I have decided to vote.....

[MarkoRaj]

I have left this for a couple of days now, also as I went out last night and suffering, beer is better than politics.

Leave defense, as I have stated that is my personal opinion, rather than anything else. Also someone has stated about taxation, although I don't agree with that policy, however that has been answered, so thanks. But that could be changed by voting within an independent Scotland

On the others, I have been told this has been answered before, internet is my friend, etc. I can and have read the pro yes articles, etc. The same as I have seen the pro No.

I know nothing is written in stone, nothing is guaranteed, things may change to the plan. I appreciate that and understand that, but fundamentals should be answered.

But still nobody has pointed me to a proper amendment to the White Paper/manifesto, stating that if we are stripped of being in the currency union or the EU. What is plan B? We can go all day saying I should refer to this article written by some halfwit with a degree (that goes for both sides equally), that this will happen or not. But where is this official? I am not interested what a columnist says in the Scotsman or wherever, but officially where is this stated.

I have as stated decided based on evidence, which I have examined from both sides, that almost certainly I will vote No, unless something drastic happens.

But in answer, the Yes campaign wants us to abandon the Union, which is a major shift in generations, which there is nothing wrong with that. However without a full plan with deviations, if Scotland does not get it's way. Either in part or full. How are the Yes campaign going to get undecided to vote yes, or even convert No voters.

The problem is say No, I know probably what will happen (whether good or bad). Vote, Yes, which is like divorce, is terminal and no way back. But the Yes, is asking, for fellow Scots to take a leap of faith, based on this probably/should/may happen.

So I open it to the Yes voters, show me officially, where is the plans, if the above should fail. Written by Yes campaign, not some official who the Yes campaign has decided to quote, where is it enshrined and made official.

So, you have a challenge, convince me that I am wrong based on the above.

K

b

There is no official plan b for currency or e.u as this would give more ammunition to attack and would weaken the yes case. Indeed there are 4 currency options outlined in the white paper.

Regards the e.u you will see earlier on that even a unionist has said that no - one seriously doubts that we won't get in so why would we need a plan b for something that is definitely going to happen?

I mean what if plan b doesn't happen, do we need a plan c? This idea that we have to prepare for every single outcome is ludicrous I'm afraid.

Why would Scotland of all countries fail to be able to govern itself? Why have you no faith that we will be able to do what an overwhelming majority of countries do?

140 countries have gone independent since 1945. Not one has given it up. So yes it would be a binding decision but don't be so afraid!

[Confidemus]

Thank you for this. I don't really have time to view the tables in full, particularly the historical ones (which I think the links at the bottom provide), but it's a decent starting point.

You're welcome. I hope you'll take the time to read it. Also, if you do believe reform is required, why would you not support the only guarantee of reform - a Yes vote?

This is actually one of the great myths of the independence campaign. If you click on that link and actually read the 2012-13 GERS report it gives the following figures:

Scotland's contribution to total UK taxation revenue: 9.1%

Public spending in Scotland as a percentage of the UK total: 9.3%

Yet almost nobody has heard these figures because there seems to have been a concerted effort to pretend they don't exist. Business for Scotland, for instance, spent a year citing the 2011-12 GERS figures as the key argument for independence (9.9% of revenue, 9.3% of spending) then when the 2012-13 report came out they realised it destroyed their own argument so they simply shifted the goalposts and started quoting five year figures instead. Go and read the full report yourself: page 28 shows the revenue, page 46 shows the spending. Clearly that means your claim above that "for each of the last 33 years, Scotland has paid more into the exchequer than it has received" isn't true either.

Incidentally, I'm not saying this as some kind of diehard No voter, but simply as someone who finds the whole "who subsidises who" argument a complete irrelevance. The idea that we can just point at taxation revenue relative to spending and make a concrete estimate about whether independence would make us better off is nonsensical at the best of times, but it's particularly ridiculous when the figures aren't even consistent in the last two years: it went from Scotland subsidising the rest of the UK in 2011-12 to the opposite situation in 2012-13. That's even with a geographic share of oil and assuming taxation revenue figures are reliable (which they aren't).

For someone who isn't a diehard No voter, you're certainly pushing your case.

"There has been a concerted effort to pretend these figures don't exist? That's pish on two counts. Firstly, there's only one side who have struggled to make their voice heard in the mainstream media so far. Clue - it isn't the No campaign. If there was an effort to cover up facts which would damage the Yes campaign, the MSM would be all over it.

Secondly, I found this after 7 seconds of Googling. Hardly concealed.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

[bunkmedal]

You're welcome. I hope you'll take the time to read it. Also, if you do believe reform is required, why would you not support the only guarantee of reform - a Yes vote?

For someone who isn't a diehard No voter, you're certainly pushing your case.

"There has been a concerted effort to pretend these figures don't exist? That's pish on two counts. Firstly, there's only one side who have struggled to make their voice heard in the mainstream media so far. Clue - it isn't the No campaign. If there was an effort to cover up facts which would damage the Yes campaign, the MSM would be all over it.

Secondly, I found this after 7 seconds of Googling. Hardly concealed.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/03/7888

You clearly hadn't heard these figures before when you claimed further up the thread that "for each of the last 33 years, Scotland has paid more into the exchequer than it has received". Now your argument is that it was so widely known anyone with access to google knew about it - quite how that's consistent is beyond me.

In any case I'm not arguing that the mainstream media, the Scottish government or any other mainstream organisation is waging some shadowy conspiracy to keep them from view, I'm talking about sites like Business for Scotland. There is no defence for quoting the 2011-12 figures relentlessly for a year then ignoring the 2012-13 figures simply because they don't suit the argument. By all means make some argument about five year figures, or anything else, but you have to acknowledge these figures exist in the first place. What you certainly can't do is throw out factually incorrect soundbites like your line about the last 33 years then laughably try to argue the point when you're called out on it.

A simple "oh, I didn't know that, I'll change my argument in future" would suffice.

[bunkmedal]

That's 2 years out of 30 odd though and the reasons for it have been discussed at length

The argument isn't "the 2012-13 figures showed we paid less in than we received, therefore independence would make us worse off" it's that you can't simply point at taxation revenue relative to spending and pretend it makes a concrete case for independence making us better off. That's precisely what Business for Scotland did using the 2011-12 figures - including idiotic articles which claimed it amounted to a "mathematical certainty" that Scotland would be better off independent. Evidently they haven't got enough stick for that because we still have people trotting out this nonsense as if it's factually accurate.

It's a flawed argument for two reasons. First, it's trying to predict future economic performance using precisely two variables while ignoring every other variable that would have an impact. We don't even know what our basic lending arrangements will be, far less unknowables like how the bond markets will react, so presenting any calculation of that nature as a "mathematical certainty" is completely ludicrous. That one issue alone can be the difference between an economic boom and bankruptcy. No economist of any standing would put forward an argument of that nature.

Second, we're not arguing about whether Scotland should have been independent over the last 30 years, we're talking about what will happen from 2016 onwards. What happened in the 1990s is almost completely irrelevant to the future situation. The truth is we can't even make an accurate prediction on taxation revenues next year, far less ten years down the line - and that's made abundantly clear by the fact the 2011-12 and 2012-13 GERS figures provide completely different pictures.

The crux of the matter is that trying to make economic predictions of this nature is an exercise in confusion at the best of times. There are so many unknown variables (even measuring last year's taxation revenue has a high degree of error built into it far less predicting it for the next decade) that the only serious answer is to sit on the fence. Unfortunately politicians (and lobbying sites like Business for Scotland) aren't particularly interested in nuanced analysis, they just want a concrete figure they can attack their opponents with.

[pandarilla]

The argument isn't "the 2012-13 figures showed we paid less in than we received, therefore independence would make us worse off" it's that you can't simply point at taxation revenue relative to spending and pretend it makes a concrete case for independence making us better off. That's precisely what Business for Scotland did using the 2011-12 figures - including idiotic articles which claimed it amounted to a "mathematical certainty" that Scotland would be better off independent. Evidently they haven't got enough stick for that because we still have people trotting out this nonsense as if it's factually accurate.

It's a flawed argument for two reasons. First, it's trying to predict future economic performance using precisely two variables while ignoring every other variable that would have an impact. We don't even know what our basic lending arrangements will be, far less unknowables like how the bond markets will react, so presenting any calculation of that nature as a "mathematical certainty" is completely ludicrous. That one issue alone can be the difference between an economic boom and bankruptcy. No economist of any standing would put forward an argument of that nature.

Second, we're not arguing about whether Scotland should have been independent over the last 30 years, we're talking about what will happen from 2016 onwards. What happened in the 1990s is almost completely irrelevant to the future situation. The truth is we can't even make an accurate prediction on taxation revenues next year, far less ten years down the line - and that's made abundantly clear by the fact the 2011-12 and 2012-13 GERS figures provide completely different pictures.

The crux of the matter is that trying to make economic predictions of this nature is an exercise in confusion at the best of times. There are so many unknown variables (even measuring last year's taxation revenue has a high degree of error built into it far less predicting it for the next decade) that the only serious answer is to sit on the fence. Unfortunately politicians (and lobbying sites like Business for Scotland) aren't particularly interested in nuanced analysis, they just want a concrete figure they can attack their opponents with.

That's understandable because there is still some people with deeply-held views who wrongly believe we are 'too wee and too poor' to be a successful independent nation.

I'm not in any way an economist but I liked Robert Peston's conclusions: Scotland will neither be much richer nor much poorer with independence (in the medium to long run). It will be much the same, maybe slightly richer or poorer, depending on a whole range of issues that cannot be predicted with any real accuracy.

As a result the decision should be taken on grounds other than finance/economy.

Sums it up nicely for me.

[bunkmedal]

That's understandable because there is still some people with deeply-held views who wrongly believe we are 'too wee and too poor' to be a successful independent nation.

I'm not in any way an economist but I liked Robert Peston's conclusions: Scotland will neither be much richer nor much poorer with independence (in the medium to long run). It will be much the same, maybe slightly richer or poorer, depending on a whole range of issues that cannot be predicted with any real accuracy.

As a result the decision should be taken on grounds other than finance/economy.

Sums it up nicely for me.

Completely agree with that - we should be making the decision on the political principle of the thing, not nonsense economic estimates (which both sides are guilty of coming out with).

[MarkoRaj]

The argument isn't "the 2012-13 figures showed we paid less in than we received, therefore independence would make us worse off" it's that you can't simply point at taxation revenue relative to spending and pretend it makes a concrete case for independence making us better off. That's precisely what Business for Scotland did using the 2011-12 figures - including idiotic articles which claimed it amounted to a "mathematical certainty" that Scotland would be better off independent. Evidently they haven't got enough stick for that because we still have people trotting out this nonsense as if it's factually accurate.

It's a flawed argument for two reasons. First, it's trying to predict future economic performance using precisely two variables while ignoring every other variable that would have an impact. We don't even know what our basic lending arrangements will be, far less unknowables like how the bond markets will react, so presenting any calculation of that nature as a "mathematical certainty" is completely ludicrous. That one issue alone can be the difference between an economic boom and bankruptcy. No economist of any standing would put forward an argument of that nature.

Second, we're not arguing about whether Scotland should have been independent over the last 30 years, we're talking about what will happen from 2016 onwards. What happened in the 1990s is almost completely irrelevant to the future situation. The truth is we can't even make an accurate prediction on taxation revenues next year, far less ten years down the line - and that's made abundantly clear by the fact the 2011-12 and 2012-13 GERS figures provide completely different pictures.

The crux of the matter is that trying to make economic predictions of this nature is an exercise in confusion at the best of times. There are so many unknown variables (even measuring last year's taxation revenue has a high degree of error built into it far less predicting it for the next decade) that the only serious answer is to sit on the fence. Unfortunately politicians (and lobbying sites like Business for Scotland) aren't particularly interested in nuanced analysis, they just want a concrete figure they can attack their opponents with.

Good post.

My argument (and what should be bfs argument as well) is that if we would have been better off for the last 30 years without the union, why would we trust the UK Government to do what's best for us for the next 30 years.

However what you have is one side saying "for 30 years we would have been better off - we will definitely be better off in future" and the other side saying "we have been worse off for the last 2 years - we will definitely go bust". I realise now that's not what you were getting at but it is an argument I have heard countless times.

Neither side can be sure but neither side wants to listen so both feel they have to just repeat assertions until the 18th rather than just say we don't know what will happen.

[Anonapersona]

I have left this for a couple of days now, also as I went out last night and suffering, beer is better than politics.

Leave defense, as I have stated that is my personal opinion, rather than anything else. Also someone has stated about taxation, although I don't agree with that policy, however that has been answered, so thanks. But that could be changed by voting within an independent Scotland

On the others, I have been told this has been answered before, internet is my friend, etc. I can and have read the pro yes articles, etc. The same as I have seen the pro No.

I know nothing is written in stone, nothing is guaranteed, things may change to the plan. I appreciate that and understand that, but fundamentals should be answered.

But still nobody has pointed me to a proper amendment to the White Paper/manifesto, stating that if we are stripped of being in the currency union or the EU. What is plan B? We can go all day saying I should refer to this article written by some halfwit with a degree (that goes for both sides equally), that this will happen or not. But where is this official? I am not interested what a columnist says in the Scotsman or wherever, but officially where is this stated.

I have as stated decided based on evidence, which I have examined from both sides, that almost certainly I will vote No, unless something drastic happens.

But in answer, the Yes campaign wants us to abandon the Union, which is a major shift in generations, which there is nothing wrong with that. However without a full plan with deviations, if Scotland does not get it's way. Either in part or full. How are the Yes campaign going to get undecided to vote yes, or even convert No voters.

The problem is say No, I know probably what will happen (whether good or bad). Vote, Yes, which is like divorce, is terminal and no way back. But the Yes, is asking, for fellow Scots to take a leap of faith, based on this probably/should/may happen.

So I open it to the Yes voters, show me officially, where is the plans, if the above should fail. Written by Yes campaign, not some official who the Yes campaign has decided to quote, where is it enshrined and made official.

So, you have a challenge, convince me that I am wrong based on the above.

K

Ok I'll bite. What will actually probably happen in the event of a No vote? You don't know. Nobody does because nothing is ever static.

Thing is, you can't tell me what the future of the UK is, with or without Scotland. I think that a lot of people feel that the UK is a safe place because we are familiar with it. However, one thing I can tell you is that the UK is a very different place to the country I left 14 years ago. And not for the better either. I'm shocked when I hear about food banks, austerity and the erosion of the NHS. WTF has happened? If there is any chance of an independent Scotland running a successful NHS, that alone is a very good reason to vote Yes. Trust me, you don't want health care to be ran as a business like it is here in the States.

Using past figures to determine a vote is a bit like throwing a dart in the dark. It basically comes down to either you think Scotland can run its own show or you think we are dependent on Westminster for our wellbeing. Or, I guess you could be a staunch unionist and would vote No even if Scotland was guaranteed to become the richest nation ever. There's nothing wrong with that. Each to their own.

Hell, if Westminster can show me a roadmap where the UK prospers I'll ditch the US and come back. But then again, as someone who had to suck up the poll tax, my distrust of Westminster has been earned tenfold.

[thepundit]

What will actually probably happen in the event of a No vote? You don't know. Nobody does because nothing is ever static.

Correct, but its far easier to predict Scotland's future within the UK than if Scotland votes for independence, is it not?...

As for your comment about the NHS, the Scottish Government are already dismantling it. That's not just happening in England. And with independence, the Scottish government will have to either raise taxes or reduce public spending so what do you think will happen to the NHS then?... Either that or higher taxes and don't think those who voted Yes would be happy with either.

[MarkoRaj]

And with independence, the Scottish government will have to either raise taxes or reduce public spending so what do you think will happen to the NHS then?... Either that or higher taxes and don't think those who voted Yes would be happy with either.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this for sure and yet you speak as if you do. Just makes you seem like a bit of a moron tbh

[Blaven]

Correct, but its far easier to predict Scotland's future within the UK than if Scotland votes for independence, is it not?...

As for your comment about the NHS, the Scottish Government are already dismantling it. That's not just happening in England. And with independence, the Scottish government will have to either raise taxes or reduce public spending so what do you think will happen to the NHS then?... Either that or higher taxes and don't think those who voted Yes would be happy with either.

It is easy to predict what will happen to Scotland staying with the UK, this is true.

I predict it to be utterly unbeneficial to Scotland. The RUK will do alot more pulling and alot less sharing.

We will quickly start to get the " worst of both worlds ©".

Tories will decide its time to start paying back some of that £1.5 trillion that the UKGovernments have somehow managed to accumulate, now that the oilfeilds are producing higher than ever yeilds.

Tories may even do what tories like to do and try out a few new policys, starting in the North.

You really dont understand how the NHS in the RUK are linked to the NHS in Scotland by how they are funded, do you?

[thepundit]

1) It is easy to predict what will happen to Scotland staying with the UK, this is true.

2) You really dont understand how the NHS in the RUK are linked to the NHS in Scotland by how they are funded, do you?

1) Well said. Which is why the desperation from the Yes side to paint a No vote as a leap into the unknown is clear fearmongering. Maybe they have noted how efficient it has been for Better Together? But it has to be believable.

2) I'm assuming by that comment you are removing any blame from the Scottish government? There's a surprise.

[Blaven]

1) Well said. Which is why the desperation from the Yes side to paint a No vote as a leap into the unknown is clear fearmongering. Maybe they have noted how efficient it has been for Better Together? But it has to be believable.

2) I'm assuming by that comment you are removing any blame from the Scottish government? There's a surprise.

Wow Charles, thought you were HB there.

No one has ever said a NO vote is a leap into the dark. We all know exactly what will happen. Thats why we are YES voters.

Ok Charles?

[Confidemus]

Correct, but its far easier to predict Scotland's future within the UK than if Scotland votes for independence, is it not?...

As for your comment about the NHS, the Scottish Government are already dismantling it. That's not just happening in England. And with independence, the Scottish government will have to either raise taxes or reduce public spending so what do you think will happen to the NHS then?... Either that or higher taxes and don't think those who voted Yes would be happy with either.

What a happy clappy little Britnat you are.

Yes it is far easier to predict Scotland's future within the UK than if Scotland votes for independence. Utterly fucked.

You're going to have to explain how the SG are dismantling the Scottish NHS. I'll get a coffee for this.

[thepundit]

What a happy clappy little Britnat you are.

I wouldn't say I was a Nationalist.

That kind of politics is a bit too right wing for me.

I'm a Unionist.

[1320Lichtie]

I wouldn't say I was a Nationalist.

That kind of politics is a bit too right wing for me.

I'm a Unionist.

A British Nationalist

[1320Lichtie]

I wouldn't say I was a Nationalist.

That kind of politics is a bit too right wing for me.

I'm a Unionist.

And explain how the SG are dismantling the NHS

[Blaven]

I wouldn't say I was a Nationalist.

That kind of politics is a bit too right wing for me.

I'm a Unionist.

You called yourself British yesterday.

[thepundit]

A British Nationalist

A British Unionist.

Surprised you're back on here after getting put in your place by fellow Yes supporters yesterday. Bit of an embarrassing day for you.

You called yourself British yesterday.

Yes, I did. What's your point?.....

[Anonapersona]

Correct, but its far easier to predict Scotland's future within the UK than if Scotland votes for independence, is it not?...

As for your comment about the NHS, the Scottish Government are already dismantling it. That's not just happening in England. And with independence, the Scottish government will have to either raise taxes or reduce public spending so what do you think will happen to the NHS then?... Either that or higher taxes and don't think those who voted Yes would be happy with either.

Then please enlighten me with the future if Scotland votes No. If it's easier to predict you must have something to share. No?

I'm quite happy to predict that an independent Scotland will be successful, or at least better than the London centric system that's currently in place. I'm also happy to predict that a No vote will be regretted a few years down the line.

As for the NHS. Well, I'd love it if taxes were raised over here and I didn't have to pay $600 a month for health insurance. Of course that only kicks in after I pay a $3600 deductible. And then there's the $20 copay just to get into a doctor's office. Yeah, raising taxes sounds pretty fking delicious compared to the alternative.

I'm assuming though, that Westminster is planning to raise taxes to save the NHS? Or is that something that only Scotland would have to do because...... ummmmm......just because.