sten_super
Brain Surgeon
I agree that's it's been, in the main, a very democratic process (although the recent reports of intimidation are a bit worrying, albeit probably overblown). However it's clear that the eligibility criteria that have been agreed do very much favour the 'Yes' camp. There are reasons for some choices (e.g. it's very hard to locate Scots living in rUK) but others are clearly just about reinforcing the independence vote (e.g. allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote).
Scottish independence would have a negative impact on both Scotland and rUK, at least in the short term. If nothing else, it generates uncertainty (which markets don't like). It also creates transaction costs between Scotland and rUK that don't exist currently. The costs to Scotland are clear - they'd have to create many of the instruments of government that they don't currently have, they'd have to work out what currency they were going to use (and how, and at what cost), they'd have to work out how to fund public services without subsidies from rUK.
The issue I have with the 'Yes' campaign is that they are constantly spouting nonsense as if it is fact.. Their economic plans are a shambles and they repeatedly trot out lies (e.g. currency union). They've largely made their economic case in the same way that man-made climate change deniers make theirs - by a combination of shouting loudly, trying to make out that there is far more debate about likely outcomes than there is, and accusing the opposition of being shills. If they'd said something along the lines of 'The economic outcomes are uncertain, but there are likely to be costs to independence. However we think that's a price worth paying for increased self-determination of our futures and the long-term opportunities it would afford.' then I'd have a great deal of respect for them and wish them well at the polls (even though I still wouldn't want them to go).
