Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Rick Grimes]

The White Paper needs to give details. If it basically says that a whole lot of things will be up to the first independent Holyrood to decide it will pilloried by all and sundry. That's what you get for arguing about loose change on the economic and other matters front and not saying Independence or Bust. Warts and all. I'm a Unionist who nonetheless respects the Independence or bust brigade and has no time for those who try to break the Union by electoral bribes on the back of questionable economics.

 

 

What kind of specifics are you looking for, i.e. which issues do you think it's reasonable to expect a firm answer to be given without it being easily dismissed as electoral bribes on the back of questionable economics?

[jambos are go!]

What kind of specifics are you looking for, i.e. which issues do you think it's reasonable to expect a firm answer to be given without it being easily dismissed as electoral bribes on the back of questionable economics?

Everything . Nicola Sturgeon said the White Paper would answer all of the questions at the SNP Conference.

[Rick Grimes]

Everything . Nicola Sturgeon said the White Paper would answer all of the questions at the SNP Conference.

 

Is it reasonable to expect it to answer everything though? A successful Yes campaign still has to come to a negotiated settlement with rUK which by definition will impact on some of the specifics of the immediate economic figures in a post-split Scotland. Any planning longer than one electoral term can't be guaranteed either as the winning party or parties could chuck it all out.

 

Proof that Scotland can stand on its own will no doubt be given but I don't think the evidence provided will be anything startlingly new to those who take an interest in GERS reports and the like. You'll also probably see some of the SNP preferred initial policies but again, nothing too long term.

 

I know you're trying to approach this with an open mind to see what it says but I think you're also setting a completely impossible standard on the content.

[JamboX2]

Is it reasonable to expect it to answer everything though? A successful Yes campaign still has to come to a negotiated settlement with rUK which by definition will impact on some of the specifics of the immediate economic figures in a post-split Scotland. Any planning longer than one electoral term can't be guaranteed either as the winning party or parties could chuck it all out.

 

Proof that Scotland can stand on its own will no doubt be given but I don't think the evidence provided will be anything startlingly new to those who take an interest in GERS reports and the like. You'll also probably see some of the SNP preferred initial policies but again, nothing too long term.

 

I know you're trying to approach this with an open mind to see what it says but I think you're also setting a completely impossible standard on the content.

 

No because a lot of this depends on the negotiation. A vote for Yes will result in a 50/50 of what we thought we'd get.

[Coco]

Is it reasonable to expect it to answer everything though? A successful Yes campaign still has to come to a negotiated settlement with rUK which by definition will impact on some of the specifics of the immediate economic figures in a post-split Scotland. Any planning longer than one electoral term can't be guaranteed either as the winning party or parties could chuck it all out.

 

Proof that Scotland can stand on its own will no doubt be given but I don't think the evidence provided will be anything startlingly new to those who take an interest in GERS reports and the like. You'll also probably see some of the SNP preferred initial policies but again, nothing too long term.

 

I know you're trying to approach this with an open mind to see what it says but I think you're also setting a completely impossible standard on the content.

 

I have long thought that this referendum should actually have been 3. Assuming the first two were won 1) Should the Scottish Government negotiate the terms of independence for Scotland (and for joining the EU) 2) On the basis of those terms should Scotland be an independent country and 3) Should Scotland join the EU on the terms negotiated.

[Maroon Sailor]

Firstly, to avoid that it has to be a "grey" ship. A ship which is armed. That is national security, that is exempt from the whole issue of competition. These yards were not grey ships, as they aren't armed. The fleet auxiliary is support ships, as you say. Not armed except for side arms. Not a grey ship.

 

Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are grey and have weapons. Not the more sophisticated weapon systems like a warship, but they have the ability to defend themselves now with 20mm, miniguns and phalanx. Lessons learnt from the Falklands.

 

These will be the first RFA's to be built outside the UK and yet shipbuilding is to come to an end at Pompey. Something doesn't add up here.

[Das Root]

 

 

Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are grey and have weapons. Not the more sophisticated weapon systems like a warship, but they have the ability to defend themselves now with 20mm, miniguns and phalanx. Lessons learnt from the Falklands.

 

These will be the first RFA's to be built outside the UK and yet shipbuilding is to come to an end at Pompey. Something doesn't add up here.

 

 

Cheaper costs to build them there, Westminster isn't that bothered if BAE lay off workers.

[Pans Jambo]

It's trivial. The notion that excluding distilled alcohol from the UK's exports would cause a run on Sterling does not stand up to analysis.

Agreed....but it says whisky & oil and that is big wonga my friend!

[Maroon Sailor]

I live down South so voted as if I was still living in Craigshill - NO. I am against breaking up the union. In my opinion England needs Scotland as much as Scotland needs England.

 

You'll be hard pressed to find an English person to agree with that.

 

They do suffer from a superiority complex when it comes to things like this.

 

All I hear when I'm in England is I hope you do get your independence. The quicker you lot eff off the better !

[Pans Jambo]

No because a lot of this depends on the negotiation. A vote for Yes will result in a 50/50 of what we thought we'd get.

How do you know that?

[Pans Jambo]

How we going to defend ourselves ?

was only a few months ago that a Russian naval warship had to unexpectedly port in the west of Scotland due to a large storm. The UK government sent a UK Naval warship to baby sit it from the south coast of England. It took 18 hours to sail up the west coast.

 

The Russians could have invaded Scotland and set up camp in the time it took for our navy to get here.

 

Who defends us now with only 2 sea going surface vessels in the whole of the UK???

 

Ridiculous question given that Scotland has already said it will invest in the armed forces (more than the UK government currently spend in Scotland) & will have a Scottish Navy based at Faslane on top of which, we will still be a NATO member.

[Greenbank2]

How we going to defend ourselves ?

Against what?

[jambos are go!]

Is it reasonable to expect it to answer everything though? A successful Yes campaign still has to come to a negotiated settlement with rUK which by definition will impact on some of the specifics of the immediate economic figures in a post-split Scotland. Any planning longer than one electoral term can't be guaranteed either as the winning party or parties could chuck it all out.

 

Proof that Scotland can stand on its own will no doubt be given but I don't think the evidence provided will be anything startlingly new to those who take an interest in GERS reports and the like. You'll also probably see some of the SNP preferred initial policies but again, nothing too long term.

 

I know you're trying to approach this with an open mind to see what it says but I think you're also setting a completely impossible standard on the content.

 

Firstly. I would be less than honest if I agreed with your suggestion that I am considering the issues with an open mind. I'm voting No but am happy to debate why.

 

I did not set the standard of answering all the questions in the white paper. Nicola Sturgeon did. Foolishly I would agree. She made the YES campaign a hostage to fortune with that claim as media analysts have pointed out. Bernard Ponsoby for one on STV the night she made the statement.

[Ulysses]

Agreed....but it says whisky & oil and that is big wonga my friend!

 

It isn't really. Whisky, oil and food exports from Scotland would account for about 1 to 1.5% of the GDP of the rUK - but around 11-16% of the economy of Scotland. Strategically, those exports would be of much greater importance to Scotland than they are to the UK. There is already pressure on the UK balance of payments, and while adding another 25-40 billion to the trade deficit would be unwelcome, it's actually small beer in the overall scheme of things.

[jambos are go!]

Against what?

 

Good question for the YES side. Why do we need forces and who/what would they fight. Whats the justification for the expenditure? We don't want nuclear and wont participate in Foreign Wars.

Edited November 6, 2013 by jambos are go!

[EC_Hearts]

The shipbuilding industry in this country, for vessels of any significant size, is limited to naval craft because yards in other countries are technically superior and cheaper. Shipbuilding, and the defence industry in general, is the deluded folly of little englendar governments who still believe "Britannia Rules The Waves". I would feel sad for those employed by BEA and other companies solely reliant on defense hand outs should there be a massive cut back, but instead of spending our taxes on egotistical vanity projects like aircraft carriers and nukes, just think how that cash could be used to better all our lives in an independent Scotland. Cut defense sending to the core and use the money to invest in industries that make a positive contribution to everyone's lives - and the former defense employees will soon see their skills being utilised there.

Speaking as someone employed in the "general defence industry", not in any of the specific areas you mention mind you, I have to take issue with what you say. You appear to have stumbled on an article from the early 1980's judging by your description. My defence employer, as well as supplying to the MOD, sell products world wide to organisations such as the US Coast guard and Frontier patrol, Norwegian Coast guard to name a few bringing in much needed income to the UK this has to be done because there are no "free" hand outs from the MOD. Just like any other business, if we don't operate efficiently we wont exist (see racal radar, Linlithgow, RO Bishopton, Leeds) . You mention investing in industries that make a positive contribution I challenge you to back this statement up by naming one such industry and the "white elephant wind turbine industry" is not up for consideration (we do not design any of this and foreign companies simply set up low paid assembly shops until they out live their usefulness). I'm afraid you fail to grasp that the widespread knowledge and experience contained within the defence industry cannot be transferred elsewhere because quite simply there is nowhere left to transfer it to, design and manufacture facilities in this country are few and far between nowadays. Wipe the defence industry from the UK balance sheet and see what we are left with, it ain't much I'm afraid.

[Maroon Sailor]

Against what?

 

Aye right enough - we live in a peaceful world.

 

No defence for Scotland required.

[Maroon Sailor]

was only a few months ago that a Russian naval warship had to unexpectedly port in the west of Scotland due to a large storm. The UK government sent a UK Naval warship to baby sit it from the south coast of England. It took 18 hours to sail up the west coast.

 

The Russians could have invaded Scotland and set up camp in the time it took for our navy to get here.

 

Who defends us now with only 2 sea going surface vessels in the whole of the UK???

 

Ridiculous question given that Scotland has already said it will invest in the armed forces (more than the UK government currently spend in Scotland) & will have a Scottish Navy based at Faslane on top of which, we will still be a NATO member.

 

We are not at war with Russia.

 

If we were do you think they would be docking in any UK port ?

 

Do you think we wouldn't be preprared for them if we were ?

 

Get real - we keep an eye on them from a distance.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships are grey and have weapons. Not the more sophisticated weapon systems like a warship, but they have the ability to defend themselves now with 20mm, miniguns and phalanx. Lessons learnt from the Falklands.

 

These will be the first RFA's to be built outside the UK and yet shipbuilding is to come to an end at Pompey. Something doesn't add up here.

 

Heard on the radio Pompey hasnt built a whole ship in a long time. A full warship hasnt been built there for 30 years - 5live. Looking at a photo of the dock it looks unlikely it could house construction of a large tanker. I was under the impression that they weren't grey ships. If I am wrong I apologise. But I was told by a family member working at Rosyth they were unarmed RFA civilian ships.

 

It may be a mix - yards in the UK flat out on Astute, the 45s and the Carriers meaning little room for capacity to build here. Today is a dark day for many, but yards have been going flat out past few years. Diversification on what they done was inevitable. Navy contracts always dry up.

 

 

[JamboX2]

 

How do you know that?

 

Because no one gets all they want in a negotiation. We will have to swallow the good with the bad come the negotiation. As will the UK. We will get what is needed to found a state and some more but will have somethings on the list that we wont get - probably the formal sterlingzone.

[Das Root]

 

 

Because no one gets all they want in a negotiation. We will have to swallow the good with the bad come the negotiation. As will the UK. We will get what is needed to found a state and some more but will have somethings on the list that we wont get - probably the formal sterlingzone.

 

 

In any negotiation how strong your hand is dictates what you can achieve. You have no need to give away anything if you have no need to do so.

 

So as an extension of that, Scotland could get all it needs if rUK needs what Scotland has.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

In any negotiation how strong your hand is dictates what you can achieve. You have no need to give away anything if you have no need to do so.

 

So as an extension of that, Scotland could get all it needs if rUK needs what Scotland has.

 

So in your mind we hold all the cards and the UK government have none?

 

It'd be easier to work.if we didnt want sterling formally. That is the point in the deal - oh, and tridents removal - that'll be sticky. The terms of the "fiscal compact" and who pays what on Faslane being recommissioned into a normal dock and the removal of Trident will be hugely contentious, and to me plays into Westminsters position, which I reckon will be tough.

[Das Root]

 

 

So in your mind we hold all the cards and the UK government have none?

 

It'd be easier to work.if we didnt want sterling formally. That is the point in the deal - oh, and tridents removal - that'll be sticky. The terms of the "fiscal compact" and who pays what on Faslane being recommissioned into a normal dock and the removal of Trident will be hugely contentious, and to me plays into Westminsters position, which I reckon will be tough.

 

 

The negotiations are the next stage, need to get there first. All efforts are rightly on completing that initial part.

 

I point out that not every negotiation is a give/take situation, no reason to think this one would be.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

The negotiations are the next stage, need to get there first. All efforts are rightly on completing that initial part.

 

I point out that not every negotiation is a give/take situation, no reason to think this one would be.

 

I dont think it'll be acrimonious. I think it'll be much harder than the First Minister makes out. Also reckon the EU accession and NATO ones will be contingency based - ie a reduced rebate and Trident at Faslane for 20 odd years.

[Das Root]

 

 

I dont think it'll be acrimonious. I think it'll be much harder than the First Minister makes out. Also reckon the EU accession and NATO ones will be contingency based - ie a reduced rebate and Trident at Faslane for 20 odd years.

 

 

And who to decide those terms are required?

[syndicalist]

Agreed....but it says whisky & oil and that is big wonga my friend!

Around 15% of public spending in Scotland, good income, but not enough.

[syndicalist]

You'll be hard pressed to find an English person to agree with that.

 

They do suffer from a superiority complex when it comes to things like this.

 

All I hear when I'm in England is I hope you do get your independence. The quicker you lot eff off the better !

I don't hear that, but I do hear an increasing number saying put up or shut up. There is a perception that Scotland has been cocooned from the recession somewhat, and the decision to bail Ineos out and shut the ship building industry in Portsmouth are cited as further evidence of that.

[JamboX2]

 

 

 

And who to decide those terms are required?

 

The Scottish government and the members of said organisations. One relies on 3 nations providing a nuclear umbrella which wont accept major disruption to it. The other which has been clawing back the rebate since Thatvher won it.

[Das Root]

 

I don't hear that, but I do hear an increasing number saying put up or shut up. There is a perception that Scotland has been cocooned from the recession somewhat, and the decision to bail Ineos out and shut the ship building industry in Portsmouth are cited as further evidence of that.

 

 

Bodes well for a No vote then. Once the job's done, Westminster will just roll out the policies that clamp down on the populace here to keep the voters of their powerbase happy.

[jambos are go!]

Can I suggest that one outcome of negotiations following an improbable YES vote would be Devo Max and what a can of worms that would open.

[Pans Jambo]

We are not at war with Russia.

 

If we were do you think they would be docking in any UK port ?

 

Do you think we wouldn't be preprared for them if we were ?

 

Get real - we keep an eye on them from a distance.

We are not at war with Russia.

 

If we were do you think they would be docking in any UK port ?

 

Do you think we wouldn't be preprared for them if we were ?

 

Get real - we keep an eye on them from a distance.

 

Yes I realise we are not a war with Russia and we are unlikely to ever be at war with them or anyone else however; my point is that YOU asked how we would defend ourselves and I made the point that currently, there are only TWO naval surface vessels protecting the UK now so what do you think will happen to our national security should the Yes vote prevail?

 

Also, did the UK government not just scrap the long range reconnaissance capabilities (Nimrod aircraft) after spending tens of millions of pounds modernising them?

 

So in fact, we wont see them sneaking up eh?

[Boris]

Can I suggest that one outcome of negotiations following an improbable YES vote would be Devo Max and what a can of worms that would open.

 

Not sure I understand your point there JaG.

 

If there is a YES vote, why would devo-max suddenly appear at the negotiating table?

 

Or do you mean for the rUK?

[Gizmo]

Can I suggest that one outcome of negotiations following an improbable YES vote would be Devo Max and what a can of worms that would open.

 

Why is it improbable? And what makes you think we'd vote YES and then cave in?

[Rocco_Jambo]

 

 

Good question for the YES side. Why do we need forces and who/what would they fight. Whats the justification for the expenditure? We don't want nuclear and wont participate in Foreign Wars.

 

Is their actually any evidence that the majority of Scotland is against trident or is it just SNP policy?

[Craig_]

I don't hear that, but I do hear an increasing number saying put up or shut up. There is a perception that Scotland has been cocooned from the recession somewhat, and the decision to bail Ineos out and shut the ship building industry in Portsmouth are cited as further evidence of that.

 

Was Ineos bailed out? Must've missed that.

[syndicalist]

Bodes well for a No vote then. Once the job's done, Westminster will just roll out the policies that clamp down on the populace here to keep the voters of their powerbase happy.

Well that may be the intention, but I doubt it. Free prescription charges, no tuition fees and free residential care for the elderly will still be in place, courtesy of the Barnett formulae and at no extra cost to the Scottish tax payer should the vote be no. There will be a ship building industry on the Clyde and a petro chemical industry in Grangemouth thanks to the UK tax payer. It would appear that the majority of people resident in Scotland agree that the Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland has many benefits and they are not prepared to trade that off for the promise of twenty one virgins in paradise promised by the yes campaign. Things may of course change

[syndicalist]

Was Ineos bailed out? Must've missed that.

Yes, 9 million of Scottish government money and 130 million of UK government money not to sell up

[jack D and coke]

 

Is their actually any evidence that the majority of Scotland is against trident or is it just SNP policy?

I think the more you read about Trident or how actually useless nuclear weapons are unless you want to just annihilate entire civilian populations then the point of owning them and having them close to our biggest city just seems more and more unnecessary. Even the possibility of accidents that could cause catastrophe on our own shores (a truck transporting warheads skidded off the road in ice a few years ago and by sheer luck wasn't damaged) and add to the fact they are practically American owned and we can't launch them without their say so and I'm all for getting them to **** quite frankly.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/14/nuclear-weapons-accident-waiting-to-happen?CMP=twt_gu

Edited November 7, 2013 by jack D and coke

[Das Root]

Can I suggest that one outcome of negotiations following an improbable YES vote would be Devo Max and what a can of worms that would open.

 

 

Eh? Scotland vote for independence but rUK force devo max instead? That makes no sense.

[reaths17]

Eh? Scotland vote for independence but rUK force devo max instead? That makes no sense.

 

unfortunately increased devolution has nowt to do with the vote and theres a pretty good chance westminster would sieze on a no vote as a weak will for scottish rule, maybe even curtail what powers there exists already.

 

i'd much rather stay in the union if the same political system of capitalism is to prevail and were joining the EU without the UK strength of backing and veto but the thought of the tories exacting some form of petty revenge for daring to break away is a real possibility IMO and is a bit of a swayer

[jack D and coke]

Funny how two editions of the same paper convey things so differently. The English sun isn't too complimentary....

 

[Das Root]

 

 

unfortunately increased devolution has nowt to do with the vote and theres a pretty good chance westminster would sieze on a no vote as a weak will for scottish rule, maybe even curtail what powers there exists already.

 

i'd much rather stay in the union if the same political system of capitalism is to prevail and were joining the EU without the UK strength of backing and veto but the thought of the tories exacting some form of petty revenge for daring to break away is a real possibility IMO and is a bit of a swayer

 

 

What Westminster wants out of Europe and what Scotland needs are entirely different. They are all about financial and London, we are agriculture, fishing, energy, food & drink etc. They use our requirements in negotiations to get what they need for their requirements. Just doesn't mesh.

[reaths17]

What Westminster wants out of Europe and what Scotland needs are entirely different. They are all about financial and London, we are agriculture, fishing, energy, food & drink etc. They use our requirements in negotiations to get what they need for their requirements. Just doesn't mesh.

 

 

we share/give our fishing waters(killing whats left of our fishing fleet) with/to the EU and they share their corrupt beaurocracy with us.....sounds like a great deal.

they squeeze the price of milk, vegetables, meat making it impossible to break even without massive tax payers subsidy's...they even banned our meat....another great deal. where are the benefits, will they let us store some of their food mountains, maybe they'll give us more of their waste to dispose of.

 

 

the big argument for independence is that westminster doesn't represent the problems uniquely scottish and it's better to have a scotsman dishin oot the laws, tell me how someone from a hot, dusty southern mediteranean country knows better than someone from london(the same island as us) whats good for us.

[Das Root]

 

 

 

we share/give our fishing waters(killing whats left of our fishing fleet) with/to the EU and they share their corrupt beaurocracy with us.....sounds like a great deal.

they squeeze the price of milk, vegetables, meat making it impossible to break even without massive tax payers subsidy's...they even banned our meat....another great deal. where are the benefits, will they let us store some of their food mountains, maybe they'll give us more of their waste to dispose of.

 

 

the big argument for independence is that westminster doesn't represent the problems uniquely scottish and it's better to have a scotsman dishin oot the laws, tell me how someone from a hot, dusty southern mediteranean country knows better than someone from london(the same island as us) whats good for us.

 

 

Eh?

[Patrick Bateman]

the big argument for independence is that westminster doesn't represent the problems uniquely scottish and it's better to have a scotsman dishin oot the laws, tell me how someone from a hot, dusty southern mediteranean country knows better than someone from london(the same island as us) whats good for us.

 

I've said this before and I'll say this again; the EU does not, nor will it ever have, the same or even comparable level of political control over Scotland that Westminster does. In terms of representation, we currently have six MEPS, the same as Luxembourg. Finland, which has a similar population size, has 13 MEPS. We can cooperate with the EU, and with the rest of these islands for that matter, on issues where we have a common interest. That's how the EU is supposed to work and despite its inefficiencies and issues, is generally a good thing.

[reaths17]

I've said this before and I'll say this again; the EU does not, nor will it ever have, the same or even comparable level of political control over Scotland that Westminster does. In terms of representation, we currently have six MEPS, the same as Luxembourg. Finland, which has a similar population size, has 13 MEPS. We can cooperate with the EU, and with the rest of these islands for that matter, on issues where we have a common interest. That's how the EU is supposed to work and despite its inefficiencies and issues, is generally a good thing.

 

britain co-operated with them on human rights, now we canny get rid of imigrant terrorist, that worked well.

 

thought we were leaving the union to rule ourselves, lots of your examples involve countries outwith the EU so why is it necessary to be in it in the 1st place. can we no get independence then decide yae or nae.

 

list some of them benefits

[Greenbank2]

Speaking as someone employed in the "general defence industry", not in any of the specific areas you mention mind you, I have to take issue with what you say. You appear to have stumbled on an article from the early 1980's judging by your description. My defence employer, as well as supplying to the MOD, sell products world wide to organisations such as the US Coast guard and Frontier patrol, Norwegian Coast guard to name a few bringing in much needed income to the UK this has to be done because there are no "free" hand outs from the MOD. Just like any other business, if we don't operate efficiently we wont exist (see racal radar, Linlithgow, RO Bishopton, Leeds) . You mention investing in industries that make a positive contribution I challenge you to back this statement up by naming one such industry and the "white elephant wind turbine industry" is not up for consideration (we do not design any of this and foreign companies simply set up low paid assembly shops until they out live their usefulness). I'm afraid you fail to grasp that the widespread knowledge and experience contained within the defence industry cannot be transferred elsewhere because quite simply there is nowhere left to transfer it to, design and manufacture facilities in this country are few and far between nowadays. Wipe the defence industry from the UK balance sheet and see what we are left with, it ain't much I'm afraid.

 

Your point is valid and not so niaive to believe that all defence related industries are inefficient cash guzzling money pits. However, I take issue with your point that the skills are not transferable. I really do appreciate that many defence companies create world-class products and indeed own patents for world class inventions that allow them to be viaible businesses. Indeed, such a core skill should be self sustaining whether Scotland is independent or not. I also acknowledge that many of the developments that are perfected for defence, go on to have a huge positive impact in the civilian sector. All good. But with regard to industries that make a vast positive contribution to the Scottish economy; the energy sector (outwith the wind turbines), particularly oil and gas is world class, bioscience, forestry all require highly skilled people in contracts management, operations, IT, purchasing, project management - all of which exist in abundance in the defense sector.

 

My point was this; the defense industry is the supply engine of need of governments to flex their muscle. Only MHO of course, but the UK spends far to much of its tax income on defense vanity projects. I KNOW that these projects are often mismanaged beyond belief - mainly from the perspective of ever changing, ill-defined requirements. This requires rework and resdesign by the supply base which in turn, keeps many people employed. I have absolutely no issue with defense contractors becoming best in class and winning lucrative projects. I do have an issue with some of the vanity projects (exactly why do we need 2 aircraft carriers?) that sustain the industry. in my view, an independent Scotland should spend much less of its GDP on defense - particularly on bespoke solutions. If the contractors can be profitable by selling skills to, and supplying the international market, good on them.

[scottish_chicP]

I'm one of the undecided. Genuinely keep going back and forth.

[TheMaganator]

You managed to find the last poll, Uly?

 

Did you not say it was 3-1 in favour of Yes?

[Ulysses]

You managed to find the last poll, Uly?

 

Did you not say it was 3-1 in favour of Yes?

 

I can't find anything.

 

I have a sense that a couple of previous polls showed a very big majority in favour of independence, which I recall as being about 3 to 1 in favour. Having said that, I can't recall seeing a poll in at least the last two years, and there's every chance my memory is faulty.