Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[coconut doug]

You seem to be suggesting that an independent Scotland shouldn't respect property rights. Is that such a good idea? Is that part of the Yes platform? I don't recall seeing that in any Yes campaign material or in the White Paper.

My point is that if you sell national assets, below their value to your mates and at the same time exclude members of the public from buying them this might leave you open to financial retribution. The state has also been left with a sizeable burden in the pension obligations of former workers. Swinney has said that come independence the government will renationalise the "Royal Mail" my point is that, if that happens, would it be reasonable to buy it back at less than market value since it was sold at a substatial discount in the first place. The government will have to set a price to buy back Scotland's part of the Royal Mail. This price paid to buy back should bear some relation to the price paid two or three years previously. This is in no way a repudiation of property rights.

[dicksojo]

I'm sure it's already been discussed but is the White Paper just a wish list? Has any of it actually been costed and confirmed with other stakeholders?

 

Also, do the other nationalist political parties agree with the White Paper or is it only supported (and created) by the SNP?

[Ulysses]

This is in no way a repudiation of property rights.

 

If the State forces people to sell their property at less than its value, that is a denial of their property rights and repression of the individual.

 

Where does it say in the Yes platform or the White Paper that an independent Scotland will force people to sell their property for less than its market value?

[JamboX2]

My point is that if you sell national assets, below their value to your mates and at the same time exclude members of the public from buying them this might leave you open to financial retribution. The state has also been left with a sizeable burden in the pension obligations of former workers. Swinney has said that come independence the government will renationalise the "Royal Mail" my point is that, if that happens, would it be reasonable to buy it back at less than market value since it was sold at a substatial discount in the first place. The government will have to set a price to buy back Scotland's part of the Royal Mail. This price paid to buy back should bear some relation to the price paid two or three years previously. This is in no way a repudiation of property rights.

 

Issue is Swinney cannot promise that. He has no mandate currently to do so from the people. Nothing in his manifesto, and the SNP play up the "must be constrained to the manifesto" card a lot. If a centre-right administration is returned in 2016 you may not get your renationalisation.

 

I'd support that, but it's no guarantee a Yes vote has any political reprecussions in regards to policies. Same goes with No. The only guarantee is constitutional.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

If the State forces people to sell their property at less than its value, that is a denial of their property rights and repression of the individual.

 

Where does it say in the Yes platform or the White Paper that an independent Scotland will force people to sell their property for less than its market value?

Ironically, the EU would also side with the property owner too.

[JamboX2]

I'm sure it's already been discussed but is the White Paper just a wish list? Has any of it actually been costed and confirmed with other stakeholders?

 

Also, do the other nationalist political parties agree with the White Paper or is it only supported (and created) by the SNP?

 

 

There have been issues around the White Paper. Some policies, like free universal child care, has been shown to be uncosted. There are other things which are only a wishlist and down to negotiation between the Scottish and UK governments - currency union, division of the armed forces and diplomatic representations.

 

The Greens have been notably vocal in their opposition to much of the economics of the White Paper, especially the Currency Union and the general adherence to neo-liberal economics.

 

In short, it's the SNP blueprint for the Scotland they want. Moderately left, moderately right, very centrist and cautious. The Greens and SSP disagree with it as it's too much of the same for them. It's being backed by Yes Scotland because, it's all they've got in hard policy.

[Ulysses]

 

Issue is Swinney cannot promise that. He has no mandate currently to do so from the people. Nothing in his manifesto, and the SNP play up the "must be constrained to the manifesto" card a lot. If a centre-right administration is returned in 2016 you may not get your renationalisation.

 

I'd support that, but it's no guarantee a Yes vote has any political reprecussions in regards to policies. Same goes with No. The only guarantee is constitutional.

 

In any case, isn't this just another example of someone thinking they'll get a socialist utopia by voting Yes?

[Ulysses]

Ironically, the EU would also side with the property owner too.

 

Even more ironically, so would an independent Scotland.

[dicksojo]

There have been issues around the White Paper. Some policies, like free universal child care, has been shown to be uncosted. There are other things which are only a wishlist and down to negotiation between the Scottish and UK governments - currency union, division of the armed forces and diplomatic representations.

 

The Greens have been notably vocal in their opposition to much of the economics of the White Paper, especially the Currency Union and the general adherence to neo-liberal economics.

 

In short, it's the SNP blueprint for the Scotland they want. Moderately left, moderately right, very centrist and cautious. The Greens and SSP disagree with it as it's too much of the same for them. It's being backed by Yes Scotland because, it's all they've got in hard policy.

 

So this White Paper and the people who are wanting us to vote yes only have one source of policy post a yes vote? If this is correct I find this slightly worrying. Do you think that if there is a yes vote that other political parties (Lib Dems, Tories, Labour, Greens, SSP) will bring their own policy ideas for an independent country?

 

For such a big question we essentially don't have any other input from any other political parties other than the SNP should there be a yes vote. Where as with a no vote we still have a spectrum of choice across the different political parties.

 

Also, why has JKB not started it's own poll on how members will vote (anonymously of course)?

[jack D and coke]

 

Also, why has JKB not started it's own poll on how members will vote (anonymously of course)?

There's been two so far. Both have had Yes winning but whether that means very much it's difficult to say.

 

 

[Ulysses]

 

Also, why has JKB not started it's own poll on how members will vote (anonymously of course)?

 

We have. Twice. We're due to have another poll soon, for members who do keep up as well as those who don't.

[dicksojo]

We have. Twice. We're due to have another poll soon, for members who do keep up as well as those who don't.

 

Oops, must have been doing the dishes at the time. From the polls that have been carried out by the media it seems to be a no vote to win 38% yes and 46% no. This leaves 16% "undecided", what does this 16% tell us about their voting tendencies? Does it mean that they aren't interested in voting and will therefore vote for the status quo or does it mean they are bored with the political system as it is (first past the post for Westminster) and therefore will vote for a change? I know that polls are constantly changing etc and you may not agree with numbers I have quoted but please take them with a pinch of salt.

 

I am 95% sure of how I am going to vote but I am just interested to see other peoples views. I think the young may vote in favour of the UK because of jobs etc and the added security of familiarity and I think those who are around retirement age may be more willing to take a chance and vote yes as they have less to lose.

 

On an aside and completely unrelated, it really irks me that in the last General Election the Lib Dems got 6.8m votes (26% of the big 3) yet only got 57 seats (9.1% of the big 3). That's another issue though.

[jack D and coke]

I don't think there's anyway to tell how people are going to vote unless they work in the financial industry. I used to think I sort of knew how people would vote but I've been surprised by a few people who have told me they were voting one way when I expected them to vote the other.

[dicksojo]

I don't think there's anyway to tell how people are going to vote unless they work in the financial industry. I used to think I sort of knew how people would vote but I've been surprised by a few people who have told me they were voting one way when I expected them to vote the other.

 

I take it most people who are in the Financial Services industry are going to vote no. Also the Oil sector. Also exporters (distillers).

 

More people in public sector and tourism may vote yes.

 

Will the old shipyards of Glasgow vote no in the hope of future ship building contracts?

[coconut doug]

You seem to be suggesting that an independent Scotland shouldn't respect property rights. Is that such a good idea? Is that part of the Yes platform? I don't recall seeing that in any Yes campaign material or in the White Paper.

Even when you buy it back at the price paid. The price deemed to be the market value at the time. Surely those affected would have to prove a loss. Most shares are owned by companies some of whom broke the conditions of the sale. Individual citizens were ripped off and it seems only fair there is an element of recompense in any renationalisation.

 

I have no idea where it says people will be forced to sell their property for less than market value. I never said it was in the white paper. I heard Swinney say that post independence that the SNP would want to buy back the Royal Mail. He said it in a televised debate.

[coconut doug]

Issue is Swinney cannot promise that. He has no mandate currently to do so from the people. Nothing in his manifesto, and the SNP play up the "must be constrained to the manifesto" card a lot. If a centre-right administration is returned in 2016 you may not get your renationalisation.

 

I'd support that, but it's no guarantee a Yes vote has any political reprecussions in regards to policies. Same goes with No. The only guarantee is constitutional.

IIRC Swinney was pressed on the matter and he said he would like to and intended to do it.

[JamboX2]

So this White Paper and the people who are wanting us to vote yes only have one source of policy post a yes vote? If this is correct I find this slightly worrying. Do you think that if there is a yes vote that other political parties (Lib Dems, Tories, Labour, Greens, SSP) will bring their own policy ideas for an independent country?

 

For such a big question we essentially don't have any other input from any other political parties other than the SNP should there be a yes vote. Where as with a no vote we still have a spectrum of choice across the different political parties.

 

Also, why has JKB not started it's own poll on how members will vote (anonymously of course)?

 

The No parties wont give you a set of independence policies until a Yes win comes along.

 

The Greens and the SSP have policies, but they wont be part of the negotiations which are being led by the SNP, and will centre on their white paper.

 

As for the No side, they believe, shockingly, in policies akin to the UK wide parties their parties make up. Shocking to think Joanne Lamont and Carwyn Jones and Ed Miliband all share similar views on how to implement the living wage or on taxation levels, or that Ruth Davidson and Theresa May share a similar view to immigration. This isn't just because "London dictate" it's because they are in parties advocating policies they believe in and feel will do the nation good.

 

London dictating is a nonsense imo. A facile argument which ignores many of the achievements made by Labour-Liberal governments up here pre-2007 which were a departure from Blairism.

[JamboX2]

In any case, isn't this just another example of someone thinking they'll get a socialist utopia by voting Yes?

 

Well quite. Although if you think a nationalised mail provider is the beginnings of a socialist utopia after a yes vote along side corporation tax cuts, pandering to big business and regressive tax policies, then you don't understand socialism all that well.

[Ulysses]

IIRC Swinney was pressed on the matter and he said he would like to and intended to do it.

 

I say he didn't - and it would have been big news if he did.

 

Want to find a link to show he did?

[curriehearts]

The No parties wont give you a set of independence policies until a Yes win comes along.

 

 

Was the post independence manifestos not leaked recently by the Sunday Herald?

 

Tories to push for an immediate Scottish union with rUK

Liberals to push for a federal Scotland as part of a federal Europe, which is part of a federal world (but not the Russian approach to Ukranian federalism)

Labour waiting for the Unions to decide.

 

Might be wrong of course...you know what the standard of journalism can be like!

[coconut doug]

I say he didn't - and it would have been big news if he did.

 

Want to find a link to show he did?

Is this good enough? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10321454/Alex-Salmond-overrules-John-Swinney-on-Royal-Mail.html

[Ulysses]

Is this good enough? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10321454/Alex-Salmond-overrules-John-Swinney-on-Royal-Mail.html

 

Ah.

 

So when you said:

 

IIRC Swinney was pressed on the matter and he said he would like to and intended to do it.

 

What you actually meant to say was that Swinney did not state that it would be done, but that Alex Salmond overruled him and said it would be done. After all, that's what it says in the article that you posted.

 

And where's the bit about buying back at whatever people paid for it? That appears nowhere in the article, which points out that the First Minister's statement was uncosted. Are you just assuming?

[curriehearts]

I take it most people who are in the Financial Services industry are going to vote no. Also the Oil sector. Also exporters (distillers).

 

More people in public sector and tourism may vote yes.

 

Will the old shipyards of Glasgow vote no in the hope of future ship building contracts?

 

My understanding of this is:

 

Companies who mainly trade outside of UK were more comfortable

Companies who mainly trade in UK were more aware of risks re: currency

Financial Services - Tend towards no if regulatory and currency framework is too much of a risk

Tourism - well Airlines (BA and Ryanair) saw opportunity but remember the No side saying that lots of tourist people were no (never remembered anything then being followed up on it).

No idea about public sector.

[curriehearts]

Oops, must have been doing the dishes at the time. From the polls that have been carried out by the media it seems to be a no vote to win 38% yes and 46% no. This leaves 16% "undecided", what does this 16% tell us about their voting tendencies? Does it mean that they aren't interested in voting and will therefore vote for the status quo or does it mean they are bored with the political system as it is (first past the post for Westminster) and therefore will vote for a change? I know that polls are constantly changing etc and you may not agree with numbers I have quoted but please take them with a pinch of salt.

 

I am 95% sure of how I am going to vote but I am just interested to see other peoples views. I think the young may vote in favour of the UK because of jobs etc and the added security of familiarity and I think those who are around retirement age may be more willing to take a chance and vote yes as they have less to lose.

 

On an aside and completely unrelated, it really irks me that in the last General Election the Lib Dems got 6.8m votes (26% of the big 3) yet only got 57 seats (9.1% of the big 3). That's another issue though.

 

Not sure that is what the stats will show. My thoughts are that the youngsters are fairly mixed between yes and no. Not sure what you mean by vote for UK because of jobs.....jobs where? The few jobs in Scotland or the many in London and the South East?

I would have thought the older generation would tend to vote No as the ties of the UK seems to mean more for them.

[JamboX2]

 

 

Ah.

 

So when you said:

 

 

 

What you actually meant to say was that Swinney did not state that it would be done, but that Alex Salmond overruled him and said it would be done. After all, that's what it says in the article that you posted.

 

This is correct. Swinney a few days before refused to commit himself to an answer definitively. Salmond announced, blundered into saying if some are to be believed, that the SNP would renationalise the RM in Scotland.

 

It occurred in FMQs. Had Ms Lamont been quick (or Ms Davidson for that), or better briefed, the disconnect with a statement on newsnight scotland from Swinney of mibbies aye, mibbies naw on renatinalisation being totally u-turned only a few days later would've shown how disjointed the SNP message was here.

 

Whilst I believe it should be nationalised. It has to be planned with a new and more efficient running structure with nore workforce participation in it's running. This has clearly not been the case.

 

This anf the unfunded child care proposals are huge blunders and opportunistic events. The SNP have again survived the aftermath unscathed. Had this been a vice versa we'd have seen a resignation imo.

[coconut doug]

Ah.

 

So when you said:

 

 

 

What you actually meant to say was that Swinney did not state that it would be done, but that Alex Salmond overruled him and said it would be done. After all, that's what it says in the article that you posted.

 

And where's the bit about buying back at whatever people paid for it? That appears nowhere in the article, which points out that the First Minister's statement was uncosted. Are you just assuming?

Is there any material difference in who said it? The point is the SNP said it. I have a recollection of Swinney saying he wanted to do it, maybe he said it after Salmond overruled him. In any case it was SNP policy to renationalise the Royal Mail

There isn't a bit about buying back at the price people paid for it. Why would there be? That was my suggestion and i never attributed it to any politician. I raised the point in response to The Maganators assertion that Osbourne selling Royal Mail shares to his mate was some kind of unavoidable coincidence. I did not believe it was a coincidence as corporate buyers were given priority and sought to test his reaction to a situation where ordinary citizens were treated favourably. I try to assume very little and i certainly don't assume that Scotland will be a socialist utopia after a yes vote.

Here's Swinney quoted on Stv http://news.stv.tv/scotland/270620-tories-warn-royal-mail-in-independent-scotland-may-increase-charges/ Mr Swinney said: "Our approach to bringing the Royal Mail in Scotland back into public ownership will be considered in the light of circumstances at the point of independence, including the prevailing structure of the Royal Mail.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Not sure that is what the stats will show. My thoughts are that the youngsters are fairly mixed between yes and no. Not sure what you mean by vote for UK because of jobs.....jobs where? The few jobs in Scotland or the many in London and the South East?

I would have thought the older generation would tend to vote No as the ties of the UK seems to mean more for them.

 

The vast majority of school & Uni mock polls have returned a No vote.

 

 

[curriehearts]

The vast majority of school & Uni mock polls have returned a No vote.

 

[modedit]

 

 

What were the numbers showing?

[JamboX2]

Is there any material difference in who said it? The point is the SNP said it. I have a recollection of Swinney saying he wanted to do it, maybe he said it after Salmond overruled him. In any case it was SNP policy to renationalise the Royal Mail

 

Yes there is.

 

Swinney is the Finance Minister. If there is any forward planning of note within the top echelons of the SNP government then they will be forcasting public finances in 2016 after independence in March 2016. He was interviewed on Newsnight Scotland, possibly Sunday Politics, and said the purchase would need to be determined by the share value and if it was an affordable policy. Salmond then a few days later, announced in FMQs, on his 3rd or 4th answer to a question on this matter that they would renationalise Royal Mail.

 

Now this kind of big economic policy is not normally announced in the chamber in the midst of FMQs. It is usually announced by the relevant minister - here Swinney or Fergus Ewing - to the Chamber, or in a big public event.

 

As I say, it's a welcome commitment. However, it seems a rushed and frankly off the cuff policy commitment with little in the way of substance behind it.

[TheMaganator]

[modedit]

 

 

What were the numbers showing?

I've only got a BT graphic of 9 of them since March which range from 63-84% No.

 

I'll see if I can get the rest of them. I know that one of the Glasgow colleges returned a Yes vote in the last few days but it wasn't by much.

[JamboX2]

Good article here by Professor Stephen Tierney, senior constitutional law lecturer at Edinbrgh university and a fomer advisor on this are to the Scottish Government and the Parliament on a written constitution under the White Paper desire to enforce certain political rights into a constitution.

 

http://www.scottishconstitutionalfutures.org/OpinionandAnalysis/ViewBlogPost/tabid/1767/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3319/Stephen-Tierney-Constituting-Scotland-a-Retreat-from-Politics.aspx

 

A bit of food for thought: "..constitutionalising specific values and policies, the constitution will significantly ramp up the powers of judges. The authority to resolve disagreements which are currently matters of political deliberation will be handed to a small unelected group which is arguably both unsuited and, in democratic terms, unentitled to determine these issues.."

[coconut doug]

Yes there is.

 

Swinney is the Finance Minister. If there is any forward planning of note within the top echelons of the SNP government then they will be forcasting public finances in 2016 after independence in March 2016. He was interviewed on Newsnight Scotland, possibly Sunday Politics, and said the purchase would need to be determined by the share value and if it was an affordable policy. Salmond then a few days later, announced in FMQs, on his 3rd or 4th answer to a question on this matter that they would renationalise Royal Mail.

 

Now this kind of big economic policy is not normally announced in the chamber in the midst of FMQs. It is usually announced by the relevant minister - here Swinney or Fergus Ewing - to the Chamber, or in a big public event.

 

As I say, it's a welcome commitment. However, it seems a rushed and frankly off the cuff policy commitment with little in the way of substance behind it.

That statement was in response to Ulysses' statement that if Swinney had said it "it would be big news". Well Swinney did say it and Salmond said it too. I understand that Swinney's role pertains to such things but in the context of my points it matters not a jot who said it, especially when they both said it. Protocol and sensibilities may be smashed all over the park but that is irrelelevant.

[jack D and coke]

I've only got a BT graphic of 9 of them since March which range from 63-84% No.

 

I'll see if I can get the rest of them. I know that one of the Glasgow colleges returned a Yes vote in the last few days but it wasn't by much.

9!!! Tbh my daughter is 14 and she thinks no but I put that more down to her mum who thinks Scotland is too poor and too wee. She doesn't live with me before you ask but I've tried to discuss it with her but she's brings up things like Scotland getting nuked and stuff

 

My niece can vote but she's more into watching towie, having sunbeds and Woodburn club with her pals. Not even interested.

 

For everyone thinking getting 16 year old's to vote would all vote Yes has proved to have been well off the mark.

Edited May 6, 2014 by jack D and coke

[djf]

On the subject of austerity, here's a really engaging and interesting lecture.

 

Edited May 6, 2014 by djf

[JamboX2]

That statement was in response to Ulysses' statement that if Swinney had said it "it would be big news". Well Swinney did say it and Salmond said it too. I understand that Swinney's role pertains to such things but in the context of my points it matters not a jot who said it, especially when they both said it. Protocol and sensibilities may be smashed all over the park but that is irrelelevant.

 

To an extent. But then it results in the appearance of a policy declared because the FM was flustered in debate and saw a way out. Especially considering his Finance Secretary appeared to rule it out days earlier. I personally would like to see the decision making process which altered this later. Obviously Swinney would rally to Salmond's flag on this. A lack of unity now would be a killer blow in the run up to the vote. Hence why MacAskill wont be sacked over the Bonomy report and his inflamatory speech on corroboration.

[Ulysses]

There isn't a bit about buying back at the price people paid for it. Why would there be? That was my suggestion and i never attributed it to any politician.

 

So there isn't a proposal to repress the property rights of individuals, and being for or against that isn't relevant to whether you should vote Yes or No. That's that sorted, then.

[coconut doug]

So there isn't a proposal to repress the property rights of individuals, and being for or against that isn't relevant to whether you should vote Yes or No. That's that sorted, then.

Correct. I never said there was.

[Ulysses]

Correct. I never said there was.

 

Ah right. Why are we even discussing it, so?

 

This isn't the Post Office thread, it's the referendum thread.

 

Ah well, Uly and Doug, back to work.

[TheMaganator]

British Chamber of Commerce polled 2,400 of its members in England, Wales & NI

 

85% no

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-poll-85-uk-businesses-are-against-union-break-1447360

[JamboX2]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5258958

 

Pretty decent article on the bluntness and lack of nuance and flexibility in the SNP position and the problems it raises.

 

Begs the question, where are the positive voices now? Both are playing a form of negative campaigning.

Edited May 7, 2014 by JamboX2

[jack D and coke]

Couple of pretty interesting pieces here.

Keister report....

 

And irvine welsh giving his opinion to Richard Bacon. Forward to 54 mins for the indy response.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042lgv5

 

Both interesting viewpoints.

 

[jambo1185]

For everyone thinking getting 16 year old's to vote would all vote Yes has proved to have been well off the mark.

 

Yeah it doesn't seem to be that way at all. This article deals with very small groupings but might be of some interest.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/what-scotlands-young-voters-think-of-indyref.1399377443

[TheMaganator]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5258958

 

Pretty decent article on the bluntness and lack of nuance and flexibility in the SNP position and the problems it raises.

 

Begs the question, where are the positive voices now? Both are playing a form of negative campaigning.

With a wee bit of scaremongering thrown in to boot

 

[flecktimus]

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/5258958

 

Pretty decent article on the bluntness and lack of nuance and flexibility in the SNP position and the problems it raises.

 

Begs the question, where are the positive voices now? Both are playing a form of negative campaigning.

Stopped reading - Quote : Scotland would have to adopt the euro

[GrimUpNorth]

 

With a wee bit of scaremongering thrown in to boot

 

 

Good lord. Is that the official Yes Scotland twitter account ?

[jack D and coke]

 

Good lord. Is that the official Yes Scotland twitter account ?

They could though.

 

Although i tend to agree its a bit scaremongering Better Together never ever wavers from tweets like this day in day out.

Edited May 7, 2014 by jack D and coke

[TheMaganator]

They could though.

 

Although i tend to agree its a bit scaremongering Better Together never ever wavers from tweets like this day in day out.

This is part of my problem with the debate. What Yes have said could happen and should factor into people's decisions. What BT come out with as potential issues are just the same and should be factored in.

 

The use of 'scaremongering' does my head in.

 

If you want a proper debate you have to accept that there may be issues with whatever way we vote. Every time I hear Sturgeon bleat on about scaremongering I cringe.

[Boris]

This is part of my problem with the debate. What Yes have said could happen and should factor into people's decisions. What BT come out with as potential issues are just the same and should be factored in.

 

The use of 'scaremongering' does my head in.

 

If you want a proper debate you have to accept that there may be issues with whatever way we vote. Every time I hear Sturgeon bleat on about scaremongering I cringe.

 

You could flip that and add all the things YES say what could happen if Scotland became independent i.e. the good things.

 

BT don't seem to say what the good things for Scotland would be by staying in the Union.

[jack D and coke]

This is part of my problem with the debate. What Yes have said could happen and should factor into people's decisions. What BT come out with as potential issues are just the same and should be factored in.

 

The use of 'scaremongering' does my head in.

 

If you want a proper debate you have to accept that there may be issues with whatever way we vote. Every time I hear Sturgeon bleat on about scaremongering I cringe.

Yeah I agree mate. I've completely left the politicians out of this now and I'm trying to look at the implications instead. The politicians on both sides make me want to cave my TV in when they come on now just repeating ad nauseum the oooh it's scaremongering or pooling and sharing the risks and better together zzzzzzz give me a f***** break!! I'm sick of the lot of them and personally I'm trying to see beyond their constant bullshit. I don't even like speaking about the referendum to people now, I'm sick of their garbage I've got to listen to from both sides. I've honestly heard some crackers as to why we should vote Yes and No. Facebook definitely has to be the worst. I've come to the conclusion a lot of people I know are seriously mentally challenged. If not for this thread I'd have given up a long time ago tbh.

[GrimUpNorth]

Yeah I agree mate. I've completely left the politicians out of this now and I'm trying to look at the implications instead. The politicians on both sides make me want to cave my TV in when they come on now just repeating ad nauseum the oooh it's scaremongering or pooling and sharing the risks and better together zzzzzzz give me a f***** break!! I'm sick of the lot of them and personally I'm trying to see beyond their constant bullshit. I don't even like speaking about the referendum to people now, I'm sick of their garbage I've got to listen to from both sides. I've honestly heard some crackers as to why we should vote Yes and No. Facebook definitely has to be the worst. I've come to the conclusion a lot of people I know are seriously mentally challenged. If not for this thread I'd have given up a long time ago tbh.

 

don't entirely agree on politicians as there are good on both sides, who we probably don't hear enough from. The rest of your post though