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 don't take heed of either campaign to be honest as I seek out as many facts and opinions as they apply to me, my family, my business, my workplace and my community.

However, I do think the spin on the better together campaign being in disarray is just that...the people I talk to in real life are far more articulate about how the various issues affect them than either Alex salmond or alistair darling could ever be. I don't think either campaign has the monopoly on either top-down seeding of fact or opinion or grass-roots engagement.

Well in some cases those voting No are indeed ill informed. Just as I'm sure some people who are voting yes are ill informed.

Anyone that starts the "cybernat" guff had pretty much lost the debate though.

Most of the pro-independence posts on here seem to be from regulars. I recognise the nicknames. Surely they can't be classed as cybernats. They're MNers with a point of view on the subject. Like most posters on most threads.

BetterTogether has no Grassroots campaign.

I've tried to find Better Together events for my undecided friends to attend but there are no events, they have been to a few Yes ones & I'm keen for them to hear both sides as are they.

The only "no" event locally was an evening with George Galloway & who the fuck would want to go to that.

People want to be informed but it's difficult when one side of the debate won't engage with the general public.

I have been on Mumsnet for at least 5 years under various names which I'm sure mumsnet can confirm.

So are the UK Gov't paying Mumsnet to post this thread? That's what a sponsored discussion usually is, right?

So are the UK Gov't paying Mumsnet to post this thread? That's what a sponsored discussion usually is, right?

That's my understanding...

This cybernats shit really annoys me. Are people not allowed to give an opinion or recount their experience - on a thread asking for exactly that - without being labelled in a derogatory fashion?

This is exactly why grown up debate is almost impossible - and note that its not the pro-independence voices here that have started the childish name calling!

Some posters on here are regulars. One or two others (those referring to "we" when promoting the nationalist cause) are clearly piling in, as they so often do, because the clarion call has gone out.

The debate was interesting and, indeed, very grown-up until we got comments like those voting "No" being ill-informed. I find the nationalists, on the whole, want to present themselves as thinkers, intellectuals and those who have the best interests of everyone at heart. They are not doing this for themselves, but for the greater good. This is a very insidious point of view because the debate is, by definition, polarising. Therefore, the rest of us are stupid, ill-educated and put ourselves before the good of the majority.

I think voting "Yes" is like voting for better weather. It might come; we might have days of lovely sunshine (and no midges!) and they can point to all the terrible weather we have been having under the current system. But they can't really offer any guarantees of crisp winter mornings with no rain and glorious sunny summers. But anyone who doesn't vote "Yes" clearly doesn't like the sunshine.

Analogy over.

The clarion call has gone out? Really, to where?
More likely people are posting as this is first topic on top of page.

If there's been a "clarion call" go out, I haven't seen it. And I spend far too much time online read all the big yes sites, and follow lots of yessers on Twitter, and Facebook. I may even say "we" when referring to my countrypeople.

Have to say that I haven't seen any evidence of "cybernats". I recognise just about every name on this thread as those who have contributed regularly elsewhere.

.....although on this occasion we haven't been "blessed" with the appearance of Lesmissabs .

I do get irritated at the term "cybernats" to diss those that happen to support independence and happen to be doing so on-line.

It's almost as bad as tarring all MNers as a "nest of vipers"

I have just name searched all pro Yes poster on this thread, all long time posters who contribute elsewhere on the site.

You mean it's a smear?

(Joke, Roseforme, albeit an in-joke. Amongst us cybernats. )

The debate was interesting and, indeed, very grown-up until we got comments like those voting "No" being ill-informed. I find the nationalists, on the whole, want to present themselves as thinkers, intellectuals and those who have the best interests of everyone at heart. They are not doing this for themselves, but for the greater good

I'm going to stand by this obviously controversial comment. If you look at all the available evidence a Yes vote is the best outcome for Scotland.

Looking at this thread and other independence threads on MN you will notice that in general the "cybernats" do talk in terms of what yes means for Scotland, and those on the no side tend to speak of what the result means to them personally.

Evidence from the many debates also shows that in the vast majority of cases people change their mind from no to yes or no to don't know or don't know to yes. I hesitate to say it but I suspect that the number of people moving in the opposite direction (from yes to no) is very low. This backs up my assertion that when you educate people more they move towards a yes.

Therefore, the rest of us are stupid, ill-educated and put ourselves before the good of the majority

I guess I can't blame you for an emotional reaction to what I said. It wasn't meant to be an insult though. I never said stupid. I don't think I said ill-educated. I probably said ill informed. And yes, I believe no voters are either Ill informed or have a good personal reason (eg Scottish MPs would all lose their jobs).

Ill informed isn't an insult. It is a statement of fact, Im ill informed about maths and physics - I know this so I don't involve myself in discussions about that.

People who refuse to look outside the mainstream media for referendum info are also Ill informed.

This is a massive decision and people need to read read read everything they can get their hands on. And they need to read it thoughtfully. And they need to read it critically, with a view to who wrote it and why. And wherever possible they need to go back to the original primary sources to verify what they have read.

And then they will vote yes

I find it amusing that some people really believe that you can interpret the facts (as far as they are facts) and not come to different conclusions! The weather analogy is very good and I intend to use that I think you will also find I gave reasons which were far broader than my personal reasons, and tagged my personal reasons on the end. I have also been on MN for 9 or 10 years by the way.

I don't think the posts on this particular thread are 'cybernat' but it would be naive to disregard what on other sites (Twitter for example) has become a very ugly 'debate'. I also have no doubt that I could present a case to an undecided voter and convince them of the merits of voting no but I don't believe in 'campaigning' people - individuals will seek out as much information as they need or want to make their own decision and I respect that. I actually think that if 'yes' voters understood better what they are actually voting for (legally and constitutionally) they would have to consider carefully whether this actually aligns with their understanding of 'independence'. I actually hate all the 'pinning the colours to the mast' in real life as I live in a small community and, let's face it, we all have to live together after 18th September!

I work in the charity sector. This is one of the sectors which is likely to suffer significantly in the event of a yes vote. Between public sector cuts and significant restrictions on fundraising this will sound the death knell for small charities and the vulnerable people they help. This is fact, based on the legal and constitutional frameworks of taxation, gift aid, trusts & foundations, corporate giving to name but a few. It is not that they wouldn't want to support projects in Scotland, but that they will be legally unable to.

I am also in farming and, quite frankly, there are no hard facts for this sector just yet so you just have to take a punt on which way you jump.

I would suggest that you read a few more neutral sites rather than just Yes sites and follow Yes voters on Twitter.

I would suggest that you read a few more neutral sites rather than just Yes sites and follow Yes voters on Twitter

Completely agree. It is not possible to make an informed decision without all the information you can possible get, from both sides.

Following Better Together on twitter is very illuminating...

By neutral I mean 'neither' side ffs. Step away from the campaigns.

By neutral I mean 'neither' side ffs

I'm going to disagree with this. Firstly, I would argue that there are probably no truly neutral sources.

Secondly, for most people, the easiest way to find out about the primary sources is to follow what the campaigns are doing.

Eg if someone says scotland will be better/worse off because x you need to check what they have written/said for their sources (if there are no sources you can probably ignore). And then you need to check the sources yourself with your analytical hat on.

For a neutral source of information Tom Hunter (philanthropist) has a web site.
scotlandseptember18.com

Okay, I agree that no sources can be accepted at face-value as entirely neutral - but it is easy to access a broad base of opinion that need never include the campaigns:
www.referendum.ed.ac.uk/
www.esrc.ac.uk/research/major-investments/future-of-uk-and-scotland/index.aspx
esrcscotecon.com/
fivemillionquestions.org/
www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/
www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/
scottishreferendumexperience.wordpress.com/
blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/
www.turcanconnell.com/media/2014-scottish-independence-referendum
Just very few examples of sources of opinion and information that can be accessed.

I have no time for the childish putdowns to the opposing campaign that come from both sides. Quite clearly if you have chosen which 'team' you support, you are not going to agree with statements from the 'other side'. The mud-slinging has sunk the debate to ridiculous levels and your comment about following Better Together on twitter is an example of this. I personally think both campaigns are flawed, which is why I don't give much heed to them.

YouCan'tTeuchThis

That's a really good list of sites, that I'm sure will be useful to many people, including me.

Quite clearly if you have chosen which 'team' you support, you are not going to agree with statements from the 'other side

Speaking personally, that isn't true. Leaving the UK is a pretty scary proposition and if I saw evidence that it would be better to remain I would, of course, change my mind. At the moment I obviously yes, but that is only because at time of writing yes is the best bet for a Scotland.

The reason I follow the Better Together and Yes campaigns is that I tend to believe that each campaign will be putting forward their very best reasons/evidence to support themselves, and their very best reasons/evidence to not vote for the other. Is a good shortcut as to what the issues are and where to look for evidence.

I would rather see them vote yes and leave than devolve further and merrily keep all the benefits of staying while giving little in return.... Free university education for Scots and other Europeans but not the English springs to mind.....

Giving little in return, like all the oil revenue that Westminster has squandered, while people are relying on food banks.

It is not free for English students due to Westminster imposed fees.