Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[~~~]

Result wont be in until about 6am, so I'm told.

I'll probably be in a nightclub in Malaga or Marbella. So, 6pm on the 19th before I'll be giving a second thought.

Brave of you

If we have a yes vote your passport might not be valid for the return trip. Hope you're not flying into an English airport

[renton]

Do you have any idea how annoying it is every time I read or hear patronising, perceived moral high ground nonsense coming from a Nat? That I'm a traitor to my country because I don't support a Yes vote, that I'm not a true or passionate Scot and somehow I'm not as good a person because of it?

Do you not think that that aggression shown towards Yes voters may have something to do with the way some have conducted themselves? Or do you think that there has been absolutely no aggression from the Yes side at all?

To come back to your only sensible non-tear stained point; My OPINION (and reason I am voting No), simply put, is that the decisions that will be made (according to the white paper) will NOT be in the best interests of country. We could regurgitate all the debate again but at this point I really don't think it's worth it - you're voting Yes and I'm voting No, nothing will change that.

Oh no! Really? I totally didn't realise that... What a totally pointless thing to write.

And this happens, does it?

Look, your thre one steaming in here with the original accusations, attempting to stereotype a movement based on one exchange between two folk on the internet - both of whom have been at it for weeks if not months. Maybe check your own biases on this.

Can i ask though, and bare in mind that the white paper is nothing more than a rough framework, which bits do you think are bad for the country and why you think Westmisnter does a better job?

[Blaven]

Brave of you

If we have a yes vote your passport might not be valid for the return trip. Hope you're not flying into an English airport

Now await the " if its a YES , I wont be back " responce.

[Tonsilitis]

Confidemus is 100% correct. Yes campaigners have every right to be angry about the treatment of Scotland over the last 40 years. Amongst other things there's

• The looting and squandering of our natural resources
• The wealth gap
• 20% of Scottish kids living in poverty
• Foodbanks
• Bedroom tax
• Iraq and Afghanistan

To name but a few.

The only reasons I can think of for voting no all revolve around narrow self interest ranging from the Scottish politicians in Westminster wanting to keep their gravy train in place to people worried about their pensions/benefits/jobs despite all the assurances in place. Very few No voters like the degree of poverty or the necessity for foodbanks but by voting no, they are signalling "I'm alright Jack" and that they are prepared to tolerate these issues in our society.

No wonder yes voters are angry!

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Yes campaigners - paint Scotland today as being like some third world country.

No campaigners paint iScotland as being a third world country.

The truth is somewhat away from both deluded perceptions.

[Confidemus]

I read your reply (that's about 30 seconds of my life I won't get back) and I am wondering if you forgot to tell me what was OTT about my initial 2-line response??

You've made some startling assertions about my political and social views and used it to construct a false argument.

You Sir, are a Stereotype.

You'd have been as well typing nothing. What an empty answer.

Yet another No voter who won't tell us why they're voting No.

Unless you'd care to enlighten us as to why we're better together? I won't hold my breath.

[AUFC90]

All I can say is if I do end up voting No and they're ahead enough in the polls to be healthy, but close enough that Yes think they have a chance (Say final polls showing 54 or 55% no), then I'm going to take great pleasure in getting the beers and popcorn in, signing in to PnB around 10pm, and sit and watch the Nats go in to meltdown.

That's some sad ass shit there. Genuinely getting kicks out of reading peoples posts on a message board

Deary me.

[RavyDavy]

And this happens, does it?

Look, your thre one steaming in here with the original accusations, attempting to stereotype a movement based on one exchange between two folk on the internet - both of whom have been at it for weeks if not months. Maybe check your own biases on this.

Can i ask though, and bare in mind that the white paper is nothing more than a rough framework, which bits do you think are bad for the country and why you think Westmisnter does a better job?

Sigh, yes it does happen.

Steaming in with accusations?? Now that's OTT! The guy was aggressive in his post and did use threatening language. And, in my experience of this 'debate', if I haven't agreed with a Yes supporter and I have used reasoned argument to back up my opinions, it usually ends in a personal attack or slur of some kind when they can longer argue back with any kind of reasonable point.

Your experience may be different, you may be a better person than others but unfortunately, the Yes "movement" is blighted and plagued by well publicised moronic behaviour (and yes, I am aware there are also morons on the no side) whether you choose to accept it or not. So let's not pretend to get all upset about being stereotyped or categorised.

Like I said earlier, it's really pointless at this stage to into the specifics because it's been done to death, but you answer your question within the question - the whitepaper is a framework, a wishlist, assertion... nothing more. I don't buy it, it doesn't add up and I don't trust the people we have in Scottish Politics to deliver it.

You ask what Westminster do better? How about I flip this around and ask you a question? What evidence is there that Holyrood does a better job? And I mean actual tangible, directly comparable evidence, not the cheap give-away-everything-for-free policies of the current government (for example, the council tax freeze that has starved local councils of appropriate levels of funding to improve and in some cases, continue services)...

[RavyDavy]

You'd have been as well typing nothing. What an empty answer.

Yet another No voter who won't tell us why they're voting No.

Unless you'd care to enlighten us as to why we're better together? I won't hold my breath.

Much like yourself.

I am voting yes because I believe that we are better off in than out, when compared to what is being offered by the Yes campaign. Now, what you really want me to do is explain why I think that. Seriously, I could write several pages on why but I don't feel so insecure in my position that I feel the need to justify it to any one.

I've researched both sides (I like to look at what people without political bias have to say), and considered what is ultimately best for me and my family, and drawn my conclusions from that.

If you don't like that, then I make no apology but the attitude that you present on this forum is one of the reasons why a lot of people are turned off by the Yes campaign. It's not exactly a charm offensive is it?

[1320Lichtie]

Much like yourself.

I am voting yes

Good lad, knew you'd come round.

You mentioned attitude AGAIN. It works both ways, you're on the other side of the fence so you do not see it? What's so hard to understand.

And the YES campaign is purely offering Scotland the chance to govern itself.... How can you not like the thought of that?

[renton]

Sigh, yes it does happen.

Steaming in with accusations?? Now that's OTT! The guy was aggressive in his post and did use threatening language. And, in my experience of this 'debate', if I haven't agreed with a Yes supporter and I have used reasoned argument to back up my opinions, it usually ends in a personal attack or slur of some kind when they can longer argue back with any kind of reasonable point.

Your experience may be different, you may be a better person than others but unfortunately, the Yes "movement" is blighted and plagued by well publicised moronic behaviour (and yes, I am aware there are also morons on the no side) whether you choose to accept it or not. So let's not pretend to get all upset about being stereotyped or categorised.

Like I said earlier, it's really pointless at this stage to into the specifics because it's been done to death, but you answer your question within the question - the whitepaper is a framework, a wishlist, assertion... nothing more. I don't buy it, it doesn't add up and I don't trust the people we have in Scottish Politics to deliver it.

You ask what Westminster do better? How about I flip this around and ask you a question? What evidence is there that Holyrood does a better job? And I mean actual tangible, directly comparable evidence, not the cheap give-away-everything-for-free policies of the current government (for example, the council tax freeze that has starved local councils of appropriate levels of funding to improve and in some cases, continue services)...

The No side is equally, if not more so blighted and plagued by moronic behaviour, the thing is you're the one getting upset about stereotypes and categorisation, when you've already said right there that 'let's not get upset about being stereotyped'.

No paper so built on future prediction could ever be accurate, it's a framework, yes - but an achievable one. Beyond that, it could quite easily be overtaken by events (a yes vote in 2014, followed by a Labour victory in 2016 - for example). Ultimately we are not voting on the contents of the white paper, but rather on a more basic concept: Should all decisions apertaining to Scotland be made by the folk who live in Scotland. Beyond that, everything is dependent on who is chosen by the people of Scotland to govern.

As to your 'flip' question, well you try to constrain it by eliminating 'give everything away for free' policies, which tries to paint certain things in a perjorative light, while being factually incorrect - Scotland has no choice but to balance it's budget, it can't run deficits independent of westminster so that every penny ScotGov spends from the bloc grant we are given is accounted for. Beyond that, I am a firm believer in maintaining the public ownership character of the NHS, and of maintaining as wide an access to tertiary education as possible. Devolution has further allowed a central Scottish body to promote investment and a long term strategy in things like renewable energies, striving to actually have an industrial strategy being entirely novel amongst the elected bodies in these islands since 1979.

In the end, I believe that government at such a remove is simply bad for us. Culture is shaped by history, by geography. There are opportunities and challenges that face Scotland and the people living here that do not fit into Westminster's London centric viewpoint. Locality counts, as you can see from the 80s deindustrialisation (for example) - covered by an oil and financial boom, but still hurting a lot of people. You can further see it in the ignorance and absence of genuine poltiical competition at westminster level in Scotland. We can do better than that. This isn't about individual policies or parties, it's about systems and the cultures of those systems, and I can clearly see how having a seperate Scottish body since 1999 has given us a flexiblity that has helped us massively. I now want to extend that principle to all other domestic and foreign policy spheres.

[RavyDavy]

Confidemus is 100% correct. Yes campaigners have every right to be angry about the treatment of Scotland over the last 40 years. Amongst other things there's

• The looting and squandering of our natural resources
• The wealth gap
• 20% of Scottish kids living in poverty
• Foodbanks
• Bedroom tax
• Iraq and Afghanistan

To name but a few.

The only reasons I can think of for voting no all revolve around narrow self interest ranging from the Scottish politicians in Westminster wanting to keep their gravy train in place to people worried about their pensions/benefits/jobs despite all the assurances in place. Very few No voters like the degree of poverty or the necessity for foodbanks but by voting no, they are signalling "I'm alright Jack" and that they are prepared to tolerate these issues in our society.

No wonder yes voters are angry!

Poverty, wealth distribution and the increasing number of food banks is not a problem that is restricted to Scotland or the UK, it is not a situation that has been caused by a Tory or any other Westminster government. It is in fact a problem that blights Europe as a whole (even Scandinavia) and the rest of the Western world, there is no evidence to suggest that an Independent Scotland would be any different (assertions made by Yes Scotland is not evidence) - Europe as a whole needs to work together to deal with this problem,

There are no taxes on bedrooms.

What the hell do conflicts Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with Scottish Independence? I really wish YS would stop using this for cheap politicking - lets pick an emotive subject that people all over the UK disagreed with and use that to win votes.

Voting Yes does not mean that we will enter into some sort of Utopian equal society - that is just idealistic nonsense, Voting No does not mean we will be end up as a 3rd world country either. Talk about scare mongering....

[Confidemus]

Much like yourself.

I am voting yes because I believe that we are better off in than out, when compared to what is being offered by the Yes campaign. Now, what you really want me to do is explain why I think that. Seriously, I could write several pages on why but I don't feel so insecure in my position that I feel the need to justify it to any one.

I've researched both sides (I like to look at what people without political bias have to say), and considered what is ultimately best for me and my family, and drawn my conclusions from that.

If you don't like that, then I make no apology but the attitude that you present on this forum is one of the reasons why a lot of people are turned off by the Yes campaign. It's not exactly a charm offensive is it?

As has been said, the only thing being offered by the Yes campaign is a Scotland run in Scotland for Scottish people.

Why would you equate debating your reasoning for voting No with perceived insecurities? What a bizarre viewpoint. I'm more than happy to discuss my reasons for voting Yes.

Are you ok with zero hours contracts? Or the privatisation of the NHS? Or the marginalisation of the poor and vulnerable in this country whilst millions is spent on a pointless first strike nuclear defence program?

I only ask as I genuinely struggle to understand why continued Westminster governance is in the best interests of Scotland. Perhaps you can help me understand?

[Confidemus]

Poverty, wealth distribution and the increasing number of food banks is not a problem that is restricted to Scotland or the UK, it is not a situation that has been caused by a Tory or any other Westminster government. It is in fact a problem that blights Europe as a whole (even Scandinavia) and the rest of the Western world, there is no evidence to suggest that an Independent Scotland would be any different (assertions made by Yes Scotland is not evidence) - Europe as a whole needs to work together to deal with this problem,

How do you feel about the fact that the UK has the widest gap between rich and poor in Europe?

Or that we are the 4th most unequal country in the Western world?

Or that the richest 5 families in the UK have more wealth than the poorest 12 million?

Or that there are more kids and families in poverty than ever before in Scotland?

Want more "facts"?

[RavyDavy]

Good lad, knew you'd come round.

You mentioned attitude AGAIN. It works both ways, you're on the other side of the fence so you do not see it? What's so hard to understand.

And the YES campaign is purely offering Scotland the chance to govern itself.... How can you not like the thought of that?

Very good

Are you talking about my attitude or the general attitude? I am talking about my experiences and that is that a typical attitude of a Yes supporter is to belittle and disparage. I'm sure that there's an equal argument on the other side but you can't deny that YS has developed somewhat of a reputation, blame whoever you want for that,

I've never said that I don't like the thought of it, it's this brand of independence I don't like. If I'm being honest, I'd have liked to have seen a push for devo-max. I think that would've been more progressive, brought the country together more as a whole and then, just maybe, we could have pushed for indy as a collective.

However, what has actually happened is divisive - the country is split, bitterly in some cases.

[MarkoRaj]

What the hell do conflicts Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with Scottish Independence? I really wish YS would stop using this for cheap politicking - lets pick an emotive subject that people all over the UK disagreed with and use that to win votes.

It's not hard to arrive at the conclusion that an independent Scotland would be less likely to invade Iraq or Afghanistan.

No voters say "it's better when we pool resources" - well when our money is being pooled together in order to pay for things like nuclear weapons and illegal wars it is logical to question whether we would actually be best just spending Scotland's money on things that benefit Scotland

[Confidemus]

Very good

Are you talking about my attitude or the general attitude? I am talking about my experiences and that is that a typical attitude of a Yes supporter is to belittle and disparage. I'm sure that there's an equal argument on the other side but you can't deny that YS has developed somewhat of a reputation, blame whoever you want for that,

I've never said that I don't like the thought of it, it's this brand of independence I don't like. If I'm being honest, I'd have liked to have seen a push for devo-max. I think that would've been more progressive, brought the country together more as a whole and then, just maybe, we could have pushed for indy as a collective.

However, what has actually happened is divisive - the country is split, bitterly in some cases.

For the reputation that Yes supporters have got - you can lay the blame for that sqaurely at the feet of the MSM for that. You'll find that a MASSIVE majority of us are not in the least bit interested in threats or violence. What's disappointing is just how many people have fallen for the "vile cybernat" line. I honestly credited folk with more intelligence than that.

Re devo max, if you'd have offered devo max to the people of Scotland before the referendum, I'm sure we'd have bitten the hand off Westminster. But Dave Cameron didn't want to offer that. He wanted a straight choice between put up or piss off.

[joozy]

How do you feel about the fact that the UK has the widest gap between rich and poor in Europe?

Or that we are the 4th most unequal country in the Western world?

Or that the richest 5 families in the UK have more wealth than the poorest 12 million?

Or that there are more kids and families in poverty than ever before in Scotland?

Want more "facts"?

Your 'facts' are largely meaningless without context.

By some measures, the UK has a greater proportion of people living in poverty than countries like Tunisia and Vietnam. I'd much rather be poor in Scotland than poor in either of those countries though. A lot of poverty measures are not good at incorporating benefits in-kind - which are higher in countries that have well developed welfare systems.

As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, using wealth as a measure we are nowhere near the 4th most unequal country in the Western world.

(Source: https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=1949208D-E59A-F2D9-6D0361266E44A2F8)

I'm also not particularly bothered if the wealthiest 5 families have more wealth than the bottom 12m. I don't think setting an arbitrary 'acceptable' number would do little more than encourage the wealthy to move their wealth out of the country. Funnily enough, these people tend to be able to afford the best accountants. Where would you draw the line? How would you go about managing the line? Far better to focus on policies that can improve the lot of the 12m.

[Taza]

The referendum is about 7 weeks away and I've yet to hear one single BTUKOKNOTHANKS person tell us WHY we're better together.

I'm kind thinking it's because we're not.

Apparently, it's because we'll have ''the best of both worlds''.

[RavyDavy]

The No side is equally, if not more so blighted and plagued by moronic behaviour, the thing is you're the one getting upset about stereotypes and categorisation, when you've already said right there that 'let's not get upset about being stereotyped'.

No paper so built on future prediction could ever be accurate, it's a framework, yes - but an achievable one. Beyond that, it could quite easily be overtaken by events (a yes vote in 2014, followed by a Labour victory in 2016 - for example). Ultimately we are not voting on the contents of the white paper, but rather on a more basic concept: Should all decisions apertaining to Scotland be made by the folk who live in Scotland. Beyond that, everything is dependent on who is chosen by the people of Scotland to govern.

As to your 'flip' question, well you try to constrain it by eliminating 'give everything away for free' policies, which tries to paint certain things in a perjorative light, while being factually incorrect - Scotland has no choice but to balance it's budget, it can't run deficits independent of westminster so that every penny ScotGov spends from the bloc grant we are given is accounted for. Beyond that, I am a firm believer in maintaining the public ownership character of the NHS, and of maintaining as wide an access to tertiary education as possible. Devolution has further allowed a central Scottish body to promote investment and a long term strategy in things like renewable energies, striving to actually have an industrial strategy being entirely novel amongst the elected bodies in these islands since 1979.

In the end, I believe that government at such a remove is simply bad for us. Culture is shaped by history, by geography. There are opportunities and challenges that face Scotland and the people living here that do not fit into Westminster's London centric viewpoint. Locality counts, as you can see from the 80s deindustrialisation (for example) - covered by an oil and financial boom, but still hurting a lot of people. You can further see it in the ignorance and absence of genuine poltiical competition at westminster level in Scotland. We can do better than that. This isn't about individual policies or parties, it's about systems and the cultures of those systems, and I can clearly see how having a seperate Scottish body since 1999 has given us a flexiblity that has helped us massively. I now want to extend that principle to all other domestic and foreign policy spheres.

I haven't complained about being stereotyped.... And I really don't think anything is more moronic than the personal attacks on JK Rowling or the young lass from Glasgow for publicly supporting a side. There are plenty more examples of this kind of behaviour.

If I went to a bank to get a business loan with a plan as vague and baseless as the white paper, i'd be shown the door, so why would I vote for it? Running a country requires many of the same fundamentals as running a business - first and foremost you must balance the books and given the information available today. there is no evidence to suggest that an independent nation could execute the policies/ideals without running a huge deficit. What you are actually saying is that this a vote of faith - vote on the basis of an idea (a concept)? It's reckless and irresponsible in this context at best - you risk the living standards and livelihoods of an entire country. If you've got nothing to lose - go for it. Most people however, have plenty to lose and have more important priorities in life.

You talk about Westminster like there is no Scottish representation in there at all.... Scottish voters have a better than average representation in Westminster in terms of MPs to number of constituents, and is better represented overall than English voters. The problem you have is that decisions are made there for UK as a whole, but that's why you have devolution.

But break your argument down further - an independent Scottish parliament will be central belt-centric - it has to be because that is where the bulk of the populous is, so how about folks from the highlands and Islands, do things change for them? Do they really want all decisions relating to them being made in Edinburgh? Are they getting the government they want - central belt needs are completely different to H&I's. The SNP have progressively centralised power at Holyrood, preventing local authorities from doing what they need to do for their communities. What you're actually championing here is Federalism, which is gathering growing support in Westminster. My point is that wherever the seat of Government is, there will always be communities who feel disengaged or left out - Independence will not solve this.

Scotland does not need to provide free prescriptions to all, it does not need to give bus passes to over 60's still in full time employment, it doesn't need to provide free access to tertiary education as if it was some god given right, no tolls on bridges, free child care for all, Council Tax freeze for 7 years.... What Scotland needs to do is live within it's means and stop blaming WM for all of it's ills - which is why I single out the give-away politics of the SNP as not being comparable. We simply cannot afford all of this - certainly the rest of UK cannot either. The SNP/SG accounts for all the money spent, no issue, but it is frivolous in its spending policies to win cheap votes and to meet political ends - resulting in the referendum.

Why did the SG not use its power to raise income tax to generate more revenue to pay for these policies - purely because it would be very unpopular and alternatively they could blame WM for not giving us enough money to deal with the current issues in Scotland instead of dealing with it within their powers. Perhaps money saved by not giving free University education could have been used to deal with some aspects of child/fuel poverty or similar? All this talk about inclusion and equality but they're more concerned with sending a limited amount of people to Uni for free rather than keeping families fed. Talk about Tory policies?

On your NHS point - as long as that service remains devolved, the decision to keep it publicly owned rests with the incumbent SG.

Don't spout nonsense about the future of industrialisation in a independent nation. One of our most traditional and famous industries will die as a result of a Yes vote. No matter what Salmond says, the MoD will not build complex warships out with UK borders, and the Faslane naval base will close. Thousands will lose their jobs as a result and entire communities will die. This might sound dramatic but it is the reality of the situation. You can bang on about renewable energy as much as you like but that industry is heavily subsidised, hence the amount of R&D in this country. Those subsidies will end soon, then what? As with most technology based industries, manufacturing will move to where it is cheaper as soon as the tech is mature.