Scottish Referendum debate - watch with Mumsnet

[KatieMumsnet]

So tonight sees the first TV debate of the Scottish Referendum with First Minister and key advocate of the pro- yes campaign, Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling, leader of the pro-UK Better Together campaign coming together for a head to head debate for the first time.

You can watch live from 8pm on STV and if you're south of the border can tune in via the STV player.

Fancy watching along with us? What are you hoping to see from tonight's debate? What are your thoughts on the campaigns so far?

If you've decided which way to vote, why? And if not, what will help you decide?

Do feel free to share these, and any more thoughts you have

I think my brain is going to sleep, "culture-related" sounds weird to me. A country in which I've previously worked and lived, is what I mean. Excuse my wording in my previous post, I think by having lived there before and experienced the culture, my brain made an odd connection!

Numanoid the conservatives desire to have a UK hunam rights act rather than tie us into the European convention came becasue of a number of bizarre and anti-women rulings, namely:

Allowing prisoners the vote
Demanding equal pension ages
Demanding no sex related basis for car insurance, thus increaisng bills for women.

Allowing prisoners the vote - I'm undecided on that one, but leaning to agreeing with your, carol, that it shouldn't be allowed. I would need to look into it more before making a decision.

Demanding equal pension ages - I think that's fair.

Demanding no sex related basis for car insurance, thus increaisng bills for women - I also think this is fair. I don't get why DP should pay more for car insurance than me. We're both (usually overly) cautious drivers.

I don't trust them to reinstate another one though. Or one that is equal to the Human Rights Act we have just now. I am in favour of the EU, myself.

The european convention on Human rights has nothing to do with the EU - women drivers paid less on average because they have less accidents on average, this no has to change because it is 'against human rights' to make a statistical analysis of accident rates??

It is very unfair. It does make me think of thing such as "women are generally better at housework so they should all stay at home". I have seen male drivers charge out onto roundabouts without a care in the world, stopping the traffic with right of way, and I've also had a woman almost go into the side of my car coming out of a side road because she was busy texting. I have no doubt that if I hadn't swerved and sounded the horn as quickly as I did, DP in the passenger seat would have been seriously injured at best.
There are irresponsible drivers on either side. Why should DP have to pay hundreds more than me because other male drivers are twats?

Gender equality in insurance is a crazy requirement and long term it's just going to cause costs to go up for everyone as insurers try to come up with new pricing models to let them price as accurately. It's a scientific fact that men on average have a shorter life span than women. Why is less clear. So whilst men paid more for life and car insurance, women paid more for annuities. Now they have to try and figure out those underlying factors and build them in to pricing. The only people who will pay the cost for that is the end customer.

Why do English people want to hold on to Scotland? Surely the Scots who want out will be denied the human rights which England adheres to.(if they stay together with England).
PS:I'm American.

Erm...we're being given the chance, collectively, to vote and make a democratic decision. Whichever way the vote goes there will be people who don't get the outcome they want but I'd hardly say they are being denied their human rights.

25 or even only 10 years are an awful lot out of a person's live, 10 years take me close to my retirement age and 25 to my mid-seventies. My children will grow up, go to university (possibly) and try to make a live for themselves in that time. I can't understand how blasé people are about that. I know there are no certainties either way but independence strikes me as the far more doubtful future option.

Its interesting. Looking at these threads the No voters are all concerned about the immediate impact of independence on themselves and their families, yes voters are more concerned with the long term impact on Scottish society.

I'm a No voter concerned about the impact on myself and my family AND the impact on Scottish and UK society. I genuinely don't think independence is the best option. Yes, I'm worried about my children - that's not unreasonable. I don't think the economic outcome will be great, which, for me, means I don't believe we will get all the benefits for society that are being promised. That's how I look at it, obviously other people will approach it differently.

I guess its a question of which set of uncertainties you go for: an uncertain future controlled by WM, or an uncertain future controlled by Scottish parliament.

Also depends what you think the hallmarks of a successful country are?

Number of billionaires?
No food banks?
World leading banking sector?
Living wage throughout?

Scotland has already shown it has different priorities to rUK, prioritising eg free education whilst cutting other areas.

I agree though, anyone who thinks that an independent Scotland will immediately become this socialist utopia with the population at the top of the happiness index is deluded.

Things will remain shit for a few years, and may well get shittier before they get better.

Ahh, the food banks one - a favourite of the Facebook warriors. So, how will an independent Scotland get rid of foodbanks? They are throughout Europe, but so show we are supposed to believe this will cease in Scotland?

If we're looking at distribution of resources, why does the Svottish Government continue to spend money freezing council tax, which benefits people like me a bit (although if I'm being selfish I do like it, as I live in Edinburgh and something has to limit the 'iconic' projects our council is so keen on), benefits the wealthy in their expensive houses a lot, and doesn't really benefit the poorest who are not pAying council tax? This is money they could have chosen to spend on making things 'fairer' but haven't.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine your post is exactly why I'm voting No. It is so smug. The Yes campaign does not have the moral monopoly and they are certainly not saints.

Things may well get shitter, you say. Someone upthread suggested 10 years at the earliest. Well what's going to happen to the people who already need food banks during that ten years, and the people on the cusp of needing them?

IMO, there are too many problems in Scotland to put ourselves through 10-25 years of massive change.

Ah, my favourite, the "all No voters are selfish short termist sods, and all Yes voters are wonderful altruistic human beings who care for the greater good" line

It's not fair, and it's not true.

Getting fed up with rich celebrities sticking their oar in as well with their Vote NO stance.

£24 million for extra Gaelic roadsigns. I'm sure those poor souls in Scotland using food banks are big supporters of ScotGovs "different priorities"
And don't get me started on the amount of money from the over stretched education budget that has been IMO wasted on Gaelic and Scots language qualifications! I'm sure they will really help our young people find a job.

waste

How about you just delete the last 5 words of that sentence IrnBruTheNoo then we can agree! I'd like the rich celebs to just keep the hell out full stop to be honest!

But irnbroo the Yes campaign have been trotting out celeb backing from the beginning... for example
Sauce for the goose and all that.....

*Ah, my favourite, the "all No voters are selfish short termist sods, and all Yes voters are wonderful altruistic human beings who care for the greater good" line

It's not fair, and it's not true.*

If you look at the the posts on these threads it is true, and isn't meant to be an insult. Or if you are going to take it as an insult it goes both ways, nos are sensible realists and yes are hopeless dreamers...?

OK, firstly I didn't say that, and it is an insult. And secondly - people will only put so much of their rationale online. Personally, I explain about my job because it's normally the most "acceptable" response and gets people to stop hectoring me. But I don't believe it would be good for Scotland as a whole. I don't believe that (at least) one of Scotland's biggest industries being decimated would benefit the country. It wouldn't benefit our children to have fewer jobs and fewer opportunities, and I think that for a substantial number of our children that would be the reality.

How long has it taken Yorkshire to recover from the loss of the mines? Or Sheffield from the loss of the steel industry? In my opinion it is likely that there will be very significant job losses across a swathe of industries (and public sector roles.) In the long term we would probably be able to fix things, attract new industries etc. But there will probably be significant pain for a significant period, for a lot of people. And of course if you have higher unemployment you've got lower tax takes which leads to austerity measures, or huge borrowing. Except...how easy will it be for us to borrow? We can't answer that question because there is far too much uncertainty.

And there is a fair amount of evidence that countries in recession tend to swing to the right...so we might not get such a socialist country after all.

So no, I'm not selfish. I think there are a very large number of people for whom independence could be extremely negative. I just happen to be one of them.

All these people dissing iScotland are just making me want to vote Yes even more.

IrnBru I have to agree with you, in a sense.

The way I compare the situation (as an example), is to being stuck in a dead-end, minimum-wage job, which you're okay in, you can get by and you're not happy but it'll do. Then you're offered a better one - better salary and benefits, you'll love it, but it's temporary pending a probationary period, so you'd have to work for it - hard. Hmm... better just stay in the rubbish job because at least you know what you're getting, and you might not do well in that other one.

People don't think it can be done, and hey Westminster have let us down time and time again - but we're used to it. We're struggling, but we're just managing so it's not all that bad. Better not take the chance.