DoofersDad

I have voted Yes and of course I will accept the result if, as I anticipate, the No side win. I believe it's called democracy......How dare you suggest those of us desiring and campaigning for independence are undemocratic. If Scotland becomes independent it will have done so without a single drop of blood being shed and purely through the ballot box. No matter which side you are on we are all the richer already for that. To expand on my earlier post, this poll has been unique in that what we are voting either for or against was unilaterally and radically changed by one of the sides in the course of the campaign. At the outset the Scottish Government wanted a three option referendum with Independence 'Devo Max and Status Quo as the options. It was recognised by all sides that while there would be many in favour of Independence and a good number wanting the retain the Status Quo that the greatest number would probably choose the middle course. Nevertheless, the UK government who retain full control over constitutional matters as they do over most things of ultimate importance, vetoed that option leaving voters with two choices either outright Independence or the Status Quo. They did so because they had no wish or intention to devolve substantial and meaningful additional powers and because on the basis of the polls at the time they were confident that the Jocks would not vote for Independence. It was only about a fortnight ago when it became clear that the Yes camp was gaining unstoppable momentum that the goalposts were changed and one side changed the rules to make it a contest between Independence and a very reluctantly conceded and nebulous 'Devo Max'. The Status Quo is now firmly off the table. For what it's worth, I think that is grossly unfair on those who would have wanted the opportunity to vote for it. It did, however, halt the bandwagon. So, to be clear, if there is a Yes vote we will have Independence and that is democracy at work and if you voted No you will just have to accept it and work together for the good of the nation. If there is a No vote and we get substantial and meaningful powers 'Devo Max' devolved within a reasonable timescale then that too is democracy at work and I and my fellow supporters of outright Independence will just have to accept it and work together with our fellow countrymen for the good of the nation. If, on the other hand, there is a No vote and Devo Max is not delivered for whatever reason that is not democracy, it is an affront to democracy all bets will be off and there will be all Hell to pay. I agree with much that you say but I think it is fair to say that if the union side has done any changing of the goal posts, this was in response to changing of goal posts by the other side first. The SNP had a mandate for a referendum following their election victory in 2011. However, their mandate was not for a three option referendum but a simple yes or no to independence. This was made clear in their manifesto which stated "A yes vote will mean Scotland becomes an independent nation". Suggesting a third option was never going to be an option that could be seriously considered and it was mischievous to even suggest it. If, as Caley100 helpfully confirms, most votes wins, we could have had independence despite a minority of those who voted voting for it. Now that really would have been an affront to democracy. The UK Government were absolutely right to insist the referendum was consistent with what the SNP had a mandate for. I must say that I am rather unhappy with this last minute vow nonsense. But what was it that caused the momentum towards "YES" in the first place? Was it the arguments for the long term case for independence? No. It was the shameless electioneering by the SNP who ran the campaign more like an election with promises of policies an SNP Government would put in place in an Independent Scotland. No matter that what was being offered would require billions of borrowing and no matter that they may not even be in power in an independent Scotland, they bought votes with bribes while crucial questions about currency and our place in Europe etc went unanswered. I agree they were two lousy campaigns. The YES campaign was disreputable and the NO campaign was incompetent. But at the end of the day, it is the voters who decide the outcome, and whilst we may not like what the politicians have said, we need to accept what the voters say, learn the lessons and move on.

At the outset the Scottish Government wanted a three option referendum with Independence 'Devo Max and Status Quo as the options. Can you clarify how a three option referendum would have worked? Would there have had to be 50% of the vote for Independence or would we have been seen to have voted for Independence if more voted for that option than for any other? I don't think I was ever aware of that aspect ever being discussed.

You've got a signed photo of Nick Robinson? How sad is that! Anyhow, I'll go for 48.3% yes and 51.7% no.

Absolutely. Good to end the campaign on a note of agreement

Speaking to one of them today who was attracted to the principle that Scotland should have control over those matters which are not currently devolved but who was very concerned over the lack of clarity over the currency and the EU in particular. He also commented on the widely differing statements about various issues and said he just didn't know who to believe. I told him to believe me - but I'm not convinced he did. I think there are still a lot like my friend and my guess is that unless they suddenly have a "eureka" moment, they will tend to vote no both because there is often a tendency to say "better the devil you know" and because they recognise that there is no turning back from a YES vote. This is possibly being reflected in the very latest polls which appear to show the "YES" surge having been stopped in its tracks with a slight reversal toward "NO". However, it is still desperately close and there is a significant margin for error in these polls. After 2 years of debate, the future of Scotland depends on how these confused souls decide to cast their votes in the next few hours. That's democracy for you!

If you have more money you'ld like to throw away, the odds are now 19/5 with Willam Hill.

If you have a postal vote, presumably the voting form is sent to the voter's registered address and therefore it might be seen as reasonable that when the form is returned it has been returned by the registered voter. If the form has been diverted and completed by someone else then the registered voter would presumably chase up the powers that be asking where their form is and the fraud would be detected. Why then, does the voter have to sign a separate form which can then clearly be separated from the voting form thereby invalidating it and denying the voter of their basic democratic right? This is quite different from what happens when you vote in person. You don't even have to present your poll card let alone provide any form of identification. There is significant potential for fraud. For instance if you know that a specific individual will not be voting you could phone a friend and get them to turn up at the appropriate polling station and say they are that person. Given that we are sent a polling card, I cannot for the life of me understand why we are not required to even present it. Presenting it together with some form of identification would take no time at all but would make fraud very difficult. In a normal election even if a result was changed due to fraud, this would only be for a single seat for a period of office and would have limited impact. But whilst I would like to think fraud was very rare, it must be the case that in a referendum where the vote is very close, even a small amount of fraud could sway the vote with major and irrevocable consequences. In a vote of this importance, we should be able to have an assurance that all votes appropriately submitted should be counted and that basic steps to eliminate fraudulant voting are in place. Without this the losers in a close result will always have a concern that the result did not actually reflect the votes cast.

I agree with this part of what you say but would argue that this surely highlights the need for ever closer cooperation and strengthening of unions rather than further fragmenting this world into more and more smaller, competing nations. We need to put aside our narrow perceptions of identity and have the courage to share and embrace a wider identity as world citizens moving forward in cooperation. I agree entirely and one of my main reasons for voting Yes is to promote ever closer cooperation with other nations and strenghthening of unions most particularly the European Union. Scotland will be an outward looking internationalist country as opposed to the increasingly insular attitude of those wielding power in the UK where the rise of the lunatics of UKIP has panicked the establishment into a referendum on leaving the EU at a time when no other sensible pragmatic nation wants to leave and many are knocking on the door to get in. Absolutely, we need to put aside our narrow perceptions of identity and have the courage to share and embrace a wider identity as world citizens moving forward in cooperation. For me, it is self evident that a government in Edinburgh would be more willing and able to do just that than one based in London dancing to the tune of Nigel Farage and pandering to the views of readers of the Daily Mail and Telegraph.. What a pleasant change to have a reasoned response to a post instead of the usual sloganising. If I understand your point correctly, I think we are agreed that we both want a Scotland that plays an active and cooperative role in international affairs for mutual benefit within the international community. You take the view that is best achieved by an Independent Scotland within the EU whilst I take the view that it is best achieved by Scotland remaining within the UK which in turn is in the EU. Both are absolutely legitimate view points but there are just too many uncertainties here to say which is right or wrong. They are simply opinions. You may be right about an independent Scotland's international outlook, but on the other hand, you may not. UKIP is a source of much criticism in the YES camp, but is that not because they cannot come to terms that a party committed to independence and for its country being in charge of its own affairs, is not supporting the Scottish case for independence? Given that a major plank of the "YES" case and the reason why so many are voting "YES" is that they want Scotland to be in control of it's own destiny, you have to wonder if the Scots will take the UKIP line and vote "NO" to the EU. The difference between UKIP and the SNP is simply that UKIP's country is the UK and the SNP's is Scotland. Salmond is the master of trying to be all things to all people. He speaks about the Scottish people having control over its own destiny and then says Scotland will play a positive internationalist role as part of the EU. But as Farage takes great pleasure in pointing out, if Scotland joins the EU it cedes much of it's control of it's own destiny to a Union whose laws have primacy. I haven't seen any convincing response to this point. If the Scottish voters vote "YES" tomorrow because they want control over their own destiny, they may well vote "No" to Scotland being in Europe. Remember that when the UK voted to go into Europe, the "YES" vote in Scotland was significantly lower than in the rest of the country. An independent Scotland being in the EU is far from guaranteed. But the UK is in the EU at the moment. And whilst support for UKIP is growing, all the 3 main parliamentary parties support the EU. That, of course, may change at the next election. If the UK government has a referendum and if the result is that the UK leaves the EU, I would consider that an extremely negative outcome. If at that time Scotland was still in the UK and the Scottish vote supported EU membership, then In my view that would be a much more constructive basis for Scotland to seek independence from the UK. Rather than the "we want control of our own destiny" nonsense we have been bombarded with over recent months, the message would be "we want Scotland to have a more active role in the international community". In that scenario, I might well be on the "YES" side!

I agree with this part of what you say but would argue that this surely highlights the need for ever closer cooperation and strengthening of unions rather than further fragmenting this world into more and more smaller, competing nations. We need to put aside our narrow perceptions of identity and have the courage to share and embrace a wider identity as world citizens moving forward in cooperation.

There are two sides to every story. From a "No" perspective I am appalled at the level of dishonesty and misinterpretation of information from the YES campaign and am appalled by what is proposed should there be a "Yes" result. Part of the shame of this referendum is that the Scottish Government cannot tell us what the currency situation will be in an Independent Scotland. Part of the shame of this referendum is that the Scottish Government has so little faith in its own economic security that it lacks the pride to adopt it's own currency as other independent nations have done. If there is a YES vote on Thursday, this is what will happen. 1) The First Minister of Scotland will formally request a currency union with the UK Government. The reason he will do this is because he expects the country he has just walked away from will bail him out when Scotland goes bankrupt trying to deliver on the promises he made in bribing the electorate to vote for independence. This, remember, is the same First Minister who a few years ago described the Pound as a millstone round Scotland's neck. He now apparently considers it a life belt. 2) The UK Government will feel that it is not appropriate that taxpayers in the rest of the UK bail out the Scots for their irresponsibility, particularly so as other British voters had no say whatsoever in whether or not the Union should be broken up. The UK Government will formally refuse the request. 3) The Scottish Government will then use the pound in any case. Such is their lack of confidence in their own economy to support a Scottish Currency, the Scottish Government will tie themselves to a currency they will have no influence over whatsoever and will be dependent on aspects of financial policy dictated by a country they were desperate to escape from. So much for having control of your own destiny. 4) In addition, the First Minister will announce that given a currency union is not going to be allowed, Scotland will not pay its share of the UK national debt. 5) Having announced that just about the first thing Scotland will do as an independent nation is to renege on a major debt, the Scottish Government will then attempt to borrow several billions of pounds in order to pay for all the goodies they have bribed a nation with. I don't know about you, but this does not sound like a great plan to me. Of course those who believe in the case for Independence and who have put a lot of effort into promoting the case will be very disappointed if the result is "NO", but whilst that disappointment should be respected by the NO camp, forgive me if we don't have too much sympathy for your situation. After a long history of union where the support for independence has been so low, to come so close to Independence in such a short space of time is quite remarkable. And if the support for independence remains after a defeat on Thursday, your opportunity will come again. Things will be very different for the NO camp if there is a YES vote. No second chances for us. There are hundreds of Thousands of Scottish voters who were born and raised in other parts of the UK. Folk like me, born in England but proud to be British and who have moved to another part of Britain. I haven't emigrated, I have simply moved to another part of the sovereign state of the UK and spent all my working life in Scotland. No doubt I would have dual nationality but I would not be living in Britain (or whatever rUK) will call itself. Despite never having emigrated, the country of my birth will be a foreign country. Exactly the same fate will hit Scots living in other parts of the UK - at least I had a vote! I can live with that but the people I feel for are those people born and bred in Scotland, fiercely proud of their Scottish heritage but who also understand the richness and benefit that partnership in a union gives and who consider themselves British first and Scottish second. I was speaking to an elderly neighbour yesterday who was really quite distressed. He was saying he was British and if Scotland was no longer a part of Britain he would be a foreigner in his own country. He told me he would go to his grave an exile in his own country. Whether the Union is broken on Thursday remains to be seen but one thing that is certain is that this referendum has divided a nation.

I put us down to score in the 6th minute as it seemed clear to me that the tactic had to be up and at 'em from the start. Very disappointing to learn it was so negative. I'm sure the club could have done with the money and confidence a cup run brings. Oh well, at least the double is still on.

He is referring to a yes vote - not 2.1 million of them.

HT 0-2 FT 1-2 ICT Doran TR Clark Time 6

Go on! Don't keep us guessing? Who are they?

Of course it's not just about the SNP. There are folk in other parties and none who support the YES campaign, and, as I have pointed out before, the next time there is a Scottish parliamentary election the electorate may well decide to put another party in power. But the SNP are the party of Government and it is their proposals for running the country after a "YES" vote that the YES campaign is constantly pushing as if this was an election and not a referendum. As the SNP are so prominent in the YES campaign, one can hardly ignore them. UKIP and the BNP are both opposed to independence but that should come as no surprise given their names. But they are not associated with the Better Together campaign, I doubt whether anyone in the BT campaign thinks that those parties stating their views is of any support to the NO camp and it is rather silly to suggest that anyone who who is opposed to independence must somehow share their views. UKIP are simply exploiting the situation for their own political ends. I have no idea what arguments the BNP may have but I suspect their prime motivation for urging a "No" vote is so that they don't lose the fees of their Scottish members.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence. But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low. Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing. It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change. Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes! We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum. In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote. I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have ). Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution. The better together camp is of the view that we are better together. That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union is better off for Scotland being in it. Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire. As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets. Uh-oh, mask slipping again. The inner Nigel. Ah, feigned ignorance following a veiled threat, a classic British move. As are most of yours, so fair play. It starts out all jolly japes and what-oh chaps, but as soon as the natives start to pipe up and dare think for themselves, the mask slips and the congenital inability to consider an alternative viewpoint kicks in. My way or the highway. Next step: the threats, in your case the "bugger off back across the border" and the UKIP/Daily Mail nonsense about the subsidized Scots and withdrawing the handouts. Thank you for being too witless or arrogant to even try to hide the classic paternalism and we-know-best attitude of the British, and for providing a timely reminder of exactly why we must and will free ourselves for good from the little Englander attitude that you so amply demonstrate. What utter nonsense! And rather unnecessarily offensive nonsense at that. Your response deserves to be completely ignored or given another shrug at most. But hey, I'll bite. "the mask slips and the congenital inability to consider an alternative viewpoint kicks in." I wonder if you are referring to me or yourself in that comment?" You have previously stated that you are in the "Independence come what may" camp which, to me suggests an unwillingness to consider an alternative viewpoint. On the other hand, as I have stated before, I came into this referendum leaning towards the "No" side but open to persuasion. I have been more than willing to consider an alternative view point - it is just that I have found that alternative viewpoint to be unconvincing. "Next step: the threats, in your case the "bugger off back across the border"." As you well know, I have made no threats. As you also well know the remark you quote specifically related to the the fact that if there is a YES vote and we become an Independent country on 24th March 2016, Scottish MPs at Westminster will have to relinquish their seats. No threat - simple statement of fact. "Thank you for being too witless or arrogant to even try to hide the classic paternalism and we-know-best attitude of the British, and for providing a timely reminder of exactly why we must and will free ourselves for good from the little Englander attitude that you so amply demonstrate." Charming! Just whose mask is it that's slipping? For your information I'll tell you why I simply posted the shrug emoticon in response to your earlier bizarre reference to the "inner Nigel". It certainly wasn't feigned ignorance! It was simply to say, "what a pointless response!" Over the last few days and weeks I have made a number of posts on a range of subjects and have tried to use facts to make reasoned arguments and to draw attention to uncertainties or apparent ambiguities in the pro-independence case. I am genuinely interested in what the YES supporters views on these issues are. Instead of engaging in constructive and reasoned debate your standard response is to make some dismissive comment or some obtuse reference to UKIP. And I thank you for that. Typical of the "Independence come what may" brigade, you want to stifle reasoned debate because you know it harms your case. It is precisely the kind of behaviour that will drive any remaining undecided votes into the "No" camp on Thursday.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence. But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low. Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing. It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change. Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes! We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum. In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote. I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have ). Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution. The better together camp is of the view that we are better together. That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union is better off for Scotland being in it. Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire. As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets. Uh-oh, mask slipping again. The inner Nigel.

Stop complaining or I'll nut you harder next time!

Personally I think that it is pretty clear we will be worse off if we trust the SNP to lead us into independence because the wish list they have been bribing the electorate with will require us to borrow billions which we will only be able to repay through a major austerity programme at a time when rUK has moved into a budget surplus and is significantly increasing public spending in a sustainable way. However, I accept you probably won't agree with that so let's leave that aside and accept what you say. Surely what you say is an argument for voting no for two good reasons. Firstly, if you are not sure whether we will be better off or not then it is better to stick with what we know. As things stand we are a prosperous and happy nation within the UK and at worst we will be no worse off than our neighbours in the UK if we vote no. If we vote YES it is possible we will do better than them but if not, we will no longer have the stability of the rest of the Union to fall back on,. Secondly, a YES vote is irrevocable. Even if we wanted to go back into the Union it would no longer be in our hands. But if we vote "no" and there continues to be significant support for independence then it is absolutely inevitable that a further referendum will follow in due course. And of course, the uncertainty of whether we will be better or worse off etc is one of the scandals of the whole referendum process. It is highly revealing that the SNP are proposing a convention to explore the detail of a written constitution for Scotland. What they propose is for all political parties and a range of interested bodies and individuals to be involved prior to drawing up a proposed constitution which would then be put to the Scottish people in a referendum. In relation to this, Alex Salmond has said that it is important that people know what they are voting for. That is really positive but it does rather beg the question that if it is appropriate to do that for the constitution, why oh why are we not doing it for the far more important question of whether or not we should be an independent nation in the first place! A "No" vote will allow us the opportunity to revisit the issue and to do so in a more mature way so that people know what they are voting for. I have no ill will at the concept of independence but I am not going to vote for it when those leading the campaign cannot answer simple questions such as what currency we would use, will we be a member of NATO, and will we be a member of the EU and if so, under what terms etc. Nor will I vote for it when there is no accepted consensus on the basic financial and other facts upon separation. The reason the SNP have not called for that kind of convention to develop terms for independence which we could vote on is easy to see - it is because they know that at the present time the electorate would not vote for independence if we had the answers to the questions they refuse to answer. But that might not always be the case. A Yes vote is for those who want independence for better or worse. A No vote is for those of us who want what is best for Scotland - and that may or may not mean an independent Scotland at some point in the future. I think there are a lot of people who in their hearts would like to see Scotland as an independent nation but know that at this time it is not in Scotland's best interests. Hopefully people will have the good sense to let their heads rule their hearts on Friday and we will be able to continue with Scotland's journey of development and progress within the Union. typical UKIP / BNP unionist drivel... eurosceptics are more harmful to Scotland than independence could ever be! ( I can bring party politics into this aswell ) Another typical cogently argued post from the YES camp. UKIP! BNP! Eurosceptic! Where do get this nonsense from? You state "eurosceptics are more harmful to Scotland than independence could ever be!" It is just as well then that the 3 major parties in the UK parliament all support Britain's membership of the EU. I appreciate it was a while ago, but when the UK voted to join the UK, 67% voted to join but for Scotland the figure was only 58%. On those figures you are more likely to remain in the EU by staying in the UK then becoming independent. Surely if the Scots are voting for independence because they want to have control of their own destiny, they are not going to vote to join the EU - a union whose laws take primacy and in which Scotland's handful of MEPs would have next to no influence.

There have been referendums on devolution but this is the first on Independence. But the point here is that there has not been one before simply because the level of support for Independence in the past has always been so low. Far from being the case that if we don't vote for Independence now we will never get another chance, I think the very fact we are having a referendum when the historical support for independence has been so low is actually quite revealing. It is actually quite extraordinary that not only are we having a referendum, we are having one which simply requires a majority of votes cast to make this major constitutional change. Compare that with the requirements common within businesses and other organisations for constitutional changes! We are also having a referendum without first having a lengthy procedure to develop a package for separation for putting to the electorate at the referendum. In these circumstances, in the event of a "No" vote and a continuing sustained level of support for independence then it is inconceivable that the UK Government would not allow a further vote. I think we have moved on a bit from William Wallace (at least we in the "No" camp have ). Following the "No" result on Thursday there will be no public execution of Alex Salmond or any other form of retribution. The better together camp is of the view that we are better together. That means that Scotland is better off in the Union and that the Union is better off for Scotland being in it. Any kind of backlash against Scotland for having dared to consider leaving the Union would be totally counter-productive as it would only serve to add fuel to the nationalist fire. As for fair play - I am sure the UK Government could always introduce that and remove the extra £1200 per head public funding Scotland currently gets.

Personally I think that it is pretty clear we will be worse off if we trust the SNP to lead us into independence because the wish list they have been bribing the electorate with will require us to borrow billions which we will only be able to repay through a major austerity programme at a time when rUK has moved into a budget surplus and is significantly increasing public spending in a sustainable way. However, I accept you probably won't agree with that so let's leave that aside and accept what you say. Surely what you say is an argument for voting no for two good reasons. Firstly, if you are not sure whether we will be better off or not then it is better to stick with what we know. As things stand we are a prosperous and happy nation within the UK and at worst we will be no worse off than our neighbours in the UK if we vote no. If we vote YES it is possible we will do better than them but if not, we will no longer have the stability of the rest of the Union to fall back on,. Secondly, a YES vote is irrevocable. Even if we wanted to go back into the Union it would no longer be in our hands. But if we vote "no" and there continues to be significant support for independence then it is absolutely inevitable that a further referendum will follow in due course. And of course, the uncertainty of whether we will be better or worse off etc is one of the scandals of the whole referendum process. It is highly revealing that the SNP are proposing a convention to explore the detail of a written constitution for Scotland. What they propose is for all political parties and a range of interested bodies and individuals to be involved prior to drawing up a proposed constitution which would then be put to the Scottish people in a referendum. In relation to this, Alex Salmond has said that it is important that people know what they are voting for. That is really positive but it does rather beg the question that if it is appropriate to do that for the constitution, why oh why are we not doing it for the far more important question of whether or not we should be an independent nation in the first place! A "No" vote will allow us the opportunity to revisit the issue and to do so in a more mature way so that people know what they are voting for. I have no ill will at the concept of independence but I am not going to vote for it when those leading the campaign cannot answer simple questions such as what currency we would use, will we be a member of NATO, and will we be a member of the EU and if so, under what terms etc. Nor will I vote for it when there is no accepted consensus on the basic financial and other facts upon separation. The reason the SNP have not called for that kind of convention to develop terms for independence which we could vote on is easy to see - it is because they know that at the present time the electorate would not vote for independence if we had the answers to the questions they refuse to answer. But that might not always be the case. A Yes vote is for those who want independence for better or worse. A No vote is for those of us who want what is best for Scotland - and that may or may not mean an independent Scotland at some point in the future. I think there are a lot of people who in their hearts would like to see Scotland as an independent nation but know that at this time it is not in Scotland's best interests. Hopefully people will have the good sense to let their heads rule their hearts on Friday and we will be able to continue with Scotland's journey of development and progress within the Union.

Because Scotland is where it is as a result of 300 years of a very successful political union. The YES campaign's desperation to maintain a currency union with the UK is evidence that the leadership knows that to be true, even if they won't admit it. This is more pompous nonsense--how can anyone know where Scotland would be without the union? The suggestion is, as it has been all along, that we are not capable of looking after ourselves, when in fact we are and always have been a dynamic, entrepreneurial, hardworking nation, with a social conscience. Weren't you the guy that said the Scots MPs in Westminster should b**gger off back north? One bad poll for No and the inner UKIP quickly rose to the surface. Of course nobody can say where Scotland would be if we had never had the Union in the first place. What we can say quite clearly is that having been in the Union for over 300 years, Scotland is a prosperous country and a great place to live. What the YES campaign have manifestly failed to do is to give arguments as to why Scotland will do even better if it goes it alone. And as I have pointed out previously and as you well know, my reference to Scottish MPs heading back North was simply in the context that in the event of a "YES" vote, they will be required to do so because as from the 24th March 2016 they will no longer be entitled to sit in the Westminster Parliament. I was simply stating fact. Your rather silly remark is typical of the way the YES campaign deliberately twists and misinterprets things. I'm really not sure where your constant references to UKIP come from. They really have more in common with you lot - you both want their countries to leave a political union.

Because Scotland is where it is as a result of 300 years of a very successful political union. The YES campaign's desparation to maintain a currency union with the UK is evidence that the leadership knows that to be true, even if they won't admit it.

Not at all. What the "No" camp have consistently been saying is quite the opposite of that. The emphasis I gave to Salmond in my previous post was a reflection of that because Salmond is the First Minister who is fronting the "YES" case and he is the one who is primarily responsible for treating the referendum like an election with his bribing of the electorate with a short term plan which will require massive borrowing and throw Scotland further into debt. What the "No" camp is saying is that this is NOT an election where if your plans go pear shaped you can simply vote someone else in in 5 years time. The "NO" position is that the long term future of Scotland's economy is more secure with a continuation of the Union. The arguments are simply ignored by the YES camp who are dominated by folk who want independence come what may. The choice we have is do you want an independent Scotland or do you want what is best for Scotland? If they were one and the same then I too would be voting YES. Unfortunately, all the facts point towards us being "Better together". I know the YES camp are making a lot of noise and all that but they have completely given up any pretence of making a plausible case. Next Thursday I sincerely hope that people do remember it is a referendum and not an election and realise that if they are taken in by the lies and bribes of the YES campaign, there will be no turning back.

... due to the strength of the UK economic recovery. Salmond wants to separate Scotland from the UK economy in a political sense but doesn't have the confidence in the Scottish economy to propose a separate Scottish currency. I thought being independent was supposed to be about taking control of your own destiny. Instead he plans to shackle Scotland to the UK's economy so rUK can bail us out when it becomes clear that his bribes to the voters cannot be afforded. At the same time he wants to shackle Scotland politically to the EU and have our laws decided for us in the forlorn hope that foreign workers currently here stay and that others come in order to give the economy the kind of boost necessary to pay for his bribes. As the IFS paper on the NHS in Scotland showed, even with the extra funding Scotland currently receives, Salmond's Government is failing to protect funding to the NHS in Scotland, whilst the English NHS is receiving real increases in funding despite the greater squeeze on public funding South of the Border. No wonder Salmond avoids debating these issues. With just a few days to go before a vote which could end a 300 year union, rather than debate the issues, the First Minister of Scotland instead demands an inquiry into a leak of an RBS statement that we all knew about in any case and which Salmond himself dismisses as a mere technicality. If that isn't the pinnacle of irresponsibility I don't know what is. Yesterday Johann Lamont said "The SNP lies about our NHS have been the most shameful piece of political campaigning I have ever seen. They have deliberately misled the Scottish public, and preyed on the fears of the most vulnerable people in our communities to bully them into voting for separation. "This expert, impartial report has exposed that what Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Neil and the rest of the nationalist campaign are saying about the NHS is completely untrue. "The reality is, separation would see those with the least lose the most. It would mean huge austerity to our public services, our schools and our hospitals." That is a damning indictment of the "YES" campaign by the leader of the opposition. But instead of rising to the challenge and responding to that, he pompously demands an inquiry into a completely inconsequential leak. This is a man who knows his lies and misinformation do not stand up to scrutiny and who is desperate to keep attention diverted from the real issues for a few more days. My guess is that enough folk will have come to their senses by polling day to realise that this man is not to be trusted.