Main Page

== Your Indy Ref Crash Course (with a Yes bias) ==
If the link is in bold, then I think you should read the article (or watch the video), otherwise just open it up, and see if it's important to you in making a decision.
Read this first...
Don't Trust Anyone
== Better Together's opinion of you ==
* This is what the no campaign thinks you'll relate to and this is how they want you to make up your mind. Don't do any research, it's too hard, there's too much information just vote no. This is because when people educate themselves on the issues it leads to 'Undecided' and quickly leads to 'Yes'.
* This is what twitter thought of it.
* Some subtitled it to make sure people weren't getting confused about the intention.
* Others were so offended they felt they had to make their own videos.
== General sources of answers from the yes side ==
The Wee Blue Book covers most of the topics that you'll have questions about. For me the problem is it doesn't cite many sources so I prefer Business for Scotland's Vision for Scotland report although it's lengthier.
Ivan McKee of Business for Scotland makes the case for the economy and cites GERS 2011-2012 sources (it's an older video). The important takeaway from this is that Scotland will have more money when independent, along with all the ways Scotland currently gets screwed out of billions. For example:
* we put in more per head and get less money back
* we pay £3 billion for defense and only get £2 billion back
* We have a lower deficit but we pay off the debt by percentage population, not only that, but HALF of our deficit is just on debt interest repayments (the lion's share of that debt was mostly caused by bailing out London's banking operations). We generate 5% of the deficit. Which drops to 3% if we paid what we got for defense. In this scenario, the UK would borrow money to pay off total deficit, send 3% to Scotland and then charge Scotland 8.4% on the total debt interest.
== Social injustice and scroungers. ==
The UK is the 4th most unequal country in the world.
How much of the welfare budget is claimed by the unemployed? 48% was the average response while the reality is 7%. How much of the welfare budget is fraudulently claimed? This is always projected to be a huge problem which cripples our state. 28% was the average answer while the reality is 0.7%. Twice as much money isn't claimed by people that should be receiving benefits.
Meanwhile the likes of Starbucks has generated over £3000 million in sales over the years and paid only £86 million tax. Amazon, Google, Boots, all have similar tax avoidance techniques. Non payment of corporation tax leads to a loss of £120 billion a year. Let's try and qualify how big that number is in relation to Scotland: it would only take 42 years at £120bn a year to make every man woman and child currently in Scotland a millionaire.
Westminster cut 500,000 public sector jobs then MPs gave themselves 11% pay rises, to be followed by a 9% rise a year later, then announced a month later of £25bn of cuts from the welfare budget, then we hear they've drank £1.4million in champagne and claimed £21 million in expenses during a food bank crisis. People didn't handle the cuts well. Particularly when Atos was involved. Don't worry though, the boss of Atos got a £280k pay rise taking his total package to £2.3million. I'm sure this was nothing to do with the contributions the company made to the Tory Party. At least they'd be efficient with all that money, eh?
All these people were getting money handed to them from the government so which ones were scrounging the most? This guy had a good try to make sure it was him.
All those cuts... if only there was some way of generating £120 billion a year. Oh wait, how about we just make companies pay their corporation tax? It's a mystery why we can't make things like that happen.
But the tories said the pensions were safe if we voted 'no', so at least there's that. 
:"The Tory-led Government’s biggest cut is a £3.8billion-a-year reduction in pension credit, which tops up weekly income to a guaranteed minimum.
:Other cuts include a £138million-a-year reduction in the value of attendance allowances – paid to those who look after relatives – and £340million off disability living allowances for OAPs."
I'm glad at least we don't have pensions to worry about.
If you've not got enough examples of corruption and inequality here then just let me know, I can always find more.
Watch all of this video if you can or just this section: Tommy Sheridan's Independence speech highlighting inequality until 23m23s.
They'll always find money for broken banks, tax loopholes, trains, nukes and millionaires but not enough to feed the people, or take care of the people, for the NHS or childcare or education or job creation or...
Sigh...
You still might be thinking..
: "But this doesn't affect me, because I'm doing fine, so this doesn't make me want to vote yes"
This is an incredibly short sighted view, even if you're only considering selfish reasons it still doesn't make any sense . When there is no social mobility we end up with a disenfranchised society. Crime rises, poverty rises, this all puts more strain on the system which reduces the quality of all of our services. Taking care of our poor doesn't just help the poor.
If you're doing fine then you'll still be doing fine with independence. There will simply be a fairer society where those with power aren't able to exploit the corruption of Westminster. Where the mega rich aren't allowed to pay less of a tax percentage than someone working in a fast food restaurant.
And what if? What if a parent dies or has an accident that puts them on disability? What if any single wage earner has to leave work (for all the reasons that can happen) to take care of the children because they can't afford child care (the UK has the highest price for child care by miles for anywhere in Europe). Wouldn't you need a hand out then? How would you pay for a child's further education if there are University fees due to staying in the union? Risk getting into more debt? Then there would also be more likelihood of their children being in poverty and the cycle continues. There are many scenarios where any of us can instantly go from 'doing fine' to needing help; instantly go from 'doing fine' to have children and children of children stuck forever in poverty. This is what is happening and it continues to get worse.
We have examples of socially injust places where the rich look after their own self interests and we have examples of countries that take care of their people. Choose your future.
== Obscene spending ==
Trident. Seriously, fuck Trident. It's leaking radiation 40 miles from Scotland's most populated city. They lower armed warheads into missiles 40 miles from Scotland's most populated city. Accidents happen, we've already had a radiation leak. America has dropped two nuclear bombs on itself and sometimes misplaces them. Morally, we can't use them. It's going to cost £100bn over 15 years to replace them. Then there's the continued maintenance cost after that.
We're going to spend £100 billion on weapons we can't use while child poverty, 40 miles away from where we're spending the £100 billion, is at 43%.
If that's not enough, then how about the £5.5bn we wasted on the aircraft carriers we don't have the right planes for. Or the £50 billion on HS2 that just carries more money to London. Or the requested £1.3 trillion toys of London's lunatic mayor.
The UK is crippled by £1.4 trillion of debt. Let us not forget where this debt came from. This is a total debt which Scotland didn't run up; it came from wars we didn't agree with, from bailouts we didn't agree to, from overspending in London by London only for London's benefit. We pay over £750 per person per year just on the interest of this debt and we collectively pay £127 per second.
Over the last 32 years, Scotland has paid £64 billion of interest on debts taken out by Westminster to pay for its own failures. If we look at how Scotland's figures would have looked if it was independent for the last 32 years then we'd be running a £50 billion surplus.
We spend 3 times as much as Canada spends on military. We spend 66% of Russia's spending and 37% of China which has a population 20 times the size of the UK.
== Is it morally acceptable to support the UK when it has committed such atrocities? ==
"We [the UK] and the Americans were shipping people in order for them to be tortured. Some of them were tortured to death."
"I know for certain… they knew there weren't any [weapons of mass destruction]. It wasn’t a mistake, it was a lie."
"I think it is impossible to be proud of the United Kingdom. I think when we invaded Iraq we did to the United Nations what Hitler and Mussolini did to the League of Nations"
"If you look at Libya it is a disaster now. We bombed it. We killed 15,000 people when NATO bombed Sirte, something they never told you on the BBC. And did we make it better? No.”
"In Uzbekistan I saw the gas contracts signed by Enron and a company called Unocal which George Bush Senior was on the board of… to bring out gas pipelines from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan over Afghanistan down to the Indian Ocean and that was actually what the Afghan war was about. They actually had talks between the Taliban and Unocal to see if the Taliban would provide pipeline security. The person who held those talks was the consultant for Unocal who is a certain Mr Karzai, who after being employed by George Bush Senior as a consultant, went on to become President of Afghanistan. That was their Plan B; the Taliban wouldn't do it, so they invaded. I've seen it on the inside, it's almost always about control of resources."
"The british government is deeply deeply immoral. They don't care how many people they kill abroad if it advances them."
"It's not possible to be a decent person and vote 'no' and we shouldn't be ashamed to say that."
Former UK ambassador Craig Murray
== Oil ==
The UK as a whole has the same proven oil reserves as Norway (the 4th richest country in the world). Scotland's chunk of that is at least 6 times the proven reserves of Denmark (19th richest in the world). The area we have is huge. If we gave that area to Westminster, they would not care that we left. They have invaded countries for less resources. They tell us the oil is volatile, it's a problem - I'm ok with a £1.5 trillion over 40 years problem. A £350bn per year problem. This is the only reason they want to keep us. Who would want to lose that?
When people argue over remaining barrels, they're not taking into account new fields. New discoveries are expected to be in the Atlantic and the Clyde Basin which can't be explored currently because of Trident. Some claim £24 trillion lies there... New technology in the future will allow us to extract more from existing fields. People that work in the industry say we could have 100 years of oil left. 
It's difficult to pin down what the UKCS's estimate of a maximum of 24 billion barrels accounts for. Articles claim that Atlantic discoveries are not accounted for, that the area to the south of the North Sea's unconventional oil and gas (shale) reserves have not been included as well as the Firth of Clyde reserves that are currently off limits due to Trident.
Norway relies much more on its oil than we do. Without oil, Scotland's economy accounts for 99% of the UK average (an average that is skewed by London).
Ask yourself why they are warning you of 'Scotland's economic catastrophe' with independence when they would have zero liability. Ask yourself if they'd still want Scotland if we gave London our huge sea area and all our oil. Do you think they would still want us?
== Currency ==
The currency union is where we share the BoE as a lender of last resort (to bailout banks) and for monetary policy. Sterlingisation is where we use the pound without the BoE. Whether we use sterlingisation or a currency union, your day to day monetary transactions will be exactly the same as they are now. 
Many people still think they're bluffing about not cooperating in a currency union but a report was also created on ways to take advantage of sterlingisation, with a Nobel Laureate economist proclaiming that it would be better than a currency union. He also says that we'd be right not to share the UK debt in this case.
With a currency union or sterlingisation we are beholden to the interest rate set by the BoE and we would have no control over that in either case (at most a slight influence under currency union). Some would claim that 
: "Surely we want interest rates set in Scotland... the Yes campaign is advocating less control than we have now. This is absurd!!!"
Well, it's more independent than Devo Max which most Scots would have voted for given the chance. No one would argue that France, Germany and Italy are independent of each other despite sharing the ECB. We currently get to decide what to do with 7% of our tax revenue and BoE rates are set around what works best for London, yet some claim that getting to decide what we do with 100% of Scotland's resources somehow gives us less control. This argument is effectively saying "let's stay in the union because this type of independence isn't independent enough" and I think this is silly. 
I, as do many others, see a currency union as a transitionary measure to a Scottish pound pegged to GBP. I expect we would initially use the GBP in some form for a number of years and then at a sensible time transition back to our Pound Scots (that we had before sterling) which would be pegged to the pound sterling and exchanged £1 for £1. Denmark has a similar successful relationship with the Euro. But whatever change happened, it would be voted on and decided by the people of Scotland.
Sterling is continually being devalued; BoE's monetary policies have been terrible and only favour the City. We have obscene QE, obscene debt, low interest rates and inflation. The UK government has defaulted with savers. RPI has sat between 2.5% and 5.5% over the past 3 years while the BoE bank rate sits at 0.5% meaning savers lose between 2% and 5% every year for the privilege of holding pounds. The value of the pound has been completely debased. In 1980 one pound bought 10.50 Swiss francs. In 2000, it bought 2.50 Swiss francs. Today, one pound buys 1.50 Swiss francs.
Setting up our own currency would cost us around £100 each and potentially cost businesses £400m in Scotland and £500m in rUK. As businesses would pass the cost onto us, worst case, it may end up costing us £180 each for the first year and £80 a year thereafter - on average. Less impact for the poor who spend less, less impact than the VAT rise. This isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things... the weakening of the GBP due to the financial crisis and continuous QE has cost as far more than this. We pay £750 each per year just on debt interest due to wars and bank bailouts. And remember, if there is no currency union, then we won't be taking all of the debt.
== Banks ==
Bank bailouts are based on where the bank does business, not where the bank is located. When they say that Scotland's banking assets are worth 1250% more than the GDP of Scotland, the question you need to ask is "why are you comparing those two things". Obviously, the intent is to point out that Scotland couldn't replace all those assets, but Scotland would never be expected to replace those assets. This is the quality of the Better Together campaign material.
The Fed contributed £640bn to bailout UK banks (mainly Barclays, also RBS and HBos). Belgian banks got bailed out by France, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. 80% of the losses from RBS was accumulated by London operations.
As EU law requires banks to be domiciled in the country where they conduct most of their business, a move to the City of London seems likely in any case. Note that moving legal domiciles does not necessarily mean moving jobs (both RBS and Lloyds already have sizeable operations in the City).
90% of RBS and HBoS employees are already outwith Scotland. Some jobs that are directly related to where the bank is domiciled would move south but most of the jobs within Scotland are based around call centres. There would be be no sense in the banks incurring the costs involved with relocating those to England.
== Europe ==
Article 48 states that any government can submit proposals for the amendment of the its current treaty.
There have previously been many exceptions made to European member states given special circumstances (incorporation of East Germany). Many countries also have different relationships with how much or how little they participate in different treaties (Norway, Denmark, Moldova). Being 'in the EU' is effectively just being in agreement to a specific set of treaties and agreements. My point here is that the EU is flexible if nothing else; there will be no EU catastrophe, we will not throw out everyone who isn't Scottish, we will not ban all the EU fisherman from our waters. It is in the EU's best interest to negotiate a solution that has Scotland as a full EU member without any period of excluding Scotland from the EU.
Indeed, the UK will also have to renegotiate it's standing within the EU as it will no longer be able to claim the privileges it currently has as incorporating Scotland.
Scotland can legally negotiate a continuation of its current membership from within the European Union following a Yes vote
Independence won't change Scotland's place in the EU
:"These will involve some relatively straightforward, technical EU treaty changes. But since no other EU member state will be directly affected, there is every reason to think that they could be approved rapidly and without ratifying referendums.
:The most important question that the no campaigners in Edinburgh or London cannot answer is: what provision exists in EU law to withhold citizens' rights from a people seeking continued EU membership and about whose country there is no question of any violation of fundamental European values? They cannot because there is none.
:Unsurprisingly, the no camp has not dared justify depriving the Scottish people of these rights while the technical transitional arrangements are resolved. It will be in the interests of Brussels, London and Edinburgh to finalise these matters rapidly. The status quo could remain in place until a timetable is agreed for the new arrangements to come into force."
Paul Cox has also said that we will continue our EU membership uninterrupted...
:There is no precedent for the situation in Scotland in the history of the EU. Mr Cox said that when Germany was unified and Greenland, which was a part of Denmark, left the EU, the EU showed “ pragmatism and inventiveness. It has always respected the expressed democratic will of the peoples involved where this has not been the subject of internal constitutional dissent.
:“Neither case is an exact precedent for the Scottish case but both reveal the lengths to which the European institutions and member states were prepared to go to accommodate change that was democratically mandated but not foreseen by the treaties.”
:He concluded: “Ensuring Scotland’s continued membership of the EU is in the common interest of people of Scotland, of the wider UK pre or post the referendum, and of the rest of the European Union.”
== Education ==
Losing research grants from the UK government.
This is a concern for some employed in University Education, but mainly for the big research universities: Glasgow, Edinburgh and St Andrews. The other universities don’t really get access to the UK government funding. The big universities do tend to get attributed a higher percentage than they would get proportionally – like maybe 12% rather than 8.5% - some feel the Scottish government would be able to provide the same level of funding.
The other funding comes from teaching, private firms, charities, EU funding, other overseas funding and overseas teaching. So there are many avenues that they could potentially make up shortfalls if funding is cut. The current amount of funding is in no way guaranteed though, it can be cut anytime by Westminster.
My worry is the effects of a cut to the block grant which seems to be unavoidable after a no vote. In 2011 there was talk of merging universities to cut costs, and if we’re getting even less pocket money, then education will definitely suffer as a result. The government will have to choose between merging universities and shrinking places or charging for education.
== Business uncertainty or opportunity ==
Ivan McKee again
200 businesses have signed to back independence.
Denmark has a population of 5 million just like Scotland and is half Scotland's size. They have a large region to the south that they trade with. They have a 61% tax rate and a vat rate of 25%. They were rated number one place in the world to start a business and carry on to be the best place to do business. 
Denmark is one of the happiest countries in the world. It has high social mobility, high income equality and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Just because you tax rich people, doesn't mean they all flee your country. Denmark has oil, but Scotland has more.
There is no reason Scotland cannot become more successful than Denmark in the long term.
Scotland, within the union, only has control over 7% of its tax revenue which does not give it the controls it needs to help its economy.
== What happens if we vote no? ==
We will be punished.
=== Our next rulers ===
It is increasingly likely that Boris Johnson will be prime minister after David Cameron. 
IoS favourability poll:
Alex Salmond: 36% (in Scotland)
David Cameron: 28%
Nigel Farage: 23%
Ed Miliband: 18%
SNP: 40% (in Scotland)
Conservatives: 30%
Ukip: 26%
Labour: 28%
Also, a recent poll reveals that 31% of Conservative voters prefer a coalition with Lib Dems while 30% prefer a coalition with Ukip. These polls imply that a Conservative-UKIP coalition is a very real possibility. Although, things are changing...
A survation poll which put UKIP at 64% and conservative's at 20% for the Clacton by-election. UKIP may just win the next election on its own.
=== The Barnett formula ===
Changes to the Barnett Formula. The English now want Scottish spending cut - if we're all in a union, why should Scotland get more? This will lead people to campaigning on the basis of Barnett reform. Boris has publicly attacked the Barnett formula. The fact that it costs Scotland more to provide the same services due to our distribution of population and land mass will never be mentioned. 
=== NHS ===
The NHS continues to be sold off without permission. Tories want to cut NHS spending, the only reason it hasn't been cut yet is because their first attempt at privatisation has been handled incompetently and actually increased spending. At some point they will make enough cuts though and it will have a direct effect on us through squeezing us through our block grant which is calculated with the Barnett formula. A block grant that will be potentially cut by 12.5%. At this point we cannot continue to fund a non-privatized NHS or free prescriptions never mind provide free education for all.
English NHS activists have also said that a Yes vote is the only way to ensure it's permanent safety - we'll have it written into our new constitution.
=== Free Education ===
We can't carry on paying for this with cuts to our block grant.
Losing free education hurts our social mobility which in turn widens the wealth gap. This forces the poor to continually rely more on the state and become more disenfranchised from society.
Scotland only has control over 10% of its tax revenue. This is not enough for it to pull away from a direction that England strides towards.
== A better democracy and a louder voice. ==
A fairer voting system:
:"How the Additional Member System (AMS) works
:There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs)
:There are two ways an MSP can be elected.
:Each elector (voter) has two votes.
:Scotland is divided into 73 constituencies and each constituency elects one MSP. These are known as constituency MSPs and are elected by 'first past the post' in exactly the same way as MPs are elected to Westminster. This is the elector's 'first vote'.
:The 'second vote' is used to elect 56 additional members. Scotland is divided into 8 parliamentary Regions and each region elects 7 regional MSPs. In the second vote the voter votes for a party rather than a candidate. The parties are then allocated a number of additional members to make the overall result more proportional. :The regional MSPs are selected from lists compiled by the parties. These MSPs are also sometimes referred to as List MSPs."
With the union you have 1 MP for every 98,000 people; you have 1 voice in 649 fighting for 'you'. 
With independence you have 1 MSP for every 41,000 people and also 7 regional MSP. This means out of 129, 1 in 16 MSPs are fighting for your interests.
Transparency: you can see exactly what your MSP is doing from the parliament website; debates they're attending, speeches they make, questions they ask and how they vote. 
Your politicians will now all be within punching distance.
Your Yes vote decreases the number of politicians. Scottish Lords would be expelled. No more Scottish MPs. Only MEPs and MSPs remain. This is not only more efficient for Scotland, but also for rUK.
No more MPs from Scotland voting on matters that only effect England; no more Scottish Labour MPs voting for free further education for Scotland and then voting against free education for England. Yes, Scottish independence is also a fairer arrangement for England.
No more Tory governments. No chance of a UKIP government. We will always get the government we vote for. For 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government.
You realize your vote is important. Every Scot should make sure their voice is heard and their vote is used. Half of them though, are voting to ensure it's the last time their vote will count, and their voice will be silenced.
== For a better Scotland ==
This is one of the most important and exciting areas. What we could become. We have places like Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland as role models but we're not looking to just imitate these places, we want to be better and we have some incredible minds which already have tremendous ideas for how to do that.
One of my favourites, from the Reid Foundation If it aint broken, don't fix it - Robin McAlpine
A description of Scottish Green's Citizen's Income
* A Citizen’s Income is a new way of providing social security.
* A Citizen's Income would sweep away almost all benefits and the state pension and replace them with a simple regular payment to everyone – children, adults and pensioners.
* This income should be enough to meet the basic needs of everyone.
* This unconditional payment to everyone would be cheaper to run and do away with the incredible complexity of the current system.
* Because everyone receives the Citizen’s Income it removes the stigma of benefits and promotes solidarity between people. It would make that familiar soundbite “We’re all in it together” finally mean something.
The Common Weal is a vision of what Scotland can be if it rejects the failed Me-First politics that left us all in second place and instead builds a politics that puts 
All of us First.
== Closing comments ==
The UK is crippled by £1.4 trillion of debt. Let us not forget where this debt came from. This is a total debt which Scotland didn't run up; it came from wars we didn't agree with, from bailouts we didn't agree to, from overspending in London by London only for London's benefit. We pay over £750 per person per year just on the interest of this debt and we collectively pay £127 per second. The debt keeps getting bigger whether Scotland manages her finances or not. In 2011, Scotland was the 8th richest country in the industrialized world while the UK was 16th, meanwhile, Glasgow North East currently has 43% of children below the poverty line while Westminster spends £1.4 million per year on champagne.
It's about democracy. It's about being heard. It's about being treated fairly. It's about using our resources to fix our problems that Westminster created. It's about not getting exploited; exploited by over-entitled-Etonians that think nothing of having taxpayers pay their £100k in mortgage payments to later flip properties for £550k profit. Or claiming £45k in fraudulent expenses then keep their job while someone fraudulent claiming benefits can do 10 years in jail. Yes, 10 years. It's about not having to watch them pump gambling money into a ridiculously corrupt financial casino that their buddies run while pensioners watch their savings vanish as they only earn 1% interest. I'm done with listening to Tory MPs vilify the poor as scroungers. Do I think Scotland will be corruption free? No. I do however have faith that Scots will vote in people that are for the people. I do think any ivory towers will be easier to tear down. I do think our parliament is much more transparent. And I like that they're close enough to punch.
This is a war of influence and manipulation - psychological coercion. Fear is their only tool. Do not let their scare tactics influence your opinion. Ask yourself if you believe the Tories care about Scotland. Ask yourself why they are warning you of "economic threats" while they would have zero liability. They have proven time and time again they do not care about Scotland. There is no impartiality here, there is only London trying to take care of London and using fear to solidify their position. They care about the billions of extra revenue they milk from Scotland every year. London want to win for London by any means. They give credence to the stupidest arguments; ink and time is only given to those who provide threats in support of their manipulation, to those who cast doubts in their favour. Their propaganda only demonstrates their intolerance of democracy. Their bias is London and always will be London. At what point have you felt that Westminster has been sincere in the past? You are being lied to, you are being misled and they are undermining democracy by trying to shape your opinions with their lies. England is fucked because of London. Scotland cannot change England, there are only enough of us to change ourselves, and we cannot do that without independence.