dust settles, these threats will come to nothing because Scotland will still be a good place to do business (and hopefully even a better one).

Well that's a reason to vote No. We must work together with the people of Belfast, Middlesborough, Wigan, Cardiff, Brighton and the whole of the developing European Union. In unity rather than turning our backs simply because we feel beaten in times of austerity.
An independent Scotland would not be turning its back on other people suffering from austerity. You do not need to be ruled by the same government to lend moral support (or even practical support). And just what exactly would staying with Westminster help us achieve in terms of helping others beat inequality and poverty? From where I'm standing, it just leaves us in the same helpless mess as the rest. We could, however, instead take the lead in showing that there is an alternative to the current centralist and elitist Westminster model with its disengaged electorates and lack of accountability.

That last post was to StatisticallyChallenged

JohnCusacksWife Yes, I've seen similar. Once you see these things you can't unsee them.