And yet even at this stage, none of the above parties have any concrete answers to the key economic questions. And it IS about economics - or it should be for the voters.
The nationalistic argument is moot because Scotland already has a distinct cultural identity which is not under threat and never has been. I lived in Glasgow for a year and I visit Scotland about twice a year to see the in-laws, and I am very much aware that I am in Scotland rather than England. The nationalistic arguments can very easily be interpreted as simply anti-English, since again you already do have a cultural identity and it is not something which has been oppressed or threatened in the slightest.
The main argument I see at the moment is "We want a government that we voted for" - well you have one, the SNP, they have been in the headlines quite a lot recently so I am surprised anyone missed it.
Seriously though, the only purpose of a government is to enact policy and legislature - which for the most part, is simply a means of controlling the economy in some way shape or form, so again this is what it boils down to - that you want your own government so they can control Scotlands economy "better".
It always comes down to economy and this is where there has been a massive lack of answers and information from YES. You can ignore this post and all the rest of them as much as you want, but putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and shouting "IM NOT LISTENING" wont work in reality. Everything that Salmond has come out with comes back to exaggerated revenue figures, best-case scenarios and unrealistic assumptions. It borders on the completely deluded - you only need to listen to the man to realise that he is completely out of ideas and just repeats the same tired anti-Westminster rhetoric at every possible opportunity, whilst dodging the serious questions.
Its all well and good to say that its the disillusioned labour supporters and radicals who are at the core of the movement, but have any of THEM produced a white paper and a serious, concrete set of numbers for how an independant Scotland is to be run? Didnt think so.
There is no blueprint, there is no plan - this is the truth of the matter for the YES campaign. It is also for this reason (and not just Westminster propaganda and bullying) that numerous companies are warning that they will relocate south in the event of independance. As a UK citizen this is great news - more jobs created and a more powerful economy. If I were Scottish however I would be more concerned, instead of just buying into Salmonds "scaremongering" rubbish that he spouts so freely.
To vote YES, frankly at the moment says that you dont really know much about economics or global politics. I wont claim to be an expert in either field, but the writing is plain and clear on the wall. Idle threats like refusing to take on national debt? Is that really how independant Scotland wants to become known? As a bad debtor? At a time where you will likely be seeking credit and loans on the international markets?
Taking on sterlingisation without the backing of the Bank of England? Really? How to you plan to build up the vast reserves of capital to bail out the next company that goes bust (that hasnt relocated)? How do you plan to run your economy smoothly with no control over monetary or fiscal policy? With interest rates set from Westminster, only now without them having any vested interest in how it affects north of the border.
How do you think it will affect trade if you arent given instant EU access? The simply transactional costs of trading with the rest of the EU will be enormous (the majority of which will likely be with the UK). The UK wont care - we will still be trading with the rest of the EU countries.
Lets look a bit further ahead, what will you do when the oil runs out? You can believe Salmonds figures that there is what 1.5Tn barrels left in the North Sea, or you can believe some of the more conservative estimates which predict that it will be drying up within anything from 2-6 years. Salmonds public spending figures are already ridiculously stretched, and those are based on his assumed best-case figures for Oil. If it turns out that Salmond is wrong (and is this really that unlikely?) then you will find things may take a turn for the worse sooner rather than later. Whats the plan B, wind power? Its a noble idea but far from reality at the moment, and most of the current spending on wind power in Scotland is subsidised from UK taxpayers, so unless you are suggesting that Scotland will somehow find the extra money to plug that gap and continue developments in that field, its pretty far fetched at the moment.
These are just the obvious questions off the top of my head, but if I were Scottish they would be very real and plain concerns, easily enough to determine my vote. To wilfully choose to ignore all of these concerns, is to show quite astonishing levels of ignorance, self-importance and frankly a brazen disregard for the future of Scotland.
Similarly, to vote YES simply to try to spite Westminster and the rUK is incredibly narrow sighted. Salmond has simply stirred so much hostility towards Westminster with his constant talk of bullying and intimidation, that it has started to rub off on people. I would hope sincerely that the typical Scot has more brains than to believe that sort of drivel and let Salmonds anti-Westminster agenda decide their vote.
Above all, it is still Westminster who have granted this referendum and agreed to honour it. It is Westminster that Salmond and Scotland will have to negotiate with to actually agree on the terms of independance - and yet here you are complaining about them.
Salmond has done well to divert peoples attention from the actual issue of what an independant Scotland will look like, and instead simply draw upon Scotlands dislike for Wesminster and the Tories - I hope that people can see past this and ask themselves the same questions I have asked above. If the answer to any of them is "I dont know" then you should really be thinking twice about a YES vote.
