*...and some on here have argued that it's nationalist propaganda to claim that No has said "we're too wee and too poor"? confused
Tell that to Denmark, Luxembourg, Holland, Finland, all of whom seem to survive quite adequately with populations of similar size and similar resources not even mentioning the oil*
It must be nationalist propoganda because I can't see anyone in the No camp coming up with such an unpleasant phrase. Scotland's population is too small to support the plans and the desire of a Yes campaign, and it cannot compete or promote itself on the world stage in the same manner it does right now.I am not the only poster to have pointed that out. It doesn't mean the people in it are shit. At no point have I said that so kindly stop twisting my words.
The problem is the Yes campaign has sold a vision to people which I have not seen any concrete evidence for, despite asking. It has preyed on some of the most vulnerable in society and instead of promising the holy land it is this group who will be the worse affected. What I have seen for pro independence in no way justifies the utter pain that the whole country will go through. It is that blatant manipulation and outright lying that makes me so angry more than anything else, that peoples lives will get worse, not better. I can leave. They can't.
But anyway, moving onto the demographics of various countries you have listed above. Off the top of my head:
The Netherlands has a population of 16 million so is not comparable. Luxembourg is part of a the Benelux region, an area which sees much cooperation between the Netherlands and also Belgium, encouraging trading and growth between the three to offset the fact they are smaller nations. As well as being a tax haven and long established world financial centre, Luxembourg also plays host to several very large EU departments and even has a rather enormous EU village on the outskirts of the city. Its proximity right in the middle of Europe also makes it an ideal location for large business to base their headquarters there, particularly combined with the fact that all of the population speak at least two languages fluently, sometimes up to four. Belgium also has the benefit of being able to trade with France and the Netherlands and the UK given its location, along with speaking three languages fluently and an exceedingly large port which works collaboratively with the world's third largest port in Rotterdam. Ditto the Netherlands as many products are marketed in Dutch and French. In addition, all three countries have been doing their trade agreements and established relationships for an awfully long time.
Scotland has none of the above. Aside from the rUK as its main trading partner. And with the division in society that Belgium has. Who could forget the eighteen months or however long it was it took them to get a prime minister because the sides were so divided?
Denmark. It certainly is comparable in population size. It also has a longstanding agreement as part of the Nordic area of countries and cooperation agreements, is a fully fledged member of the EU, and has Germany as a trading partner on its doorstep, similar to the Netherlands. Its citizens speak two or three languages fluently so they are able to do business across much of the EU with ease. It also has a terrible problem with brain drain being smaller.
Finland. What about negatives because it is EU and Nordic of course. But what an example for a small country with a huge neighbor lurking on your back door. Now that Nokia has gone, the economy has plummeted. I think it went back into recession earlier this year. And it is massively dependent on Russia. I don't think I need to elaborate. But if you don't believe me, perhaps this article from the Wall Street Journal is a credible enough source. online.wsj.com/articles/finland-reduces-economic-growth-forecast-for-2014-1403087681
Scotland will be isolated from the EU and isolated from the remainder of the UK. The only language the majority of people speak is English. It is not in a competitive place geographically to encourage trade and will take a very long time to negotiate agreements with all 28 of the EU countries. The territory that oil sits on might be Scottish but it is owned by foreign companies. And I repeat, why should one part of the country have to bear the brunt for everyone else? The whole oil argument is boring beyond belief.
By the way, my husband is Dutch and I lived there for many years, working with colleagues from all over Europe including Denmark. So let's see what other countries you can come up with instead shall we that can be compared as a viable proposition to a newly independent Scotland? I could tell you all about the problems smaller countries face, both in the EU and globally, and why that is also informing my decision to vote No. Not that you'd listen.