I wouldn't like to try and predict that to be honest; most polls have it aroud 48% vs 42% in favour of 'no' with 10% 'undecided' but with a high turn out expected (I recall 97% being thrown around as a number!) this could be on a knife edge.

As someone in twitter said, if the result is 50.1% yes vs 49.9% no is that really enough of a mandate to go forward? Surely something like this needs a larger majority? (And the cynic in me says if the 'yes' vote loses by a couple of percent the SNP will demand to ask again soon, and if it wins by the same margin they will declare 'Scotland has spoken!').

The only thing for sure is that a big rift is about to be caused in Scotland regardless of the outcome.

As a non-resident in England I don't particularly care for a particular result. If I lived in Scotland, I'd probably vote no, but who can say. The strongest argument seems to be political - especially if people are fed up of the three main parties that dominate the House of Commons. But it's unclear to me that Scotland's politics would be any better. One question would be if I felt that local people and politicians were closer to my views than nationally. For example, I think that's probably true for the city I live in, though not for the county. I have no idea what it would be if I lived in Scotland.

On all the other issues though, such as economy, I'd be worried about a yes.

An interesting consequence for the rest of the UK would be the 2015 General Election - the argument that even with a Yes vote, independence won't have been achieved by then. Which leads to the problem of whether you have Scottish voters and Scottish politicians in the 2015 election, and whether kicking them out afterwards means another General Election.

The final thing which annoys me about the process however is the requirement to be able to vote; if you are a Scot living in England you have no say. You'll be granted Scottish nationality if independency occurs, but because you've moved across the border you have no voice. While I appreciate that you could argue for some restrictions (the children born in England of parents both from Scotland not being allowed for example) but the fact that people who might have only moved for work a couple of years ago have no voice is just wrong imo.

(I'm also not convinced about extending the vote to those aged 16 and 17; while I'm sure some will understand the issues comments I've heard about 'voting yes because they have a more positive message' speak volumes of the problem with engaging people of that age - hell, at 16 I wasn't in a good state of mind to vote but if I had at least I would have had better reasons than that.)

The only thing for certain, based on the polls, is that after Thursday there is going to be an almost 50/50 rift in Scotland between those who won and those who lost, regardless of the outcome, and that alone will cause a great deal of harm.

On the other hand, if I was someone living in Scotland who really didn't want independence, I'd be annoyed if the Yes vote was propped up by lots of people born in Scotland voting Yes for nationalistic reasons, but not living there, and not having to live with the consenquences (admittedly I don't know if Scots living elsewhere would be more likely to vote Yes or No, but I can see good reasons that they shouldn't be able to vote). Wikipedia gives another reason "In January 2012, Elaine Murray MSP of Labour led a debate arguing that the franchise should be extended to Scots living outside Scotland, including the approximately 800,000 living in the other parts of the UK.[42] This was opposed by the Scottish government, which argued that it would greatly increase the complexity of the referendum and stated that there was evidence from the United Nations Human Rights Committee that other nations "might question the legitimacy of a referendum if the franchise is not territorial"."

Your example of a poor argument from 16 year olds apply to people of any age - on any political issue, I've seen arguments along those kinds of lines, for all ages.

This isn't just an issue for the next 4-5 years, it's an issue that will affect the rest of their lives, so I can see an argument for including them. Another reason though is that a voting age of 16 is SNP policy for all elections, so it seems more consistent to allow them a say before independence might happen.

Interesting views.

I tend to prefer the status quo since it means no additional burdens on anyone, but think if a large enough majority (perhaps 2/3 rather than 50.1%) want it, that it should be a multi-year process of transition. Separating out a nation would be an enormous undertaking. In addition to re-forming a government there will be thousands of treaties and international agreements, large bodies of rules and regulations to update, regional contracts and legal disputes as contracts and services get redistributed, and otherwise an enormous amount of work.

Peaceful subdivisions of power is a fairly rare thing. Usually it involves civil/revolutionary wars. If the groups want it and both sides are willing to let it happen peacefully, that's a good thing.

I think the movement toward separation is something we'll see more of in the future as populations increase. Many regions have a local economic levels that exceed those of smaller nations. A few generations ago everything was about consolidation; larger groups could be better defended against border skirmishes. Larger nations could accomplish better social programs. Larger nations could more effectively build large projects. Now that those disputes are pretty rare and regions are individually more economically sound than they were 150+ years ago, I can understand a desire to break things apart again. It may mean a return to some of the border disputes, a return to some of the less effective regional problems, but only time will tell.

I wouldn't like to try and predict that to be honest; most polls have it aroud 48% vs 42% in favour of 'no' with 10% 'undecided' but with a high turn out expected (I recall 97% being thrown around as a number!) this could be on a knife edge.

As someone in twitter said, if the result is 50.1% yes vs 49.9% no is that really enough of a mandate to go forward? Surely something like this needs a larger majority? (And the cynic in me says if the 'yes' vote loses by a couple of percent the SNP will demand to ask again soon, and if it wins by the same margin they will declare 'Scotland has spoken!').

The only thing for sure is that a big rift is about to be caused in Scotland regardless of the outcome.

Alex salmond implied (as he didn't really answer the GOD DAMN QUESTION (sorry) ) to ___ Neil on the BBC that the majority would be the B-All and end all. however reading between the lines allows me to believe there will be a revote if it is too close

This video os ex PM on Scottish independence. Kinda wish he was like this time when he defaulted into number 10. He was once know as the clunking fist of politics, this video shows that. Its a pretty powerful speech, make me wonder what the polls would say if the Big 3 had been like this for the last year

but think if a large enough majority (perhaps 2/3 rather than 50.1%) want it, that it should be a multi-year process of transition. Separating out a nation would be an enormous undertaking. In addition to re-forming a government there will be thousands of treaties and international agreements, large bodies of rules and regulations to update, regional contracts and legal disputes as contracts and services get redistributed, and otherwise an enormous amount of work.

It was always going to be a multi-year process, as you rightly point out separating from the UK alone is going to be a large undertaking (and as pointed out above brings up interesting questions for the 2015 General Election as it won't by done by next May) and I'd be surprised if Scotland was officially a recognised independent state before 2018 at the absolute earliest.

It'll be interesting, in the event of a 'yes', to see how negations for Scotland are handled; officially she won't be a country until she is separated from the UK which legally prevents discussions re:EU membership but I suspect other countries might be willing to discuss trade deals sooner than that (although not until things like debt, currency and the like are sorted I'm sure) but many things will hinge on them simply not being a country for some time.

I can see this rumbling on towards 2020 with some ease if I'm honest.

As for the split, well as we all know, the wonderful thing about democracy is that you only need to win, doesn't matter how much by. I suspect the 'no' campaign would have loved a minimal threshold like that but that's just now how things work.

The peaceful nature is interesting but I suspect is a direct consequence of how The Union came about; unlike other areas the UK controlled the England-Scotland Union wasn't one of conquest so doesn't have same dynamic as the other independency situations we have been in (such as India and the like).

I'm not in Scotland. While under extremely different circumstances, I think it turned out relatively well for Ireland in the long run - our countries have broadly similar population sizes and, I'd wildly guesstimate, Ireland probably has less valuable natural resources than the Scottish have.

I think they should go independent. I don't think it is going to be easy. It is quite conceivable that Scotland will go through an extended rough economic / political patch, but ultimately I think they would be better off in the long run. I think the classic democratic representation model definitely doesn't scale well, so lots of smaller units make sense to me.

That said, they are likely to try and join the E.U., and unless some states with their own separatist groups actually do block them, they're still going to be back under a even larger scale form of power consolidation. While up until now I think the E.U. has been mostly a positive influence, but there are some worrying trends.

I'm not in Scotland. While under extremely different circumstances, I think it turned out relatively well for Ireland in the long run - our countries have broadly similar population sizes and, I'd wildly guesstimate, Ireland probably has less valuable natural resources than the Scottish have.

I think they should go independent. I don't think it is going to be easy. It is quite conceivable that Scotland will go through an extended rough economic / political patch, but ultimately I think they would be better off in the long run. I think the classic democratic representation model definitely doesn't scale well, so lots of smaller units make sense to me.

That said, they are likely to try and join the E.U., and unless some states with their own separatist groups actually do block them, they're still going to be back under a even larger scale form of power consolidation. While up until now I think the E.U. has been mostly a positive influence, but there are some worrying trends.

Well, I believe that is partly true, their banks did crash a few years ago.

And about the E.U. they have been told (albeit 6 years ago) they would not be able to join. Also, it is worth noting that France, Spain, Italy and Belgium will most likely try and block them from entering. This is because they have regions that want separations. I have a lot of Catalonian friends (region of spain that wants separation) they all blindly support separation for Scotland without listening to why Scots want it. The reason being is they will get to vote (on whether they will get a vote), in December, and if scots get independence and get into the EU, it will provide a huge boost to the 'Si Si' campaign if they do get in.

**on a side note, It is kinda ironic how my friend from spain want independence, if they don't get into the EU it will most likely hit it hard spains economy hard, as fishing is a major part of it. Scottish waters is about 40% of EU waters for fishing

I'm not in Scotland. While under extremely different circumstances, I think it turned out relatively well for Ireland in the long run - our countries have broadly similar population sizes and, I'd wildly guesstimate, Ireland probably has less valuable natural resources than the Scottish have.

I think they should go independent. I don't think it is going to be easy. It is quite conceivable that Scotland will go through an extended rough economic / political patch, but ultimately I think they would be better off in the long run. I think the classic democratic representation model definitely doesn't scale well, so lots of smaller units make sense to me.

That said, they are likely to try and join the E.U., and unless some states with their own separatist groups actually do block them, they're still going to be back under a even larger scale form of power consolidation. While up until now I think the E.U. has been mostly a positive influence, but there are some worrying trends.

Well, I believe that is partly true, their banks did crash a few years ago.

And about the E.U. they have been told (albeit 6 years ago) they would not be able to join. Also, it is worth noting that France, Spain, Italy and Belgium will most likely try and block them from entering. This is because they have regions that want separations. I have a lot of Catalonian friends (region of spain that wants separation) they all blindly support separation for Scotland without listening to why Scots want it. The reason being is they will get to vote (on whether they will get a vote), in December, and if scots get independence and get into the EU, it will provide a huge boost to the 'Si Si' campaign if they do get in.

**on a side note, It is kinda ironic how my friend from spain want independence, if they don't get into the EU it will most likely hit it hard spains economy hard, as fishing is a major part of it. Scottish waters is about 40% of EU waters for fishing

I don't see Scotland being blocked from the EU but I can see those countries making it a long drawn out process before accepting Scotland in order to give doubt to the hopes of their own separatists (if we split can we survive 5 or so years of non-EU membership?).

I don't see Scotland being blocked from the EU but I can see those countries making it a long drawn out process before accepting Scotland in order to give doubt to the hopes of their own separatists (if we split can we survive 5 or so years of non-EU membership?).

You're most likely correct. But that brings up a lot of other questions, What the hell to use as a currency? A currency wont happen* imo. That leaves what? Most likely the panama model? Which is why most likely why the banks are moving HQ's to UK (that way they can be bailed out if they go belly up). Then after those 5 years Good luck with the euro, which the majority of people don't want, but you guys wont have a choice. :/