Scottish Independence Referendum is agreed: vote in 2014

[Azog 150]

I adopt a dissenting view and support the abolition of regional assemblies and standardisation of all decentralised systems into a single UK-wide system (law, education, health, etc).

I wouldn't be opposed to that if:

a) Westminster was elected with Proportional Representation
b) Local councils and other such authorities receive much greater powers; with constitutional safeguards on those powers to stop Westminster taking them away at a whim
c) Some kind of system of regional forums so local authorities can better discuss, cooperate and coordinate regional wide initiatives and put regional issues to Westminster

I don't agree with things like standardised health and education policies covering the whole of the country, because different areas have very different needs in these regards

There is no reversing devolution now though, so I think regional assemblies has got to be the way forward. That could be a good system for Scotland were to go independent mind you; but I'm not sure how eager the SNP would be to devolve powers to local authorities seeing as they have been very eager to gain as much power as possible for Holyrood.

[knight of meh]

I wouldn't be opposed to that if:

a) Westminster was elected with Proportional Representation
b) Local councils and other such authorities receive much greater powers; with constitutional safeguards on those powers to stop Westminster taking them away at a whim
c) Some kind of system of regional forums so local authorities can better discuss, cooperate and coordinate regional wide initiatives and put regional issues to Westminster

I don't agree with things like standardised health and education policies covering the whole of the country, because different areas have very different needs in these regards

so.. our own brand of federalism?

[Gaelstrix]

Also i'd say we must be careful about the previous calls arguing against the 'Anglicization' of Scotland. It's a process that started way before even the two countries were in even a personal Union under James. It's nor for instance a surprise that most Scots (the large majority of Scotland of course living in the lowlands) speak what is basically an accent of English linguistically speaking, which uses Gaelic and Norse words every now and then. Of course Gaelic is a different matter entirely!

Oh sorry, I wasn't talking about language per se, the Anglic tongue was spoken in Scotland, in Lothian, close to the same length of time it has been spoken in England, spreading and diverging from English down south on its own. I do speak Gaelic as well. I think what MacDonald meant was the subconscious feeling you get from London, that Scotland is provincial and that governance ever since power started shifting south, from the 1609 Statute of Iona to the present, reflects the feeling that London and England are more important and that is homogenising the UK (making it more English) is a goal. An effect that Poach's centralisation, while economically making sense, achieves.

I adopt a dissenting view and support the abolition of regional assemblies and standardisation of all decentralised systems into a single UK-wide system (law, education, health, etc).

I don't think your dream will be a reality my friend. I think it was one of the terms of the act of Union that Scotland and England would maintain their separate Laws and Education. Of course it could be updated, but I doubt the English would agree to adopt our system, and we wouldn't adopt theirs.

Gaelstrix, the McCrone report was not hidden. That is a myth peddled by the SNP and the Yes Campaign. Professor Gavin McCrone himself has categorically said that it wasn't covered up. In this article for The Scotsman, he writes the following:
"Was it suppressed? No."

I read the full article and if you go down to the comments, I'm not if this is true, but it was apparently marked top secret. Regardless, it's massive implications were never publicised. While so many Scots (and others, especially northern England) suffered the hard times of the 1980's under Thatcher, they needn't have. I just wonder if it had come to light that England could have had a 30% increase in income per capita, if they ended the union with Scotland, whether they would have taken it or not.

I'll put what I just said into context, I'm only 20, so I wasn't alive then, but my grandad was a miner so my dad had a hard time growing up.

Personally I don't agree with Independence for greed's sake, "oh, we can get more money by dropping you, cya!" either way, but I really don't think that's what motivates Scottish nationalism (it does validate it though). But I also think that it was an equal betrayal to keep the option secret, as if we weren't trusted or "loyal" enough.

From the British and English point of view, it was better that the Scots faced the bare choice between full independence or status quo, so that question would be out of the way for the next one or two generations, and would look far more generous when after they rejected independence Westminster granted them more powers to organize themselves.

I understand from the English perspective the uncertainty is annoying and it is up here as well, everyone wants it to be sorted out. But I disagree, I'm of the same mind as Dante Von Hespburg that it would have been far better trying for Home-Rule or "Devomax" first before going all the way. I guess the argument is that the oil for a fund is getting smaller every year.

[Bobz]

I adopt a dissenting view and support the abolition of regional assemblies and standardisation of all decentralised systems into a single UK-wide system (law, education, health, etc).

Failing that (which will fail because I've never met another person sharing that view), give everywhere regional assemblies and turn Westminster into a high-level body dealing with foreign policy, defence and such. More MPs, more buildings, more staff, more money wasted, but electing a local bloke to a local building to take duplicate decisions to the blokes one region over (which is a colossal waste of money and time) is apparently the fashion. 63 million people don't need a myriad of local bodies taking petty, territorially-motivated political decisions.

Well, I've split to and fro over this issue, and still don't think I've got a definitive opinion

There is an interesting question though over just what powers should stay with central government and what should go down to the lower levels, in whatever form they may be. Education is a pertinent subject. There was discussion last year over changes to GCSE's in England, and whether or not Wales and Northern Ireland would follow suit or go there own way (as I gather it Scottish qualifications are generally seen as the same just with a different name). Is this necessarily a good thing? Because let's be honest here, if the new English system is considered to be "tougher", qualifications from the other home nations are not going to be worth as much. Looking at it from an employer's point of view, where it is hard enough to differentiate CVs as it is, those candidates with top grades from Wales could be seen as being below those from England - for example an A is considered an English B.

The same goes for things like speed limits. When the suggestion came recently that the speed limit should be raised to 80, I recall a rebuttal from someone in Wales who wanted the power devolved so she could push for a lower limit of 60. Could you imagine everyone happily driving along at 70 (stop laughing!) and then suddenly they cross the border and have to go down to 60 - and you know full well there'll be traffic cameras out to collect revenue save lives.

Oh, and I would definitely agree to changing the voting system. It's a well overdue change, that would of been implemented by now if the Lib Dems had some sense about them.

[Gaelstrix]

Joining Scots and English law would cripple the Borders' marriage industry, no longer would flocks of 16 year old English <strike>foolish teenagers</strike> sweethearts border-hop to take opportunity of the lower legal age.


Edit: Ach, cac, how do you put lines through your text, now my post is ruined!

[Condottiere 40K]

It is possible that Cameron can actually out-Scots Salmond, being more canny but very carefully hiding his flashlight under the kilt.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I adopt a dissenting view and support the abolition of regional assemblies and standardisation of all decentralised systems into a single UK-wide system (law, education, health, etc).

Failing that (which will fail because I've never met another person sharing that view), give everywhere regional assemblies and turn Westminster into a high-level body dealing with foreign policy, defence and such. More MPs, more buildings, more staff, more money wasted, but electing a local bloke to a local building to take duplicate decisions to the blokes one region over (which is a colossal waste of money and time) is apparently the fashion. 63 million people don't need a myriad of local bodies taking petty, territorially-motivated political decisions.

Dissenter!

But seriously, i can see your perspective. But i'm not sure why it would be such a black whole of finance having devolved regions, especially when the returns can potentially be far greater.

I'm sure we both agree that the UK economy is in the long term, in dire need of a re-balance? Not just sector wise (though a stronger high-tech manufacturing base as is already actually being created will provide far more flexible substance to the real bread-winning service sector)

But also in terms of North-South (or perhaps South-East- rest of the country). While it does in some lights seem sensible that the South-East and typically London (i posted earlier i believe in this thread a source exploring how actually London is really held back by the rest of the UK economically) get all the industry and investment, but what this mean's is places like the North of England are devoid of comparative investment to try and revitalize their economies (which in turn would benefit the whole UK, as it provides a more deep and stable economic base for the whole).

The best way to do this is through local government, who have an active interest in investing heavily in their area. Central government has less of an interest, as it (quite rightly in a way) concentrates on where most of it's capital is made. Also theirs no reason why London should be the Political, Financial and economic capital of the UK really, spreading that out for starters would be a great boon to spreading investment.

I'd perhaps point to the case of Scotland here which rather come into it's own economically since the first acts of devolution and the establishment of real local governance, and that's why devo-max (and a federal UK) would be such a benefit. In my view of course!

[Rootsie]

I read the full article and if you go down to the comments, I'm not if this is true, but it was apparently marked top secret.

In the end it depends on who you believe. The internationally regarded economist who actually wrote the report in question, or someone we know nothing about except that he signs himself off with "LVSS".

LVSS stands for "The League of Very Sovereign Scots". LVSS is a very questionable group whose members you will often come across hurling abuse online at anyone speaking out against independence. LVSS are also heavily linked to the "Wings Over Scotland" website, a pretty nasty website run by some very nasty people. It is worth noting that the Yes Scotland campaign have officially distanced themselves from 'Wings Over Scotland' because of it's intolerant, discriminatory and bigoted material.

Regardless, it's massive implications were never publicised. While so many Scots (and others, especially northern England) suffered the hard times of the 1980's under Thatcher, they needn't have. I just wonder if it had come to light that England could have had a 30% increase in income per capita, if they ended the union with Scotland, whether they would have taken it or not.

I'll put what I just said into context, I'm only 20, so I wasn't alive then, but my grandad was a miner so my dad had a hard time growing up.

Personally I don't agree with Independence for greed's sake, "oh, we can get more money by dropping you, cya!" either way, but I really don't think that's what motivates Scottish nationalism (it does validate it though). But I also think that it was an equal betrayal to keep the option secret, as if we weren't trusted or "loyal" enough.

Firstly, it seems to me that you are arguing that the money was incorrectly spent, which while quite probably true isn't an argument that we should become independent now.

Second, you talk about Thatcher. The McCrone Report was written - and kept quiet by - a Labour Government that was significantly further left than the modern Labour Party or the SNP. While I have major issues with Thatcher's policies, I find it absurd that in Scotland we seem determind to blame everything on her government. Heavy industry and manufacturing has declined by more than 50% in every single western economy since 1970. This has happened in countries that favoured privatisation (like Norway or the UK) and in countries that favoured state support (like Italy and France).

Third, you say that keeping the McCrone Report secret (if that was the case) was a betrayal by the British Government, a government that didn't trust us. Maybe you are right, but I'd suggest that the mentality of the Civil Service almost 40 years ago is not the same as the mentality of the Civil Service today. However, if I were you I'd be more worried by the present than the past. Only last year Alex Salmond spent £20,000 of taxpayers money desperately attempting to cover up that he had lied about receiving legal advice on an independent Scotland's position regarding the EU.

Did a UK Government lie to us 40 years ago? Perhaps. Did a Scottish Government lie to us last year? Yes.

I know which I'm more concerned about.

[calicheSCOT]

On a more serious note I continue to swing between a Yes and No vote, so firmly in the undecided camp really. If I had to choose right at the instant I'd vote No but push for maximum devolution because I really don't trust Westminster to have our best interests at heart e.g. "hiding" the McCrone report and just because they're so London and Anglo-centric. (In some way justifiably because that's the majority of their constituents).
Whereas I do believe that the SNP and Alex Salmond genuinely care about Scotland, so I'd feel almost guilty voting no... perhaps he's just a really top class politician in spite of slip ups?

This is one of the reasons the Yes vote will be higher than current polls of those certain to vote predict. A No vote is effectively a vote of no confidence of your own country. A No vote says we accept we can not or should not be responsible for our own affairs. A No vote is a vote for repeated Tory governments of which we never elected. A No vote is an acceptance of Project Fear. A No vote is an acceptance that, as the No campaign claim, we are not genetically programmed to make political decisions.

For these reasons people will be far less inclined to drag themselves off the sofa, march down to the polling office and vote against independence on the day. On the other hand Yes supporters are running a positive grass-roots campaign, and once decided on Yes, polls show that its much harder to get people to move from this decision.

Personally I don't agree with Independence for greed's sake, "oh, we can get more money by dropping you, cya!" either way, but I really don't think that's what motivates Scottish nationalism (it does validate it though). But I also think that it was an equal betrayal to keep the option secret, as if we weren't trusted or "loyal" enough.

Your first mistake is that you presume Scottish independence is based on nationalism, when actually its based on pragmatism. Your second mistake is to assume Tories (Red, blue and yellow) will change.

I understand from the English perspective the uncertainty is annoying and it is up here as well, everyone wants it to be sorted out. But I disagree, I'm of the same mind as Dante Von Hespburg that it would have been far better trying for Home-Rule or "Devomax" first before going all the way. I guess the argument is that the oil for a fund is getting smaller every year.

The SG wanted it on the ballot paper and it is by far the most popular decision, but Westminster refused to support it. Make of that what you will.

In the end it depends on who you believe. The internationally regarded economist who actually wrote the report in question, or someone we know nothing about except that he signs himself off with "LVSS".

LVSS stands for "The League of Very Sovereign Scots". LVSS is a very questionable group whose members you will often come across hurling abuse online at anyone speaking out against independence. LVSS are also heavily linked to the "Wings Over Scotland" website, a pretty nasty website run by some very nasty people. It is worth noting that the Yes Scotland campaign have officially distanced themselves from 'Wings Over Scotland' because of it's intolerant, discriminatory and bigoted material.


Firstly, it seems to me that you are arguing that the money was incorrectly spent, which while quite probably true isn't an argument that we should become independent now.

Second, you talk about Thatcher. The McCrone Report was written - and kept quiet by - a Labour Government that was significantly further left than the modern Labour Party or the SNP. While I have major issues with Thatcher's policies, I find it absurd that in Scotland we seem determind to blame everything on her government. Heavy industry and manufacturing has declined by more than 50% in every single western economy since 1970. This has happened in countries that favoured privatisation (like Norway or the UK) and in countries that favoured state support (like Italy and France).

Third, you say that keeping the McCrone Report secret (if that was the case) was a betrayal by the British Government, a government that didn't trust us. Maybe you are right, but I'd suggest that the mentality of the Civil Service almost 40 years ago is not the same as the mentality of the Civil Service today. However, if I were you I'd be more worried by the present than the past. Only last year Alex Salmond spent £20,000 of taxpayers money desperately attempting to cover up that he had lied about receiving legal advice on an independent Scotland's position regarding the EU.

Did a UK Government lie to us 40 years ago? Perhaps. Did a Scottish Government lie to us last year? Yes.

I know which I'm more concerned about.

You're more concerned about an off-hand comment made during FMQs years ago that has been spun to death by Unionist media hacks than total mismanagement of Scotland's most precious resource for decades? Explains a lot.

I thought the Unionists said we wouldn't be in the EU anyway, so what do you care?

It is possible that Cameron can actually out-Scots Salmond, being more canny but very carefully hiding his flashlight under the kilt.

No.

[Poach]

This is one of the reasons the Yes vote will be higher than current polls of those certain to vote predict. A No vote is effectively a vote of no confidence of your own country. A No vote says we accept we can not or should not be responsible for our own affairs. A No vote is a vote for repeated Tory governments of which we never elected. A No vote is an acceptance of Project Fear. A No vote is an acceptance that, as the No campaign claim, we are not genetically programmed to make political decisions.

This message brought to you by a writer who apparently overnight has lost all his senses. "If you don't vote yes you're anti-Scottish!".

From you I expected something more intelligent, Caliche. I'd long regarded you as perhaps the best champion of Yes I'd encountered in my travels, but the above torrent of desperate angst is in stark contrast to your usual posts. For shame.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

This is one of the reasons the Yes vote will be higher than current polls of those certain to vote predict. A No vote is effectively a vote of no confidence of your own country. A No vote says we accept we can not or should not be responsible for our own affairs. A No vote is a vote for repeated Tory governments of which we never elected. A No vote is an acceptance of Project Fear. A No vote is an acceptance that, as the No campaign claim, we are not genetically programmed to make political decisions.

In your opinion perhaps Caliche, but it's also not so, a No vote is a vote of confidence in the UK, it's a vote of confidence that being part of a large and growing economy can be good for us, it's a vote of confidence that people would rather the devolution on offer, and not a centralized Scotland under Salmond. It can be spun both ways my friend. You in effect saying that to vote No, is to be anti-scottish. Which lets face it, is a rather silly point to make. You also fail to account that the UK itself may change and develop, theirs a growing discourse as to it's future structure that we should and need to be a part of.

Your first mistake is that you presume Scottish independence is based on nationalism, when actually its based on pragmatism. Your second mistake is to assume Tories (Red, blue and yellow) will change.

This is a good point, as both sides have concentrated on a pragmatic and economic basis. For which i commend both sides.

The SG wanted it on the ballot paper and it is by far the most popular decision, but Westminster refused to support it. Make of that what you will.

Again that's more Salmond fault, he should not have even mentioned Independence at this stage, and gone with a status-quo or devo-max option. That's it. It's too soon to try and run for the Independent streak, as has been proven with the consistent and overwhelmingly pro-union poll results.

[calicheSCOT]

This message brought to you by a writer who apparently overnight has lost all his senses. "If you don't vote yes you're anti-Scottish!".

From you I expected something more intelligent, Caliche. I'd long regarded you as perhaps the best champion of Yes I'd encountered in my travels, but the above torrent of desperate angst is in stark contrast to your usual posts. For shame.

If you want to completely misinterpret what I said rather than counter any of the points go ahead.

A no vote is not anti-Scottish. It is however deeply anti-aspirational and will cause significant damage to the esteem, identity, economic and political power of the average Scot in the short, medium and long term.

How about you address the statement from the Dear Leader of the Labour Party which claimed we are genetically incapable of political decision making? Is that a 'pro-Scottish' thing to say in your opinion? As the leader of the largest anti-independence party in Scotland, a no vote is an endoresment of her views.

In your opinion perhaps Caliche, but it's also not so, a No vote is a vote of confidence in the UK, it's a vote of confidence that being part of a large and growing economy can be good for us, it's a vote of confidence that people would rather the devolution on offer, and not a centralized Scotland under Salmond.

I have seen enough of Westminster politics to suggest we will never agree on that point.

It can be spun both ways my friend. You in effect saying that to vote No, is to be anti-scottish.

That's not what I said. Don't try and spin it like Poach just because it makes you uncomfortable.

Again that's more Salmond fault, he should not have even mentioned Independence at this stage, and gone with a status-quo or devo-max option. That's it. It's too soon to try and run for the Independent streak, as has been proven with the consistent and overwhelmingly pro-union poll results.

Really, that is some fantastic Orwellian double-speak if ever I have heard it.

If Devo-max was on the ballot it would have won easily, and the Union would be safe. You continually state that this is the goal of the UK, so why not support it?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I have seen enough of Westminster politics to suggest we will never agree on that point.



That's not what I said. Don't try and spin it like Poach just because it makes you uncomfortable.

No my friend what your trying to do there was speaking for everyone as if your opinion there was fact. It's not. I'd equally state why the heck being a pro-union Scot means that i believe we're incapable of governing ourselves? Especially when I've consistently said that my vote for Union is based on economic grounds- i.e. we're better off as part of a larger economy. Never have i said that Scotland is incapable of running itself. So the question of whose spinning what again works both ways.

Really, that is some fantastic Orwellian double-speak if ever I have heard it.

If Devo-max was on the ballot it would have won easily, and the Union would be safe. You continually state that this is the goal of the UK, so why not support it?

Why? It's true. Salmond was stupid to go straight away for Independence, if i was in his situation i'd have played it carefully. Go forward to Cameron and state that we want Devo-Max. Get a referendum on devo-max vs Status quo- Easy win for myself and the SNP. Spin that win for all it's worth, after 4 or five more years as Scotland prospers under devo-max, then turn to the Scottish people and point towards the fact that Scotland is factually and clearly capable of prospering with little interference from Westminster. Show what devo-max and my party has done for them in the last 4 or 5 years, and then go... 'But Independence is thus achievable, here's the proof, lets do it'

Then go again to Westminster, demand a referendum for the Scottish people, this time Independence Vs Status quo.

Voilla You suddenly see Independence having much more support. As you've shown the Scottish public concrete evidence that things can work out ok, and that Independence is actually just a small step from devo-max. To their mind, it's not a great leap (as it currently is) any longer, and hopefully i've spent those 5 years creating a detailed plan of Scottish Independence (Unlike the current Indy lot who have failed miserably on this front). Then during the campaign give actual detail and don't lie or make figures up and boom. Scotland is Independent.

A much safer and secure way my friend. Alas Salmond though as a politician is pretty awful- hence the state that the Indy camp are in.

[The Great Montrose]

With the exception of Caliche in the last few posts this thread seems to be unionists debating themselves

What is there to say really other than I agree with everything caliche has said.

I've also been out leafleting and talking to people as part of my local yes campaign and from what I've seen its going well, the grass routes campaign being run is excellent with the Yes newspaper having great success, yet to see any no propaganda other than the media, no one seems to be out on the street campaigning for it although I did see a good picture at a no rally when they didn't have enough people to hold up better together

[Dante Von Hespburg]

With the exception of Caliche in the last few posts this thread seems to be unionists debating themselves

What is there to say really other than I agree with everything caliche has said.

I've also been out leafleting and talking to people as part of my local yes campaign and from what I've seen its going well, the grass routes campaign being run is excellent with the Yes newspaper having great success, yet to see any no propaganda other than the media, no one seems to be out on the street campaigning for it although I did see a good picture at a no rally when they didn't have enough people to hold up better together

You say that as if you believe that all Unionists are of the same view my friend, just like the Independence camp, we all have our ideas about what's what and how things should be done. We're very much cross platform.

Also their are a variety of issues linked to Independence, but not necessarily entailing a yes-no debate that have cropped up and been very interesting. For instance the potential future of the UK (if it stays together) a few pages or so ago.

Also hello Andy . Good for you taking an active part in the real life proceedings too mate.

[calicheSCOT]

No my friend what your trying to do there was speaking for everyone as if your opinion there was fact.

No it was a prediction not fact. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

However, it is a fact that Lamont made that statement, and you should explain why the leader of the biggest anti-independence party is right to hold this view and why I should endorse it with a No vote.

It's not. I'd equally state why the heck being a pro-union Scot means that i believe we're incapable of governing ourselves?

Because running a country on a pocket-money economic model devised in the 70's, managed by a party we have not voted for since the 50's, is incredibly bad. That's what we get from Westminster and a no vote.

Why? It's true. Salmond was stupid to go straight away for Independence, if i was in his situation i'd have played it carefully. Go forward to Cameron and state that we want Devo-Max. Get a referendum on devo-max vs Status quo- Easy win for myself and the SNP. Spin that win for all it's worth, after 4 or five more years as Scotland prospers under devo-max, then turn to the Scottish people and point towards the fact that Scotland is factually and clearly capable of prospering with little interference from Westminster. Show what devo-max and my party has done for them in the last 4 or 5 years, and then go... 'But Independence is thus achievable, here's the proof, lets do it'

Then go again to Westminster, demand a referendum for the Scottish people, this time Independence Vs Status quo.

Voilla You suddenly see Independence having much more support. As you've shown the Scottish public concrete evidence that things can work out ok, and that Independence is actually just a small step from devo-max. To their mind, it's not a great leap (as it currently is) any longer, and hopefully i've spent those 5 years creating a detailed plan of Scottish Independence (Unlike the current Indy lot who have failed miserably on this front). Then during the campaign give actual detail and don't lie or make figures up and boom. Scotland is Independent.

It took three paragraphs to spin that long-winded fictional scenario. I can tell you what really happened two sentences;

Devo-max is the most popular option, so Salmond does the pesky democratic thing and requests it gets put to the Scottish electorate. Westminster says NO for reasons known only to itself.

In my opinion the conclusion is clear; Scotland will only ever be given the powers it wants from Westminster's cold dead hands or a Yes vote.

I've also been out leafleting and talking to people as part of my local yes campaign and from what I've seen its going well, the grass routes campaign being run is excellent with the Yes newspaper having great success, yet to see any no propaganda other than the media, no one seems to be out on the street campaigning for it although I did see a good picture at a no rally when they didn't have enough people to hold up better together

Top notch stuff. Plus rep. This is what I'm talking about; a proactive, inclusive grass-roots campaign. Unfortunately my line of work makes political campaigning difficult so push a leaflet for me.

Hope beats fear.

**EDIT**

And plus rep to Dante for taking an active role in No. At least you are putting yourself out there with your beliefs and not relying on constant negativity: that can only be commended.

[removeduser_487563287433]

If hope beats fear why do only 35% of Scots support a Yes vote, a figure unchanged from
When I started this thread over a year ago?

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/ar...egory/scotland

The writing's on the wall.

[calicheSCOT]

If hope beats fear why do only 35% of Scots support a Yes vote, a figure unchanged from
When I started this thread over a year ago?

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/ar...egory/scotland

The writing's on the wall.

Different polls predict different results, and Scottish politics appears to be something pollsters have yet to master. Differing questions alongside weighting and sampling methods often produce drastically different results.

For those of us who have been following Scottish politics for longer than a year, I'm sure we all remember the polls suggesting that Labour would win the 2011 vote just 6 months before the election. Result was an SNP landslide of historic proportions.

With a multi-million pound Yes war-chest (which apparently dwarfs BT's) and a highly motivated army of campaigners, Yes is just getting started. You had better start picking up that phone.

[Lazzeer]

Different polls predict different results, and Scottish politics appears to be something pollsters have yet to master. Differing questions alongside weighting and sampling methods often produce drastically different results.

For those of us who have been following Scottish politics for longer than a year, I'm sure we all remember the polls suggesting that Labour would win the 2011 vote just 6 months before the election. Result was an SNP landslide of historic proportions.

With a multi-million pound Yes war-chest (which apparently dwarfs BT's) and a highly motivated army of campaigners, Yes is just getting started. You had better start picking up that phone.

If you're right (and I don't think you are) then I hope it's a decisive Yes, because nothing would be worse than a 51% Yes vote.

[calicheSCOT]

If you're right (and I don't think you are)

What parts do you disagree with?

then I hope it's a decisive Yes, because nothing would be worse than a 51% Yes vote.

A 51% No would be just as bad. We'd just end up going through the whole process again in a few years time as soon as Westminster does something unpopular.

Whoever wins I predict it will be very, very close.