4 ms·

What other option do they have though? They can't go spewing democracy across the rest of the world and then iron fist things back at home. No. The only thing

What other option do they have though? They can't go spewing democracy across the rest of the world and then iron fist things back at home. No. The only thing they could do (and are doing) is attempt to undermine and scare everyone out of it. - "You don't even have a currency figured out!" - "You are not getting to use the pound, no way!" - "You are not getting into the EU either, we've checked and got the big wigs in the EU to say as much, publicly, as well." - "... and there'll be no more commonwealth for you either!" - "Your north sea oil wells are drying up, you'll all be starving to death in a decade. The horror!" - "It's a big world and you'll be in it on your own. Be afraid!" ...etc. *PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition.

orf 12y ago
> *PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition. By that you of course mean caricatures of real arguments with valid points.
celticninja 12y ago
Both sides have talked up their own side and down the other. The Yes side have sidestepped questions where they dont have answers or provided partial answers or over simplified things to make the yes decision seem like the better decision. Anyone voting on this issue should read this book: http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/Scotland%27s%20Decision%20final%20ebook.pdf http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap... 90 page PDF explaining both sides of the biggest questions, providing the Yes and No side and then an analysis by independent experts. Even if you are not voting it is a worthwhile read. I am not eligible to vote as i dont live in Scotland but this give me a much better understanding of the issues at hand. Personally i would like to see a Yes vote, partially because it will be interesting to see how it all pans out, but also because there is a genuine feeling in Scotland that they may be able to make a difference to the lives of residents of Scotland, who lets be fair, are usually at the bottom of the pile in terms of health, employment, life expectancy etc.
- ownagefool 12y ago
  Your last sentence is what it's all about. If Scots have worse health, employment and life prospectives, then it's clear that the union isn't working for them. Why shouldn't they vote to leave? These stats may not improve in an independent Scotland, but it's clear that given our history, it's unlikely things will improve in the union and actually, I'm pretty sure the feeling is the devolved government has been doing a better job since the SNP won power. Apparently, polls suggest those who are educated are more likely to vote yes. I guess it comes down to whether those who aren't are going to fall for the fear tactics of the "better together" campaign.
  - celticninja 12y ago
    However it should be noted that health and life expectancy are related to one another, additionally the Scottish government has been in control of NHS spending in Scotland since 1999 and health and life expectancy have not improved in that time. Additionally Scotland have spent much more on the NHS (per person) than the rest of the UK, about £300 more, £1750 v £2150. So if you are voting yes because of these issues you may want to look into them further. Of course if you just want to rationalise an emotional decision then people will assume what ever suits them I. E. London is to blame for ill health in Scotland.
    - ownagefool 12y ago
      I agree, it is an emotional decision but it's also not really fair to expect a change in life expectancy throughout 15 years of government, the majority of which was a lib/lab coalition. Still: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26681098 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26681098 It'd be nice to back that with cause and effect, but it seems it's untrue that there's been no change.
      - celticninja 12y ago
        As that article is looking at historic records from 1980 we would need to see the per decade breakdown to see if there was a marked increase since 1999,or roughly half way through the period they looked at. They have averaged it at about 2 years per decade but if we had better info we could determine if the greater benefit was post 1999 and whether it is a statistically significant difference or not, I. E. Life expectancy is usually always increasing but did it improve by a greater percentage under the SNP.

orf 12y ago

> *PS. The above quotes are a summation of actual quotes made by the opposition. By that you of course mean caricatures of real arguments with valid points.

celticninja 12y ago

Both sides have talked up their own side and down the other. The Yes side have sidestepped questions where they dont have answers or provided partial answers or over simplified things to make the yes decision seem like the better decision. Anyone voting on this issue should read this book: http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/Scotland%27s%20Decision%20final%20ebook.pdf http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/sites/default/files/pap... 90 page PDF explaining both sides of the biggest questions, providing the Yes and No side and then an analysis by independent experts. Even if you are not voting it is a worthwhile read. I am not eligible to vote as i dont live in Scotland but this give me a much better understanding of the issues at hand. Personally i would like to see a Yes vote, partially because it will be interesting to see how it all pans out, but also because there is a genuine feeling in Scotland that they may be able to make a difference to the lives of residents of Scotland, who lets be fair, are usually at the bottom of the pile in terms of health, employment, life expectancy etc.

ownagefool 12y ago
Your last sentence is what it's all about. If Scots have worse health, employment and life prospectives, then it's clear that the union isn't working for them. Why shouldn't they vote to leave? These stats may not improve in an independent Scotland, but it's clear that given our history, it's unlikely things will improve in the union and actually, I'm pretty sure the feeling is the devolved government has been doing a better job since the SNP won power. Apparently, polls suggest those who are educated are more likely to vote yes. I guess it comes down to whether those who aren't are going to fall for the fear tactics of the "better together" campaign.
- celticninja 12y ago
  However it should be noted that health and life expectancy are related to one another, additionally the Scottish government has been in control of NHS spending in Scotland since 1999 and health and life expectancy have not improved in that time. Additionally Scotland have spent much more on the NHS (per person) than the rest of the UK, about £300 more, £1750 v £2150. So if you are voting yes because of these issues you may want to look into them further. Of course if you just want to rationalise an emotional decision then people will assume what ever suits them I. E. London is to blame for ill health in Scotland.
  - ownagefool 12y ago
    I agree, it is an emotional decision but it's also not really fair to expect a change in life expectancy throughout 15 years of government, the majority of which was a lib/lab coalition. Still: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26681098 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26681098 It'd be nice to back that with cause and effect, but it seems it's untrue that there's been no change.
    - celticninja 12y ago
      As that article is looking at historic records from 1980 we would need to see the per decade breakdown to see if there was a marked increase since 1999,or roughly half way through the period they looked at. They have averaged it at about 2 years per decade but if we had better info we could determine if the greater benefit was post 1999 and whether it is a statistically significant difference or not, I. E. Life expectancy is usually always increasing but did it improve by a greater percentage under the SNP.