Why are you voting No?

[ducati]

Trying to distill all my reasons. I think overall, if you want to leave the UK, the best place in the world to live in my opinion, you'd better have a very good reason. I haven't heard one yet.

[orkneycadian]

I will be voting no, as it appears that the government we would be voting in if we voted yes, would complete their transition into a dictatorship, who persistently ignore the wishes of the population, and for whom, consultations are nothing more than a "tick in a box" to say "We consulted before we did anything".

The Yes camp are starting to have scarily similar aspirations to the pro-Russian factions in Eastern Europe.

[Oddquine]

I will be voting no, as it appears that the government we would be voting in if we voted yes, would complete their transition into a dictatorship, who persistently ignore the wishes of the population, and for whom, consultations are nothing more than a "tick in a box" to say "We consulted before we did anything".

The Yes camp are starting to have scarily similar aspirations to the pro-Russian factions in Eastern Europe.

The referendum is not voting in a Government! Sheesh! The Government has already been voted in and will be the Government until May 2016. In May 2016, then we will vote in a Government to be the first Government of iScotland. And if that Government happens to be majority SNP....then that would be because we voted for it..just as we did in 2011.

You know, you are starting to sound a lot like a Daily Fail/Torygraph/BBC etc "journalist" or a Unionist politician most of the time now.....as in if you can't say anything factual in support of the Union, just make crap up, no matter how ridiculous.

[orkneycadian]

The referendum is not voting in a Government! Sheesh! The Government has already been voted in and will be the Government until May 2016. In May 2016, then we will vote in a Government to be the first Government of iScotland. And if that Government happens to be majority SNP....then that would be because we voted for it..just as we did in 2011.

You know, you are starting to sound a lot like a Daily Fail/Torygraph/BBC etc "journalist" or a Unionist politician most of the time now.....as in if you can't say anything factual in support of the Union, just make crap up, no matter how ridiculous.

Er, isn't this supposed to be the "Why are you voting No" thread? Where its all about No reasons? No Yes rhetoric allowed, like no No rhetoric was allowed in the "Whay are you voting Yes" thread?

[badger]

I will be voting no, as it appears that the government we would be voting in if we voted yes, would complete their transition into a dictatorship, who persistently ignore the wishes of the population, and for whom, consultations are nothing more than a "tick in a box" to say "We consulted before we did anything".

The Yes camp are starting to have scarily similar aspirations to the pro-Russian factions in Eastern Europe.

Quite agree. Worst thing that happened to Scotland was when it virtually became a one party state giving its First Minister far too much power. I'm not keen on Westminster but at least they have a decent sized opposition. Scotland has none and a Yes vote in September will end in this being a dictatorship. We've all seen what happens in other countries where one man thinks he can do what he likes. All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Besides we don't know what we're voting for with Yes - too many questions unanswered or will only be answered too late. Once done, there's no going back.

[orkneycadian]

And this seems to be what the Yes camp are pinning our hopes on....

[ducati]

I'm voting no because, some say, Alex Salmond is an Alien, he hopes to infiltrate Europe and gain clear skys over Bonnybridge.

[orkneycadian]

To us up here in the north, the Central Belt orientated line up in the SNP is indeed quite alien. To them, Orkney and Shetland is probably merely "that place where the oil comes from"

[The Flea]

Because first and foremost I am proud to be from the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland and I wish to remain that way.
Secondly there are far too many questions that have remained unanswered and potential problems that remain unresolved.
Thirdly I believe the fatman is on a power trip and to hell with the repercussions.
.

Nothing to do with being a Rangers fan then lol.

[mi16]

Nothing to do with being a Rangers fan then lol.

What on earth does football have to do with the referendum?

[The Flea]

Thats a very good question.....watp

[mi16]

Thats a very good question.....watp

You will need to be a bit less cryptic here buddy.I do not see how the team a person follows has any influence what so ever on their political viewpoint.Can you please explain in more detail?

[sam09]

I will be voting no, as it appears that the government we would be voting in if we voted yes, would complete their transition into a dictatorship, who persistently ignore the wishes of the population, and for whom, consultations are nothing more than a "tick in a box" to say "We consulted before we did anything".

The Yes camp are starting to have scarily similar aspirations to the pro-Russian factions in Eastern Europe.

Something like Westminster then?

[squidge]

The first ever community owned tidal power turbine in the world has started exporting electricity to the grid. I think that's truly exciting and it's happened in Shetland. Here is the link to read about it. http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Wor...cheme-cac.aspx

[rob murray]

Something interesting / factual reasons to question the yessers :

A striking statistic is that men in the Shettleston area of Glasgow have a life expectancy of 68, while their counterparts in Lenzie, eight miles away, can expect to be on this earth for 82 years.
So everyone knows about life expectancy as a symptom of massive inequalities within Scotland which cry out to be addressed. We do not need to look beyond our borders. Poverty lives cheek by jowl with plenty, all within our own small nation, our own cities, our own towns. Eight miles and 14 years of life apart.

That should be a central challenge for any Scottish Government worthy of the name, using the many levers at their disposal. It goes to the root of questions about whether finite resources are being used to attack such inequalities – which, patently, they are not – or to sustain and indeed widen them.
But then fast-forward to last week’s ludicrous proposal from Shona Robison, on behalf of the SNP administration, that Scottish pensioners should be paid earlier than English ones because “we” die younger.

The geographic comparison which Ms Robison selected was not between Shettleston and Lenzie. Instead, it was between “some areas of Glasgow” and Harrow, which is a posh-sounding place in the south of England; a place for which, unlike Shettleston and Lenzie, Ms Robison and the Scottish Government have absolutely no responsibility.

And therein lies the kernel of why Nationalism is such an unpleasant and deceptive creed. To recognise the inequalities within Scotland involves both challenge and responsibility. In contrast, pretending that the difference which matters is between the poorest places in Scotland and the richest places in England is a grotesque caricature, intended to encourage prejudice and gross misunderstanding. And also, of course, to evade responsibility.

The weird demand for pension-age differentials comes out of the same political dung-heap. Are rich Scots to benefit from this distinction along with poor ones? Is a factory worker in Liverpool to qualify for her pension later than Ann Gloag or the Weirs? Or is it all just ill-considered rubbish designed, like so much else, to drive wedges and resentments on the basis of identity?

Comments invited !!

[orkneycadian]

A striking statistic is that men in the Shettleston area of Glasgow have a life expectancy of 68, while their counterparts in Lenzie, eight miles away, can expect to be on this earth for 82 years.
So everyone knows about life expectancy as a symptom of massive inequalities within Scotland which cry out to be addressed. We do not need to look beyond our borders. Poverty lives cheek by jowl with plenty, all within our own small nation, our own cities, our own towns. Eight miles and 14 years of life apart.

According to Wikipedia, the reason for Shettleston having a falling life expectancy is "poor diets and remarkably high smoking rates"

Now, I don't see why the rest of the country, Scotland or UK, should take the blame for people choosing to live on a diet of chips, pizzas, kebabs and deep fried mars bars rather than exercising some home economics and rustling up something altogether more nutritious. Similarly, if people can afford the luxury hobby of smoking, then they should really have the funds to cover it. Smoking is not an essential to life. That it cuts it short is somewhat ironic.

[squidge]

Health inequalities are shocking.

It's not just central belt stuff though - check out life expectancy in South Kessock compared to Milton of Leys or Pulteneytown compared to Areas of Thurso. It's important to note that health inequalities are not only an NHS issue. That social issues like poverty, poor education, poor housing, unemployment, are the drivers that lead to huge health inequalities.

Rob suggests that the Scottish Gov has not done anything or enough to tackle these. Well off the top of my head they have introduced measures to reduce the effect of some of the welfare reforms, the reduction in council tax benefit, the bedroom tax - a significant amount of the limited money the Scottish Government is allocated has gone to reduce the effect of these "reforms". They have introduced free prescriptions, they have increased support for carers, the Scottish Welfare Fund, the Community Jobs Fund, the initiatives to improve breast feeding, the early years workers and so on and so on. They are doing more than many of us would think to tackle the underlying issues which lead to health inequalities.

Why are we not seeing massive improvements then. Well that is because the most important powers required to reduce health inequality in any society is control over welfare, taxation and spending priorities. Scotland can only do what it can with the money it is GIVEN. Not the money it raises, not the money WE earn, the money that we are given to spend on the bits that we can. Scotland, whilst it can do what it can is not able to change things FUNDAMENTALLY because we do not have the power to do so. The power to change welfare policy, to raise and spend our own taxes. To slag off the Scottish Government for failing to address health inequalities ignores this and makes no sense. Only a YES vote will give Scotland the power to tackle this issue.


The pension age thing is a different issue - this policy is not about health inequalities. Nor is the comparison Rob has taken such exception to, about ethnic agitation.

Firstly for anyone to get up tight because the Scottish Government discusses life expectancy when developing pension policy is a bit naive. Your life insurers and your own pension providers make a judgement about how long people live when developing their policies. That's normal actuarial practice.

The issue with pension age is that Scotland does not have the power to design or develop it's own pension policy just now. And so we have the Westminster policy being implemented which is to raise the pension age because people are living longer. And so they are - in Harrow! People in the rest of the UK ARE living longer but here in Scotland we are not. Scotland has no need for this policy because the issues which affect harrow, or jarrow for that matter are not affecting Scotland and Yet we cannot say, actually we don't need this policy because we don't have this issue. Just like the bedroom tax was designed to address issues around housing in London and South East or the immigration policy is designed to address issues in the rest of the UK, the pension age rise ignores what Scotland needs or doesn't need. The comparison was not some narrow nationalist racist claptrap but a comparison which clearly indicates the need for Scotland to be able to design policies which meet our own needs and address our own problems. Only a YES vote gives Scotland that power.

Rob clearly is angry about health inequalities and the lack of improvements in this area and yet he doesn't want to vote for the powers to change things. I don't get that. If we want changes in Scotland, in the UK, in the world then we have to take the opportunities offered to us.

Be the change you want to see in the world someone said - independence gives us the chance to do exactly that.

[Southern-Gal]

I will vote no because when I emailed the yes gang about my concerns I got a reply promising me the good life then before the email was done they stated that it could change as nothing is finalised yet or something similar. If they cant even decide what will be their policy and have to warn me that they still dont have much idea of how it will pan out for mr then how can I trust anything they say at all?

[Bobinovich]

I will vote no because when I emailed the yes gang about my concerns I got a reply promising me the good life then before the email was done they stated that it could change as nothing is finalised yet or something similar. If they cant even decide what will be their policy and have to warn me that they still dont have much idea of how it will pan out for mr then how can I trust anything they say at all?

You do understand that they can only sell you a vision, as nothing is written in stone yet. Don't forget that while the SNP may be in government, they have said that post-Yes negotiations to determine the future of Scotland will be cross-party - therefore some of what the SNP would like to introduce into a Scottish Constitution might be countered by other parties during said negotiations. We can only hope that the parties involved will agree to do what is best for ALL of Scotland - but at least it will be decided by people voted for within this country!

[squidge]

Southern - Gal did you email the Better Together gang to ask them exactly the same question?