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

It was a fact, supported by the three main political parties in rUK, that there would most definitely be no currency union, and no negotiation, despite Darling, Cameron et al having previously said that currency union was logical, sensible etc, and Carney agreeing it was doable. Now, it can be negotiated - as you say, Surprise, surprise, what the Yes campaign has said, is actually true.

A no vote won't give us any more powers, they've made that clear too. Have you read Labour's proposals on income tax powers under Devo (if they get into WM in 2015)? Even they don't understand their policy, (two years in the making) with Lamont saying one thing and a proforma response to (proforma) Wings supporters saying something quite different.

The disgruntlement of rUk voters re tuition fees, free scripts etc is more likely to lead to us losing them, than rUK gaining them, should we vote No. A Yes vote, however, might put pressure on WM to sort things out.

The no currency union thing does seem to be blatant scaremongering - but the point is, it could happen. Anything could. This is just a warning shot - the Westminster politicians gently reminding us just how difficult they would try to make our lives if we vote Yes.

Other countries (like Spain), who are scared of similar independence movements, will also be unfriendly and obstructive. Not that that should put us off, necessarily. But we should go into it with our eyes open. Years down the line I expect the other countries will all want trade links, currency agreements etc again, because it will be in their interests too. It's the horrible intervening period that I don't like the idea of.

Several very difficult years would follow independence. How much time do you have? Maybe it's worth it for you? Not for me. My life is not perfect, but I am sure that the changes needed to make it better are no more likely to happen once we are independent than they are while we are part of the UK.

No scaremongering, just trying to work out what is most likely, in the absence of any solid information.

Several very difficult years would follow independence. How much time do you have? Maybe it's worth it for you? Not for me. My life is not perfect, but I am sure that the changes needed to make it better are no more likely to happen once we are independent than they are while we are part of the UK

That's a really interesting point, and a point of view that I hadn't considered. Unlikely though it may sound, I am not voting yes because I think it will directly benefit me (like you said there is likely to be an extended period of wrangling, and things are likely to be difficult at first) I am voting yes because I think it is the right thing to do for the "greater good"

ItsAllGoingToBeFine, I think you're right, we need to think about what we want for the future, not go round in circles discussing things no-one can prove either way.

Why do you think independence would be for the greater good?

Because successive Westminster governments have (very broadly speaking) pretty much focused on London (esp City of). If it is outside the SE of England it is pretty much off the radar.

The current governments policies are beyond the pale, and they have shown time after time their complete lack of understanding. Their only real opponents are probably Labour or, god forbid, UKIP. Labour has shown that they broadly support the policies that the Tories are putting in place (by for a majority of Labour MPs voting for them). Labour has also in the past showed its disconnect from reality the people eg the Iraq war.

Furthermore the people of the UK (relatively) recently rejected a chance to reform the first past the post system.

There is no reason for the ethos of the government in Westminster to change. Parties are pretty similar and enough people seem happy with their policies to keep voting them in, due in no small part to the fact that they,re making the rich richer, and it is the poor and disenfranchised that are less likely to vote.

No-one from Westminster has put together any realistic proposals for anything approaching devo-max, and if that was a serious option post a no vote, why on earth isn't it an option on the ballot paper which would have a guaranteed no Yes vote.

So in my opinion politics on Westminster is very badly broken, and it is unlikely to get fixed as it benefits those with power (not just political).

Independence is the only way Scotland gets to make its own way, choose it's own path. There are some really exciting discussions happening about the sort of country we could build. And yes, I think Scotland may well have less very rich people than rUK, but I am all for a more even distribution of wealth. Its not good enough for a country to be rich on paper (which Scotland is) it needs all of its population to be treated and regarded equally - Scotland has the opportunity to build a fairer and more just society that doesn't have scary statistics on child poverty, that doesn't have a yawning gulf between the rich and the poor.

I realise the above is all very long, and contains no facts. However I have read extensively around the topic and the facts that I have read inform what I believe.

Thanks! I've got to rush now (honest!) but will be back tomorrow.

I am influenced by my teenager & their friends as it is their future at stake. Interestingly, they have no truck with nationalism & separatism, they want to be part of a United Kingdom & a United Europe, free to travel & work without visa restrictions. They will all vote 'No' and I will follow their lead.

I will now also vote Labour at the next election as Miliband has said they won't have a referendum on Europe. Staying in Europe is the prize, for me. I am not confident we will be able to do that as a separate nation and it is not worth the risk and uncertainty. I prefer to stay & influence Westminster.

On an emotional level, I am not attracted to nationalism & separatism and the 'wha's like us' tone of the Yes campaign leaves me cold.

I agree with ItsAll - this is not about me and my lifetime. My vote in this referendum represents an opportunity to create a better life for my children in the future, to escape the impotence we've experienced under Westminster and to move forward as a part of modern multicultural Europe rather than continue to be stifled by the SE cronies. I'm not taking about "wha's like us" ... I'm just terrified of a no vote.

I don't think my children will have a better life here if I lose my job, and the sector I work in is threatened by this.

I also agree with ItsAll and will be voting yes "for the greater good." I don't believe the scaremongering, and last night's u-turn shows that that is exactly what it is. I don't believe we will have difficulty staying in the EU; we will be negotiating as citizens for the past 40 odd years, with all our legislation already EU compliant, and the EU is about removing borders, not putting new ones in. The EU is above all a practical entity and has been willing to "bend the rules" in the past (how many decades did it take for the former East Germany to join?) and whatever Spain is muttering, it wants access to our fishing grounds and will come round. WM is saying they'll make life hard for us (close the border, bomb our airports) but I don't believe they'll make it any harder than another couple of decades of austerity and child poverty while they cream off and squander our oil money, all the time lying to us, as they have done for the past 30 years.

No, there are no facts, although there could be more; why won't WM ask the EU for certainty in that regard? Last time I asked that question on MN, I was asked why WM should do anything to benefit the SNP; well because WM is currently our gvt too, and surely has a duty of care, to give us the information we need? I think they won't ask because they won't like the answer, and won't be able to scare us with it.

I have children and grandchildren, I want a better future for them than is being offered by WM, whether Tory or Labour or, Heaven forfend, UKIP led. This referendum isn't about the SNP, and it's not about whether you like Wee Eck. It's about what kind of country we want for our youth. I am Lamont-style astonished that ithaka's teens want to pay University tuition fees and saddle themselves with a lifetime of debt, but there you go, eh? Young people aren't always that longsighted.

Being Welsh and not Scottish I would say it's up to those from Scotland to decide, my only hope is that the turnout for the vote is really high so it can be a true representation of public feeling.

Sorry - who is threatening to bomb airports?? I seem to have missed that news story.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/13/scottish-independence-england-would-bomb-scottish-airports-to-defend-itself_n_1341629.html Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/03/13/scottish-independence-england-would-bomb-scottish-airports-to-defend-itself_n_1341629.html Try that again...

Incisive journalism there. He didn't say they would, he outlined a very particular set of circumstances which are not going to happen because both sides have already said there would not be a total split of the military.

If this is the standard of debate until September, maybe I should just move south now.

Meh, I don't think anyone took him seriously, it was back in the first stages of Project Fear. But it's the same as "no currency union" and "you'll be cast out of the EU and (simultaneously) have to use the Euro". The no side is shambolic and incoherent.

So why did you bring it up? And without any qualifiers? The No side is trying to respond to the excessive 'it'll all be brilliant' aspirational stuff that the Yes campaign comes out with. Because there's no pre-negotiation neither side can know absolutely what would happen.

But why should they agree to a currency union? And why, in a campaign for independence, are the Yes side so keen to keep the same currency and same regulator? With no or incredibly limited input into fiscal policy? Not fully independent is it?

I do wish the No campaign was a bit more positive, but as it has to respond to the endless bounce of Project La La Land (I'd be fascinated to hear how they plan to deal with all their spending commitments and set up an oil fund based on current income generated by Scotland) inevitably it gets seen as negative.

Why not mention it? It was one of the more ludicrous claims that have been made, and stuck in my mind for that reason.

A currency union will be agreed, because it is in the best interests both of Scotland and of rUK. But if WM keep trying to play hardball, there are alternatives (none of which are "use the Euro") which will leave Scotland well-off, and rUK... not so well-off.

Just one positive reason to stay in the UK would be good to hear, all I've seen are threats and insulting "lovebombing". I mean, did you see the John Barrowman video for Burns Night? Cringe, cringe, cringe!

Ah, clearly you have borrowed the Yes campaign's crystal ball, and know exactly what everyone is going to agree? If there are alternatives to a currency union, why not tell anyone what they are? Yes campaign just seem to endlessly repeat that there will be a currency union.

And if we're talking about ludicrous claims, what about the £600 better off one? That has no basis (as it depends on the outcome of negotiations) and do they really think people are that cheap?

I didn't see John Barrowman on Burns Night. I thought David Bowie/Kate Moss was cringeworthy, but was quite pleased that Eddie Izzard is against independence. And I don't care what Sean Connery thinks (taxdodger).

The alternatives are laid out in the White Paper, no crystal ball needed. We can continue to use the £ without CU, and leave rUK with all the debt (as agreed by the UK Treasury, again no crystal balls needed.) We can set up our own currency, pinned to the UK £. We can set up our own currency and float it... But CU is best for both sides; we take a share of the debt, our oil, gas etc money keeps going through the Treasury (making the numbers look better) and no-one (including businesses) needs to change money at the border. It's a no-brainer, even Darling et al have said so in the past. What's changed?

Come on, just one positive reason to stay with a rUK gvt that threatens us like this? One, tiny, good reason?

PS, you can still find Barrowman on youtube. Can't link as on iPad, but search for "John Barrowman Burns" and it's there, in all it's tartan glory.

And if we're talking about ludicrous claims, what about the £600 better off one? That has no basis (as it depends on the outcome of negotiations) and do they really think people are that cheap?

I absolutely agree with that! I think those sort of claims are a) bollocks and b) assuming that people are voting for immediate personal gain which many (most?) aren't.

Its not just the Yes campaign guilty of that though-

Remember www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/referendum-news/mockery-for-claim-yes-vote-would-cost-1-x.19838227 ?

Personally I think it'd be a pound well spent...

Abandon the debt - good luck with establishing a reputation in the international markets then. Or will we not need to borrow, even although lots of spending has been promised and the plan is to take money out of the economy to set up an oil fund? If we have the pound with no currency union, what happens when we have no input into fiscal policy? How much to set up a central bank and underwrite everyone's savings, or will we not have the same level of protection as the rest of the UK? How much to set up financial regulators?

How about - impact on pensions (cross-border pension schemes required to be fully funded); lots of Scottish employees are actually employed by British companies - and obviously some would stay, but not all of them; financial services is a massive contributor to the economy - but put at risk by independence; economies of scale by being part of a larger entity; the quality of Scottish politicians - really you want to trust them? Disclaimer: I live in Edinburgh so my disdain of Scottish politicians is somewhat coloured by our completely inept council.

I'd really rather not watch John Barrowman in tartan. Burns night and all the tartan overkill is one aspect of Scottishness that I detest - I am actually Scottish, but the overly shortbread tin version of Scottishness that gets served up at Burns night is dire.

I have to agree with you re tartanry, perhaps iScotland will ban it? But not shortbread, I do like a bit of shortbread.

So, you've laid out the reasons for CU. Agree with that, too., and that's why it will happen.

So, one positive reason to stay in the UK, rather than risks of leaving?

Abandon the debt - good luck with establishing a reputation in the international markets then

We wouldn't be abandoning the debt. The way it works is either Scotland takes a fair share of the debts, and a fair share of the assets, or it takes none of the assets and none of the debts. Things like the Bank of England are a shared asset.

I'd really rather not watch John Barrowman in tartan. Burns night and all the tartan overkill is one aspect of Scottishness that I detest - I am actually Scottish, but the overly shortbread tin version of Scottishness that gets served up at Burns night is dire

Completely agree!

As I'm briefly on the PC, for anyone interested.