Really? No-one commenting on tonights debate?

[r10crw]

Didnt know a yes vote was no to nuclear, that really pushes me to a no vote.

Constantly travelling to various nations I find it amusing that those who pushed renewable 20 years ago now have the largest investment in nuclear research. I would like to think we can learn from others mistakes instead we are paying said nations to manufacture and install wind tubines for us.

[Dominic]

They won't win because people want certainties for the future from the Yes campaign. They are not asking the same from the No campaign.

For the most part a No vote is for status quo so we already have (most of the) information available.
People resist change in almost every aspect of their lives and the Yes faction really don't understand that if you want to change peoples lives you need to feed them information about what that involves and offer them some positive actions and they simply haven't done that.

100% agree.

The reality is that "yes" need to convince people that it will lead to a better place, "no" need to do nothing.

My big worry still remains that the utopia that has been painted still hasn't been costed and i'd be worried about a backlash when people realise that a higher GDP doesn't instantly mean we're all better off. If someone said "we'll have to take a hit fro 10 years then we'll be quids in" then i'd be much more inclined to listen closely.

There is a "set up cost" that comes with a yes vote that isn't there with a no vote - therefore i, and i'm sure others, need to be sure it's worth the investment. That's how i'd look at it if it was a work thing and i'm afraid that's how i look at things in my personal life. Passion has it's place but this isn't it.

Well said Mr Donkey.

[woody]

They won't win because people want certainties for the future from the Yes campaign. They are not asking the same from the No campaign.

Below your usual standards of posting Pete; the largest questions are largely certain.

It's a shame the wider debate has to be heated up by a TV by a TV debate when both sides drag up issues from the past that have no bearing on the future and both to varying degrees focus on the person. As a method of getting the pros of a Yes vote across, it was utterly useless.

Came to the conclusion this morning I wouldn't buy a second hand car being sold with a similar amount of information as the Yes campaign are putting out and probably wouldn't get as far as talking about money if the salesman was Salmond.

[GBOBM]

Mr Donkey, you also get very annoyed in the workplace with the naesayers who are happy to stay in their own little bubble of status quo even though it's not the best for the company. They generally think everything is "too risky"

If you think about what you do in your work, about changing things and ways of working for the better, but unsure about what the outcome will be. If it doesn't quite work, you adapt and refine until it works, but in the end you end up in a better position.

I'm swinging towards the Yes vote, but the big thing that keeps me on the fence is the initial setup costs and how we are going to get over them. I think we have the ability as a nation to run a country well, but it might be a non-starter if we can't get over the initial setup costs.

[Dominic]

Just for fun, a wee SE poll

http://www.scottishelises.com/phpbb/vie ... =2&t=38973

[Lazydonkey]

Mr Donkey, you also get very annoyed in the workplace with the naesayers who are happy to stay in their own little bubble of status quo even though it's not the best for the company. They generally think everything is "too risky"

If you think about what you do in your work, about changing things and ways of working for the better, but unsure about what the outcome will be. If it doesn't quite work, you adapt and refine until it works, but in the end you end up in a better position.

It's a good challenge bob.

Ultimately in work i'd never suggest, or be allowed to suggest, an option where the set up costs were unknown. If i went to my boss and said "i can save us £100k a year" she'd ask what investment she needed to make. If the answer was "you'll need to make some, not sure what yet, we'll work it out" then i'd get told to bugger off and come back when i'd worked it out.

Thing is there is no status quo. The ground will move depending on who wins the next election, we as a people can influence that and move the agenda of Westminster. So if we want change we can exact change, to a certain extent, from within the confines of the current rules. Maybe not to the same extent that we can if we get indy but we can still make changes.

Coming back to your challenge, if i want people to change in work (and i very definately do) then i clearly and rationally put out the pros and cons and then my reasoning behind any change. If there are people who have questions i'll work with them to address their fears.

I'm all for taking calculated risks (ive recently sunk more money than i'm entirely comfortable with into a lotus and a 1910 house! ) but right now we're being asked to vote for an uncosted future where we have to hope that the westminster parties will go against their publicly stated view that they won't support a currency union. The main reasons behind having this faith seem to be that "our" policiticans will be better than the lot we have in westminster, they'll be less corrupt, better advised and make better decisions. I can see little evidence of this in the current Edinburgh parliament. in fact on the issue of education the scottish government have actually increased primary school class sizes since the SNP got their majority.....which is confusing given it was a major backbone of their manifesto. Why should i trust them to make good on the current promises when their record so far shows they are just as shifty as the westminster lot. While we now have an excellent voting system that, in theory, allows great independants to get elected, instead we still seem to be limited to the existing party politics.

So for me the risks are too high and the rewards aren't clear. So until that shifts i'll be a no. On a final note I didn't vote SNP and yet i'm still governed by them so in an independent scotland i wouldn't really be better represented than i am by the existing con-lib coalition. Maybe that's my fault for being a wierdo who doesn't want what the populous want, but it might explain my views.

[flyingscot68]

I was a firm no, but now I've changed to a yes.

I do find the whole debate very frustrating, it's impossible to figure out exactly what'll happen in the event of a yes vote. My severe distrust of politicians means that I don't believe anything either camp tells me so I've kind of given up on figuring out what will happen with currency, tax, set up costs etc. etc.

So I now base my yes vote on the fact that we are a productive intelligent nation with a lot to offer the world. We have good tourism and exports, excellent learning centres that attract students from all over the world and a proven track record in innovation and discovery.
If you look at other nations around the world there is absolutely no reason why we cannot be a successful independent country. Will it be better than the union? Could be, that's up to us. Will it cost us (the workers) more for this? Potentially yes, that's something I'm willing to take a chance on.
One thing that has struck me talking to the yes pushers out there is the fact that almost all of them want rid of Salmond, they see him only as a vessel to independence.

I've got nothing against the union, it's worked well for all involved (unless you ask the Irish) but I feel we have the opportunity to make a big change here and we should take it. The thought of continuing the status quo and missing this chance does not appeal to me at all. Life for me has always been about taking chances, I think this is the biggest one of all so it'll be a yes from me, and I'm actually quite surprised at myself for that.

[BiggestNizzy]

Setup costs have been anything between £600m and £1.5Bn or at worst less than half Scotland’s contribution to HS2. The treasury said £2.7Gn but that was bad maths.

edited to add.

Scottish politicians will be no better than Westminster I would go as far as saying that the current crop are worse. This I expect to change over time however. It's not that they will somehow be better politicians, better advices and make less mistakes it's more their focus won't be on what suits middle England / the south east. but what suits middle Scotland / Edinburgh Politicians say and do whatever keeps them in a job I would rather the focus of keeping them in a job was a bit more local so I got the benefit out of it.

I am actually pro-nuclear (power) and it's a shame they will ditch it but I am also pro NHS and I don't like the idea of it being privatised. I also worry about how much we are going to get screwed over when they re-jig the Barnett formula.

[Lazydonkey]

Setup costs have been anything between £600m and £1.5Bn or at worst less than half Scotland’s contribution to HS2. The treasury said £2.7Gn but that was bad maths.

"Yes" said it was bad maths. I don't think the Uk government have said that.

Even if it is bad maths we're still saying it could be anything between £200 million (the yes figure i saw quoted) and £1.58 billion...... quite a big range isn't it ?

Which figure has been used to say we'll all be better off and we can afford all the promises that have been made, along with the fact that scots hit the NHS and DWP quite hard in comparison to the rest of the UK.

It's possible i'm worrying over nothing and it's all great, but i just want to see the maths. Having a higher GDP is great but that's like me saying "i've got a bigger salary so i can keep spending lots of money"......there is a limit to what the higher GDP gives us

[Dominic]

Will it cost us (the workers) more for this? Potentially yes, that's something I'm willing to take a chance on.

This seems to be the approach of many Yes voters - "We'll just chance it".... personally I don't think we should "chance it" / have a punt / etc etc on something as important as this.

[flyingscot68]

Will it cost us (the workers) more for this? Potentially yes, that's something I'm willing to take a chance on.

This seems to be the approach of many Yes voters - "We'll just chance it".... personally I don't think we should "chance it" / have a punt / etc etc on something as important as this.

It depends on your attitude to risk Dominic.
Nothing ventured nothing gained has always been my motto. Otherwise I'd still be working in a factory, living in a flat and driving a Vauxhall.

[flyingscot68]

Now that I think about it, I'd like to know what terrible insurmountable things people think could happen if Scotland does vote yes.
So please tell me what you think could cause independence to ruin our current situation.

Cheers

Kenny

[pete]

Will it cost us (the workers) more for this? Potentially yes, that's something I'm willing to take a chance on.

This seems to be the approach of many Yes voters - "We'll just chance it".... personally I don't think we should "chance it" / have a punt / etc etc on something as important as this.

That's a hell of a selective edit Dom.

I don't think that the Yes vote is summed up so simply, it's not "we'll just chance it" it's more we've looked at the whole situation, taken into account what has happened in the past, what has happened in other countries, thrown in some economic theory and decided that we can manage our own affairs successfully.
There is chance on both sides, it's naive to think otherwise, you've just got to look at the facts and pick a side. The fun bit is picking the facts from the nonsense, lies and half truths.

[Lazydonkey]

Now that I think about it, I'd like to know what terrible insurmountable things people think could happen if Scotland does vote yes.
So please tell me what you think could cause independence to ruin our current situation.

Cheers

Kenny

Off the top of my head....

1. We don't get currency union and we have no control over our own currency. Uk government then sneeze and we catch a cold.
2. Our system costs more to run (older, less fit, less healthy population) and this wipes out the GDP excess
3. People like me who work for an english company but are based in scotland start getting taxed out of england cos it's better for employer and employee with the associated reduced receipts for the scottish version of HMRC
4. Cost of imports and exports go up due to the increased problems associated with different tax rates etc

I'm no expert but those are the issues that i think about.

[Dominic]

To add to Donkey's list...

5. Costs in supermarkets go up due to logistic costs now being concentrated in Scotland and not across the UK
6. For me, loosing my English clients - who's going to want to use a foreign accountant? Also, the additional cost of trade for those dealing with English business - currency exchange costs etc. I have quite a few clients who are putting plans into place to relocate their businesses to England to avoid some of the issues.
7. Going by the accountancy press, increased taxes in Scotland.