Discuss your views of the Scottish Referendum with the UK government NOW CLOSED

[MichelleMumsnet]

With fewer than 200 days to go until the Scottish referendum, UK Government has produced the latest edition, in a series of information packs, focussing on money and the economy in the context of the independence debate.

Read more: Scottish independence referendum: Money and the economy.

UK Government wants to find out what Mumsnetters' views are of the Scottish referendum coming up in September. When it comes to the prospect of Scotland going it alone and possible impacts on the economy, like changes in currency and taxes, what are your views? Whether you're Scottish or not we'd love to hear your thoughts.

Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, "As part of the UK the Scottish economy is growing, inflation is down and more people are in work. By remaining part of the UK, Scottish industry and jobs will be protected by the generous freeze on duties on spirits and the £3bn tax break for oil and gas industries we announced at the Budget, as well as the big cuts in income tax helping 2 million Scottish workers.

This new pack sets out some key facts people in Scotland need to know before the referendum in September. I urge everyone to read up on the facts and understand the true benefits being part of the United Kingdom brings to Scotland."

Mumsnet will be hosting various content and activity in the run up to the referendum from all sides of the debate, so do keep a look out for these in the coming months.

Thanks,

MNHQ

I live in such a constituency. My point is, the boundaries of 'them and us' that pro-indys would like us to draw are fairly arbitrary. 'They' are not so different from us - I think many would be surprised at just how many scottish votes UKIP had in the last election (hint...it's far, far more than the 'socialist' parties notwithstanding labour).

I live in such a constituency. My point is, the boundaries of 'them and us' that pro-indys would like us to draw are fairly arbitrary. 'They' are not so different from us - I think many would be surprised at just how many scottish votes UKIP had in the last election (hint...it's far, far more than the 'socialist' parties notwithstanding labour).

If I understand your point correctly you are saying that lots of Scots are right/Tory/UKIP voting and therefore Scots should be happy with the WM government as lots of us did vote for them?

We live in a democracy. Enough voters didn't vote for them that we have one Tory MP in the whole of Scotland, and an overall SNP government in Holyrood in a system designed to prevent majorities.

However, past general elections also show that Scots as a whole tend to make different choices to rUK, and these different choices are not reflected when it come to WM as the Scots vote is too small to make a difference.

www.flickr.com/photos/potatojunkie/8087151692/sizes/o/

But this doesn't really matter. The ultimate test is the referendum. If Scots feel they are well represented by the WM government then they will vote No. If they don't they will vote Yes.

Just spent the best part of an hour reading back over this thread.

I am struck by how well-informed the arguments on here are, and there are some good links - but there are still no certainties. Even 'facts' about the past are disputed - has Scotland taken more than it has contributed to the UK? Even very respectable economists can't agree on this.

As far as the economic arguments are concerned, there are always people who are poised to take advantage of any new situation, so they would do very well out of independence. The rest of us would be unaffected or harmed. No-one can say independence would be better financially for Scots because Scots are as varied as anyone else, and we all have different needs. There are huge social differences. No economic policies can benefit all parts of the population.

And OldLady who keeps banging on about 'positive reasons' for staying together! It's for the people who are not satisfied with the status quo to put the case for change, surely? The last 300 years have given us a good idea of the benefits and drawbacks of the Union, and most of us still think it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Which doesn't mean it can't be improved, obv.

Salmond said a vote for independence is a vote for hope over fear. More like the triumph of hope over experience.

Something that occurs to me is that afaik the birth rate south of the border is higher than ours. I would have thought we would need the younger generations in rUK to pay for our pensions in Scotland if our own population keeps decreasing. Another reason for staying together?

Or are all the Yes voters planning to start reproducing like rabbits once Scotland in independent??

Anyway these are still what-ifs, and the arguments go round in circles.

Yes campaigners are putting forward the reasons for change! We can protect our NHS, keep free prescriptions, free personal care for the elderly, free tuition fees. We can get rid of Trident, saving £ billions we can put towards better childcare, abolishing the bedroom tax, protecting welfare benefits and pensions. We can increase investments in green energy. We can save £50m a year not sending MPs to WM, stop funding the HoL, and all of the corruption we see revealed everyday in WM. We see the lies WM are prepared to tell us, (yet again, see the 1974 McCrone Report) and we can get rid of that, too.

We can be governed by politicians we elect, not those elected by a small number of swing constituencies in the south of England. That may be an SNP gvt, it's more likely to be gvt by concensus, as originally conceived; grownups sitting down to discuss policies which are best for the people of Scotland, not what's best for neoptistic career politicians.

We can stop the "Scottish cringe" that tells us we're too wee, too poor, and we can stand on our own two feet as a grownup, independent nation. No-one else who has left the rule of the UK has ever asked to come back, why should we be any different?

Of course there are negotiations to be had, compromises to be reached. It won't all be milk and honey straight away. But it'll be the future we choose, not one which is imposed upon us from afar.

I'm a bit elderly to be breeding like rabbits myself, but that's why we need to control immigration policies ourselves; we need more young folk. I know folks down south aren't so keen, hence the rise of UKIP, but up here, as you say, we need them. Only a yes vote will give us that power.

For more reasons, have a look at this. It's on Wings, but not by the Rev Stu, and has lots of interesting links.

solopower I agree there are very few (any?) solid facts in this whole debate. Anything mooted as fact by one sides expect will be swiftly refuted by the other sides experts.

One just has to look at the balance of information as one finds it. I know linking to "propaganda" is frowned in, but sod it - they say it better than I can

wingsoverscotland.com/sowing-seeds/

See especially the four paragraphs after the picture of the yellow flower in the stone spiral (site doesn't allow C and P)

Yes, OldLady, we'd need more immigration, if immigrants have larger families (or is that just a nasty racist rumour - genuine question?) as there are too many oldies like you and me, whose breeding days are over.

I know you are putting forward the reasons for change - and very passionately too. What I am saying is that we BTs don't need to put forward the reasons for staying the same, as we have had 300 years of Union, so we know what it means, warts and all.

All we BTs need to do is to answer your arguments, as well as we can. Most of them are unanswerable however, since no-one knows if anything you have written would actually happen post-independence, nor can we see who would benefit. And a lot of what you have written is being done/could be done if Scotland gets more powers devolved after a no vote. Which I think it would.

The 'Scottish cringe' business I don't recognise. I really don't understand this. Who is it that is cringing? And who - in the rUK - thinks we can't 'stand on our own two feet'?

Yes, OldLady, we'd need more immigration, if immigrants have larger families (or is that just a nasty racist rumour - genuine question?) as there are too many oldies like you and me, whose breeding days are over.

Are you trying to imply old lady was being racist? We don't need more immigrants beacaue they have lits of children FFs, we need immigrants because they are net contributors to the state.

I really hope I have misunderstood your meaning.

And a lot of what you have written is being done/could be done if Scotland gets more powers devolved after a no vote. Which I think it would

Devolution plans from WM at the moment are rubbish. They have had successive governments to devolve more powers if they had wanted to. I might believe this more if they put further devolution into place now (after all they are assuming a no vote) rather than saying if you vote no we would look at further devolution

The 'Scottish cringe' business I don't recognise. I really don't understand this. Who is it that is cringing? And who - in the rUK - thinks we can't 'stand on our own two feet'?

That is the message portrayed. All this stuff about shared risks, broad shoulders...

Well that's one way of looking at history! It's all a giant conspiracy theory, I see.

I don't have any patience with people who try to whip up feelings of resentment or make Scots feel hard done-by - but an interesting link all the same, which answers my Q re cringing etc.

No, I would rather try to look at this dispassionately - but as I have said before, in the absence of anything concrete to argue over, we are left with gut feelings and ancient resentments.

Going round in circles.

No, ItsAllGoingToBeFine, I am not calling OldLady a racist!

Well that's one way of looking at history! It's all a giant conspiracy theory, I see.

What is your interpretation of the events in the link? Esp the "hiding" of the North Sea oil?

Not sure how you read that into my post, tbh.

It's not just immigrants having more babies, we need fit, heathy working immigrants now. If they choose to start families, who stay here too, that's a positive on top.

Re more devo, well, that's where I disagree. I've been accused of scaremongering when I've said this before, but I don't think there will be more devo if say say no. We can see how the NHS is being quietly privatised in England, and Dave has said he'd like to do the same to ours; there will be Barnett consequentials which will lead to budget cuts in any case. The Scottish gvt control over renewables was quietly removed by the unelected HoL a few months ago. Our highest court, in our famously separate legal system, has been removed to London, where the Supreme Court sits. Labour would like to devolve more powers to local councils (where they have more of a chance of being in control), reducing the Parliament to a pointless rump. Any powers the Scottish gvt currently have can be removed at the stroke of a pen in WM.

In all honesty, had there been a coherent devoplus/max/whatever option on the ballot, I'd have gone for it, and I suspect it would have won by a landslide. But WM said no, it's yes/no, fully expecting we'd say no (that Scottish cringe I mentioned) and now they're getting worried because they have misread the situation. I think we'll win, on a high turnout, and by a good margin.

And then we'll all stand around for a bit, looking at each other in shock, before getting down to the real business of becoming an independent country, and good neighbours to our cousins in the south.

shock No, ItsAllGoingToBeFine, I am not calling OldLady a racist!

I'm glad I misunderstood :)

Not sure how you read that into my post, tbh

I mistakenly thought that you were saying that oldladys comment about immigration being beneficial to Scotland to help declining population was made as oldlady believed immigrants had larger families, and that these additional children were the cause of the benefit.

Oh I don't know, ItsAllGoingToBeFine.

Maybe that dastardly politicians are sometimes underhand, unprincipled, ruthless, dishonest, manipulative, etc etc. Nothing new there.

Just not sure how relevant it is, tbh.

X posts with a few, I didn't think solo was accusing me of racism. :)

Thanks, OldLady. I agree that the picture you paint post No vote is horrible, and I share your concerns. I don't think you are scaremongering, but as I have said before, I think we will get Devomax in all but name.

Maybe that dastardly politicians are sometimes underhand, unprincipled, ruthless, dishonest, manipulative, etc etc. Nothing new there

I completely agree. Now wouldn't it be nicer to live in a country where we can elect our own dastardly dishonest politicians, and then get rid of them when they show their true colours. Rather than having WM ones imposed on is by the SE England.

Just not sure how relevant it is, tbh

Really?! The modern history of Scotland's relationship with rUK is incredibly relevant.

I think we will get Devomax in all but name

What makes you think that? I'm another who would probably have voted devo-max rather than full independence, if devo-max is genuinely on offer, why on earth did WM get it taken off the ballot paper?

'What makes you think that? I'm another who would probably have voted devo-max rather than full independence, if devo-max is genuinely on offer, why on earth did WM get it taken off the ballot paper?'

As I have said before (altho' the writer in OldLady's article disagrees) I think Westminster will be scared into keeping us revolting natives sweet.

Why did they take DevoMax off the ballot paper? Don't know. Big mistake, imo. But at least I suppose by limiting it to Yes or No they force us to declare our colours. That will make us easier to control subjugate in the future. This way they force Salmond to show his hand and bring out his big guns, and in the future they can say 'you got your chance'.

Isn't there some conflict between needing to keep us sweet, and making us easier to control?

(OLKN under namechange, btw, forced by the compulsory password change. OLKN's email is defunct.)

I think Westminster will be scared into keeping us revolting natives sweet

I don't think WM gives us revolting natives more than a moments thought. Remember the '79 referendum (I don't, but anyway) that had a majority Yes vote. We didn't get Independence, let alone any devolution from that. If its a no vote WMs reaction will be "meh" and absolutely nothing will change in way positive for Scotland.