What do you think of UK Government’s Scottish Referendum YouDecide tool? NOW CLOSED

[MichelleMumsnet]

Today, the UK Government is launching YouDecide; an online tool that helps you to see what remaining in the United Kingdom offers you and your family.

Here's what UK Government has to say:

"We have created YouDecide ahead of the Scottish independence referendum on 18 September, to help you explore what the United Kingdom provides and what this means for your home, your family and your work life. YouDecide has been designed so that you can drill down quickly and simply to get facts on the issues that matter to you.

"We all know that the independence referendum is the most important decision to face voters in Scotland in 300 years; it's a decision that affects everyone in Scotland and the rest of the UK. The information you find on the YouDecide tool is informed by the facts and figures published in HM Treasury's Scotland analysis programme and also reflects UK Government policy.

"There is a wealth of information on the referendum subject. We want you to be as fully informed as possible ahead of making such an historic and permanent decision.

"There are of course a number of things we cannot answer, because no one knows the full impact that independence would have on all areas. Splitting a 300 year-old union would be complicated and many new agreements would need to be negotiated. We can't speculate on unknowns but we can give you the facts about the existing UK policy.

"Together as England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland we have created one of the world's most successful unions. Our UK Government policy is that we want to see Scotland remain part of the UK because we believe that by staying together we have much more to share and much more to gain."

Have a look at YouDecide and let us know what you think of the tool and the issues surrounding it by posting your thoughts below. Do you feel you have the facts and information you need to make an informed choice about Scotland's future to remain in the United Kingdom or to leave and become a separate state, permanently, or not? You can also look at the UK Government's In the Know factsheets series and booklet: What Staying in the United Kingdom Means for Scotland.

Thanks,

MNHQ

[FannyFifer]

To be honest my number one reason for voting Yes is the fact that the UK government are happy to spend billions on the outdated, posturing imperialist nonsense that is Trident.
Billions when people are starving & the Red Cross is having to run foodbanks.
Don't get me started on the ridiculous aircraft carrier they just wasted money on that has no bloody aircraft to go with it.
The Labour Party if they were in power have no plans to scrap Trident either so that's what a no vote is for.
That this disgusting weaponry is kept next to one of out biggest cities is sickening.

[TheBogQueen]

there's nothing to stop them privatising our NHS (or forcing it, through a reduction in the block grant) yy absolutely

We have loads of Scottish MPs in Westminster.But they are not in power. And Scottish labour ...what a joke. If you want yo see cronyism look at them

[Solopower1]

Agree 100%, FannyFifer. But if Trident leaves Scotland, it will just go to somewhere else and they probably don't want it in Portsmouth, either.

Getting rid of nuclear weapons/power stations was something that very nearly persuaded me to vote Yes. Until I realised that it was just another 'promise' (which might not be kept), and also that they would just be grafted on to somewhere else in the UK.

[FannyFifer]

There really isn't anywhere suitable that could house Trident, I would hope that by getting rid of it from Scotland then it would have to be ultimately decommissioned instead of replaced.

[affafantoosh]

Solo, I admire your optimism, I really do. But in the event of a no vote, why on earth would Westminster give a toss about us being "roused"? It's not like we'll be able to punish them at the ballot box. It's not like we'll have the power to do anything about it, ever again. We can be as roused as we like, they won't have to listen or care. A no vote is carte blanche to do what they like to us because we've voted for it. When everywhere else in the UK is suffering from their austerity measures, and there's quiet resentment building about our free prescriptions, education and functional NHS, Westminster will not give us more and risk alienating their core voters in the south east. Quite the contrary in fact.

[Solopower1]

Affantoosh, I think the fear of civil unrest is what will get them thinking. Once they wake up to the strength of feeling in Scotland, and the depth of our grievances.

Imo one of the problems is that until recently they just took us for granted. The politicians at Westminster now are notoriously out of touch with ordinary people, whether they live next door or 400 miles away.

What we will show them with a No vote, as long as it's a close thing, is that just over 40% (probably) will decide to put up with the Union, as long as we get increased powers (Devo Max). Hopefully the Yes vote will be just under 40%, and only the most resolutely head-in-sand politician would ignore that.

Why do you think the three main parties have already offered us increased powers? Because they think we won't vote No without them. Finally they have realised that is what most of us want, and that is the only way we would ever vote for them again. I really do think we could have the best of both worlds.

[FannyFifer]

More powers are meaningless.

This is what will happen. We will never ever get this chance again.

Yeah yeah it's from Wings but in this case, spot on, this is what will happen.

wingsoverscotland.com/joining-the-dots/

"There’s nothing particularly revelatory in the article itself, but it was thinking about the issue properly in a UK-wide context that did the trick. It’s no secret that the Barnett Formula is hated in England, where they see it as the manifestation of Scotland as a “subsidy junkie”. (Even though, as noted above, the “extra” spending granted to Scotland by Barnett is paid for, and billions more besides, by North Sea oil money.)
But how to fix the problem while seeming to be granting the Scottish electorate’s wish for “more powers”? The answer can be easily deduced from the proposals:

1. End the Formula, by which Scottish spending is higher than the UK average. At a stroke, that strips something like £7bn (or around 28%) out of the Scottish block grant, making English voters happy.
2. At the same time, grant Holyrood “more powers” by allowing it to set Scotland’s income tax rates in their entirety, which can be portrayed as a gesture of major devolution (and indeed, technically is). The Scottish media can then present this as a positive, saying the Unionist parties – and chiefly Labour – have kept their pre-referendum promises and delivered extra powers.
3. Now, to fill the huge £7bn hole that’s just opened up in Holyrood’s coffers (because Barnett’s gone, but all the North Sea cash is still going to Westminster), the Scottish Government – not the UK government – is the one that has to make swingeing cuts to services or whopping tax increases.

Labour has already conceded the 2016 Scottish election, so in practice “the Scottish Government” means the SNP, with catastrophic results on the popularity of a party already damaged by losing the referendum.

1. The Tories, meanwhile, can use the devolution of taxation to further reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster – because Scottish MPs will have fewer responsibilities – and also to reduce their influence by finally excluding them from votes on matters that don’t affect Scotland (the “English question” mentioned in the Herald, more usually called the “West Lothian Question”).
2. So the Tories win, because they’ve reduced Labour’s numbers and influence at the Commons. And while Labour will grumble a bit at that, they’ll mostly be delighted because of the body blow dealt to the SNP, and because in reality they know that their Scottish MPs almost never make a difference to whether they win Westminster elections or not anyway."

[Solopower1]

H'mm, sounds a bit far-fetched, FannyFifer! But some of it could happen that way.

Or any other way.

[affafantoosh]

Why is it far fetched Solo?

[StoorieHoose]

I don't think it sounds far fetched at all. Very realistic assumption of what will probably happen

[Solopower1]

Well there are lots of predictions based on things that may or may not happen. A bit like the three sillies: if A happens then B will happen and if B happens then C will happen. Each link in the chain is problematic and if one of them doesn't happen then nothing else makes sense.

For example the Barnett Formula is not hated in England because no-one has heard of it. Then the statement that North Sea oil brings more money to Scotland than the BF is contradicted by number 3 which says that all the North Sea cash is still going to England, and so on.

It's scaremongering, in fact, and a bit insulting (as all scaremongering is). Propaganda.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

If the BF isn't hated in England, why are we called subsidy junkies? Why, when we pay in more than we take out, and have done for decades, does that slur keep being directed at us? Why do so many people, north and south of the border, still believe it?

It's because WM is lying about it, and has done for decades, and will carry on lying about it. Have you had a look at the 1974 McCrone Report, in which it was said that an iScotland would be "embarrassingly" rich, and it was important we didn't find out?

How can you even imagine that WM gvt, of whatever shade, would suddenly see the error of it's ways over all these years, and start making nice to us - when we've just said, "Oh, that's ok, we forgive you, carry on"?

[affafantoosh]

Priti Patel says what a lot of SE Tories think

(incidentally this woman has just been promoted to the position of Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. Some of her views are terrifying. )

[Solopower1]

OldLady, a lot of what you say is disputed. There are as many economists who say Scotland takes more than it gives as there are who think the opposite.

The UK government have been shaken by this debate. They know that a No vote would come with conditions attached - whatever they may say.

Plus, the Tories could be out in 2015 - if we vote them out.

[Solopower1]

Oo-er, Affafantoosh. Let's hope she's good at maths. Come 2015 maybe she'll just walk off into the sunset.

[shockinglybadteacher]

Scotland does not take more than it gives. Think about this tae yersels - if that is the case why isn't Westminster begging to get rid of us then? Do they just love Scots so much?

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

It's disputed, but they're lying. Think about it, would a Tory gvt intent on "balancing the books" and "reducing the deficit" really put so much effort - and taxpayers's dosh - into persuading/threatening us to vote No, if we were costing them money? It makes no sense.

"We" cannot vote them out in 2015, we can do bugger-all about who runs the next WM gvt, and all the polls at present are pointing to a majority Tory gvt, or, worse, a Tory/UKIP coalition, with the risk of an in/out EU referendum. Even if Labour are elected to run WM, they have promised to cut harder and deeper than the Tories; there's barely a fag paper between Labour and Tories these days anyway.

[TheBogQueen]

is that just over 40% (probably) will decide to put up with the Union, as long as we get increased powers (Devo Max)

That us absolutely not on the table! Westminster will see a No bite as an endorsement if what is happening in England.

Money for NHS Scotland will be slashed - of course it will because spending on Nhs England will also be cut because people will be paying for GP appts/ prescriptions and because private companies such as virgin healthcare will be providing services at a profit.

Do you think that with dwindling budget from Westminster that nhs Scotland will be able to hold out? Do you think that the public pay grades and benefits will remain fur staff? Because I'll tell you know my sister is a teacher in London now on performance - related pay . The only thing is if she should be graded outstanding she would lose her job because the school cannot afford an outstanding teacher. And if you think thus don't happen in Scotland then you are complacent.

Now that the nhs in England is accepting private providers other European companies will move in. NHS Scotland will be no different.

Look up
dr Philippa whitford on YouTube she is amazing eloquent woman

[shockinglybadteacher]

"That us absolutely not on the table! Westminster will see a No bite as an endorsement if what is happening in England."

Exactly this (a vote but bite pretty much means the same!)

If you vote no there was a link up the thread. You have voted for whatever Westminster feels like. That is it, no exceptions ever. You don't get a pat on the head for being good little boys and girls. They're going to be pissed off at you for allowing a referendum anyway and you will be punished.

There can be no other referendum in the next 30 years - that's part of the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement. Do this and do it now if you are going to do it but dinnae kid on a No vote can hold anyone to ransom. This is not on the table.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

It's not just EU companies who would move in. Have you heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Treaty? Have a read of that, and feel the chills run up and down your spine. A Yes vote is the only way to keep our NHS.

[affafantoosh]

I totally agree with what's been said about the NHS. For convenience here's a link to her talking about the damage a No vote would cause to our precious nh health service:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=esV6pGo8UTI

She is an eminent breast surgeon and an entertaining speaker, and it's a few minutes worth spending for everyone who has a vote in the referendum.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

I agree, affa, she's a brilliant speaker, and spot-on. She knows what she's talking about. Thanks for the link. :)

[affafantoosh]

Just realised I referred to the wonderful Dr Phillipa Whitford as "her" sorry!

[shockinglybadteacher]

There's a thing getting said that Trident protects us from terrorism, which I have been hearing a lot from the Nos. It does not.

There is not a terrorist in the world who would be put off from terrorism by Trident. That is utterly daft on the face of it. "I could explode this suicide vest right now, filled as it is with nails and shrapnel. But I'd better not, because the crew of a nuclear sub might hear about it in three hours time and feel really sad."

Omagh relied on a fairly dodgy-looking Vauxhall Cavalier and some fertiliser, and proved to be rather deadly. I do not think there's a thing in the world a nuclear sub sat in port could have done about that. Or a nuclear sub on the move. Or a nuclear sub at all.

[OldLadyKnowsSomething]

I cannot imagine a situation where we'd ever use Trident, the horror and consequences don't bear thinking about. I can, however, imagine terrorists targetting the nuclear convoys that regularly travel through and around our most heavily populated city. Trident doesn't protect us, it makes us a target, and the idea of UK spending another £130 billion, as recently agreed, on a replacement while people use foodbanks and freeze to death is nothing short of obscene.