Steady Tom, the answers are coming!

Better Together: I would say 'tell me why we're better together, not why we shouldn't be independent'... because we're a pretty stubborn race and if someone keeps telling you you can't do that and you can't do this we might just say, "well, yes we can."

 

Tom Hunter demands answers from Yes and No camps

Good point. Sir Tom is an intelligent man and I am sure he is capable of doing some basic research like the rest of us. Presumably he is trying to clarify matters for the public however he should remember that Westminster are blocking asking some questions of the EU (presumably because they wouldn't like the answers).

Post independence negotiations will ultimately decide all these issues.

I don't know all the answers but my best guess would be as follows:

On Europe we will most likely be in initially (That's the view of a leading adviser to the German Government) but with the option to leave later if we wanted to. EFTA might be a better long term berth if the EU keeps moving towards further unpopular integration however.

On currency Westminster have admitted they could not stop us using the pound. George threatened Scots over the issue but the SNP have made a strong logical case for keeping it, at least in the initial period post independence.

If our economies diverge significantly post independence (as would appear entirely possible) then Scotland might wish to set up our own central bank.

This is not impossible but it is not necessary unless we find that the current British central bank does in fact attempt to interfere in Scotland's economy (as it is independent at the moment from Westminster that seems highly unlikely however we cannot entirely anticipate the actions of EWNI (or should that just be England because I doubt Wales have an interest in making things difficult for Scotland and the Ulster unionists almost always follow the English tory agenda).

Is this the image of Scotland we want to present to the world?

This cartoon was published in The Herald the day after the failed 1979 referendum for devolution. Scotland had voted narrowly in favour but Westminster pre-rigged the referendum with a 40% rule (40% of the total population had to vote in fa...vour for the measure to be passed) and so devolution was delayed for 20 years.

The Tories promised 'better devolution' if Scots voted No to Labour's plans but Mrs Thatcher soon binned that policy and we were left with no defence against her brutal destruction of Scotland's economy.

The British unionists who want you to vote NO next year are playing the same politics of fear as was tried in 1979. Ask yourself is this the lasting image of Scotland we want to present to the World?

 

Devolution has been a great success and independence would take Scotland's historic home rule journey to it's logical conclusion.

Better Together, for who?

by Joe Middleton

The British unionist campaign in the Scottish independence referendum is called Better Together but the question needs to be asked Better Together for who? There are clear advantages for England in retaining the Union and it does not surprise me when English people in Scotland like J K Rowling or Emma Thomson argue in favour of its retention.

If you see the Union Jack as equivalent to the English flag and given the dominance of the St George's Cross in the centre, who couldn't, then the flag could credibly represent England.
 

Given that ancient England was named Britannia by the Romans then Britain is also quite acceptable and indeed it backs up the English preferred view of Wales ie that it doesn't exist.

Therefore if you are English then you can be quite comfortable with either of these symbols in the knowledge that they really actually mean England.

Similarly Queen Elizabeth II of England has a certain ring to it and celebrating bashing those rebellious Scots who England regularly fought with over hundreds of years doesn't really present a problem. Similarly singing about Brittania ruling the waves doesn't really reflect on any other country apart from England a fact made quite evident by the British naval flag.

Since England has approximately 90% of Britain's MP's Westminster could legitimately be claimed to be as good as and in fact a lot better than any devolved English parliament.

Britain means retention of the Scottish Oil Fields under English political control and the use of that money in capital projects like the London Olympics, or duelling the A1 or indeed the Channel Tunnel. It also keeps the pound as a credible currency and magnifies British importance in Europe much like the Scottish fishing grounds.

The Bank of England is effectively Britain's central bank. The inclusion of Scotland and Wales's GDP keeps Britain in the G8 and these additions mean that not only does Britain have a seat in the UN they also get the added boost of being a member of the security council. Both of these places which England relies on would be at risk after Scottish independence.

All in all England gets every advantage from the Union and zero disadvantages. So a piddling amount of Scottish or Welsh MP's might vote in a different way to the English but in reality any party who gets into power in Westminster has to have huge support in England by definition.

The Trident Nuclear Deterrent means England can boss other countries around and interfere in their domestic policy while sonorously declaring that no-one else should have nuclear weapons. They are unpopular in Scotland of course but it's handy to keep them somewhere.

Retaining Britain means that England also retain control of little outposts like the Falklands or tax havens like the Channel Islands which means that the filthy rich can still work in Britain while avoiding paying any nasty tax there.

Do we want or need these? David Cameron certainly sees them as important.

Unfortunately all these additional benefits for England come at a cost. Wales and Scotland have to pretend we don't exist internationally. David Mundell (Scotland's lone Tory MP) doesn't have a problem with that but Better Together can't count him as very representative of the general viewpoint!

The truth is 'independence' for England would mean an actual reduction in power not an increase and England would have to accept that their imperial dream was finally over.

This is something that no English MP will ever countenance voluntarily (though they will be forced under international law to do so after any democratic vote for independence) which is why every London based party is 100% against Scottish independence. It is not in their national interest.

Can Alistair Darling whose ultimate loyalty to London has never been in doubt really convince the Scots who live in Scotland (and don't flip their mortgages) that they actually benefit from English control of everything?

I don't think so.