So why are people voting NO?

[boabinoban]

Hey, I won't argue with that. My argument, however, is the gap will increase at a faster rate with independence rather than the supposed fairer society. I can understand why someone who isn't financially well off thinking "what have I got to lose?" but the fact is it's not what they can lose but how harder it will be to get out of poverty.

Could you expand on this please and explain how you come to this conclusion?

[boabinoban]

So Joozy is that the only thing you can have against all the points I brought up?

[Confidemus]

You honestly believe that Scotland will be fairer if it votes for independence?.Yes.

Nonsense. The people at the top will stay at the top and the people at the bottom will remain at the bottom.

There will be no closing of the gap. Its a complete myth. In your head perhaps. This is what happens when you only listen to BT people.

If anything, the gap will widen as taxes for Joe Public will rise and corporation tax will be reduced. This is just lies. Outright barefaced lies

A fairer society not really off to a good start is it?.... Um yes, because it will be. You've proved NOTHING and given NO facts thus far.

[Ira Gaines]

I'd be interested to see the evidence either way on this btw. I don't necessarily trust politicians to make things better. Although I HAVE seen enough to suggest that things can't really get much worse than it is, and will get, the way things stand now.

[Confidemus]

I don't know about the wider debate, but so far, No voters on here have given half arsed, paper thin, can't be bothered reasons for voting No.

It's like they don't even truly believe it.

Now I don't want to be disparaging, and I respect everyone's view, but it seems that this is the best people can come up with for voting No, flimsy arguments that can be instantly dismantled.

Come on Scotland, wake the f**k up!!

[ayrmad]

Hey, I won't argue with that. My argument, however, is the gap will increase at a faster rate with independence rather than the supposed fairer society. I can understand why someone who isn't financially well off thinking "what have I got to lose?" but the fact is it's not what they can lose but how harder it will be to get out of poverty.

So you're actually giving more sway to an unsubstantiated belief than a certainty, that's actually a very negative approach to a decision that will affect millions that aren't even twinkles yet.

[boabinoban]

I don't know about the wider debate, but so far, No voters on here have given half arsed, paper thin, can't be bothered reasons for voting No.

It's like they don't even truly believe it.

Now I don't want to be disparaging, and I respect everyone's view, but it seems that this is the best people can come up with for voting No, flimsy arguments that can be instantly dismantled.

Come on Scotland, wake the f**k up!!

Exactly. It's blinkered and blind voting and people just can't be arsed looking into any of it. Sheep. I'm all for learning on the subject and will stand corrected when I have to, but so much of Scotland are just going through the motions that will only lead us to further tory rule and labourtory rule, not changing anything in a political system that is broken, where 14 out of 18 general election votes haven't made one bit of difference to the end result, along with all the other reasons to get the f**k out of the sad, disintegrating, rotten, archaic system we find ourselves in.

Time to wake up Scotland!

[thepundit]

There will be no closing of the gap. Its a complete myth. In your head perhaps. This is what happens when you only listen to BT people.

If anything, the gap will widen as taxes for Joe Public will rise and corporation tax will be reduced. This is just lies. Outright barefaced lies

A fairer society not really off to a good start is it?.... Um yes, because it will be. You've proved NOTHING and given NO facts thus far.

1) I don't "only" listen to Better Together "people". After all, UKIP are not part of Better Together and I take what they say very seriously I also listen to the arguments of Yes campaigners and don't fall for assumptions, many of which have been proven incorrect.

2) It's accepted on both sides that taxes will increase in an independent Scotland. And Salmond wants to reduce corporation tax. Which part is "lies"? And the Scottish National Party got their way in regards to the recent vote on abolishing zero hour contracts which could have ensured a living wage for many. That's rather shameful in my opinion and goes nowhere near to assisting in closing the gap between the rich and poor.

3) I've backed up my argument more than you have, so far. The floor is yours...

[H_B]

I'd be interested to see the evidence either way on this btw. I don't necessarily trust politicians to make things better. Although I HAVE seen enough to suggest that things can't really get much worse than it is, and will get, the way things stand now.

The SGs own economic adviser has said that a CT decrease increases inequality in society.

This is the SNPs flagship post Indy economic policy.

The economic indicators for the UK are picking up nicely as well so I'm not sure about things getting worse. They really aren't at all bad just now.

[Ira Gaines]

1) I don't "only" listen to Better Together "people". After all, UKIP are not part of Better Together and I take what they say very seriously

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that the tongue is firmly in the cheek with this comment.

2) It's accepted on both sides that taxes will increase in an independent Scotland. And Salmond wants to reduce corporation tax. Which part is "lies"? And the Scottish National Party got their way in regards to the recent vote on abolishing zero hour contracts which could have ensured a living wage for many. That's rather shameful in my opinion and goes nowhere near to assisting in closing the gap between the rich and poor.

Who says Salmond would be in power in an independent Scotland? How many SNP politicians will be in power in an independent Scotland? If you can answer them, then this particular paragraph can become relevant. You can't answer it though.

Of course, my main contention with this entire argument from a "Yes" standpoint is that I'm not entirely sure our politicians can be trusted to do what's right, even if we DID get them out of power, which would be one of the first things I'd be wanting to see happen.

[ayrmad]

The SGs own economic adviser has said that a CT decrease increases inequality in society.

This is the SNPs flagship post Indy economic policy.

The economic indicators for the UK are picking up nicely as well so I'm not sure about things getting worse. They really aren't at all bad just now.

Aye, for you, they really are that bad for anyone that's sweating about their next meal or paying their bills.

[Confidemus]

1) I don't "only" listen to Better Together "people". After all, UKIP are not part of Better Together and I take what they say very seriously I also listen to the arguments of Yes campaigners and don't fall for assumptions, many of which have been proven incorrect.

2) It's accepted on both sides that taxes will increase in an independent Scotland. And Salmond wants to reduce corporation tax. Which part is "lies"? And the Scottish National Party got their way in regards to the recent vote on abolishing zero hour contracts which could have ensured a living wage for many. That's rather shameful in my opinion and goes nowhere near to assisting in closing the gap between the rich and poor.

3) I've backed up my argument more than you have, so far. The floor is yours...

1) That's PLENTY with the UKIP chat, chummy. Tell me, what Yes arguements do you listen to and please point to the MANY which have been PROVEN to be incorrect.

2) No it isn't.

3) Look at any number of my posts. I've put many, many facts out there. Like record numbers of children in poverty. Europe's largest rich/ poor divide. How wealth is distributed in the UK. How much we could save by getting rid of of Trident/ HS1/2 etc.

[ayrmad]

The SGs own economic adviser has said that a CT decrease increases inequality in society.

This is the SNPs flagship post Indy economic policy.

The economic indicators for the UK are picking up nicely as well so I'm not sure about things getting worse. They really aren't at all bad just now.

How many post Indy economic policies have been announced by the SNP, will the SNP be the leaders of Scotland after the next 1,2,3.....elections after independence.

[Ira Gaines]

Worth noting that SNP are merely looking to do something about the abuse of the zero hours contracts, which is absolutely correct. Abolishing them is something I'd be dead against. I don't necessarily see what's wrong with what the SNP talk about.

[boabinoban]

Party got their way in regards to the recent vote on abolishing zero hour contracts which could have ensured a living wage for many. That's rather shameful in my opinion and goes nowhere near to assisting in closing the gap between the rich and poor.

3) I've backed up my argument more than you have, so far. The floor is yours...

So you are saying zero hours contracts are a good thing? This is just a new era of disposable casual labour while making millions for the huge tax dodging companies that take advantage of it. That's hardly closing any gaps.

[Ira Gaines]

So you are saying zero hours contracts are a good thing?

As long as they aren't being abused? I'd say yes. And that's what the SNP are wanting to do, although again, we don't know who would be in power in the event of a Yes vote. So who knows if something will really be done about this either way?

[thepundit]

Who says Salmond would be in power in an independent Scotland? How many SNP politicians will be in power in an independent Scotland? If you can answer them, then this particular paragraph can become relevant. You can't answer it though.

Of course, my main contention with this entire argument from a "Yes" standpoint is that I'm not entirely sure our politicians can be trusted to do what's right, even if we DID get them out of power, which would be one of the first things I'd be wanting to see happen.

So it's okay for Yes supporters to assume the Tories will be in power forever but I'm not allowed to assume the first government in an independent Scotland will be the Scottish National Party?....

You're right to not trust politicians.

So you are saying zero hours contracts are a good thing? This is just a new era of disposable casual labour while making millions for the huge tax dodging companies that take advantage of it. That's hardly closing any gaps.

No, I'm saying they are a bad thing and that the Scottish National Party voted against abolishing them.

You are absolutely correct to say it does not help close any gaps between the rich and poor. The Scottish National Party could have helped create a fairer society and chose not to, so why should people believe an independent Scotland would be any different?

[HaikuHibee]

1) I don't "only" listen to Better Together "people". After all, UKIP are not part of Better Together and I take what they say very seriously I also listen to the arguments of Yes campaigners and don't fall for assumptions, many of which have been proven incorrect.

"Since the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, the nation has been beset by serious storms and floods. One recent one caused the worst flooding for 60 years. The Christmas floods were the worst for 127 years. Is this just global warming or is there something more serious at work?"

The Yorkshire and Humber MEP had the whip removed in September 2013, after a recording emerged of him joking that a group of Ukip women who did not clean behind their fridges were "sluts".

Stuart Wheeler, party treasurer, said women were "nowhere near as good as men" at chess, bridge and poker.

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader said women with children were "worth less" than men in the financial sector.

Well, that's okay mate. If there are some more like you, we will get shafted.

[Ira Gaines]

So it's okay for Yes supporters to assume the Tories will be in power forever but I'm not allowed to assume the first government in an independent Scotland will be the Scottish National Party?....

If you want to lower yourself to the standard of idiots, go right ahead. Just don't complain when you get treated like one as a result.

No, I'm saying they are a bad thing and that the Scottish National Party voted against abolishing them.

They shouldn't be abolished, but they do need to be regulated pretty heavily. Having been in a job that used them very well, they can actually benefit the employees a great deal when used correctly.

[boabinoban]

As long as they aren't being abused? I'd say yes. And that's what the SNP are wanting to do, although again, we don't know who would be in power in the event of a Yes vote. So who knows if something will really be done about this either way?

I would agree with this. You're right to say they do need regulated though. At the moment it's carte blanche for the big tax dodging companies. There is nothing wrong with casual labour as it can benefit both sides, but at the moment it's open to abuse.

After a Yes vote the SNP would only be an interim government until a fully democratic open Scottish election can take place, where even Scottish conservatives can have a voice, instead of being a tainted organisation. There would be a new, modern government voted in by the people of Sotland, and not dictated to by London and the south of England. How fucking great would that be?!