http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/poll-tracker
No 50%
Yes 45%
Don't know 6%
http://twizz.co.uk/scottish-independence-pros-and-cons
Popular 'For' Arguments
•
Many laws which are enforced in Scotland are decided and passed in England, and are
intended primarily for England without much consideration for the Scottish people. For example, the
winter allowance for pensioners in Scotland is the same as it is in England, despite the much colder
and harsher climates which exist in Scotland.
•
Scotland would have a much stronger economy. Scotland owns huge shares in oil, which we
wouldn't have to split if we became independent.
•
Britain is arguably founded on extremely undemocratic ideologies.
•
For example, 26 seats in the House of Lords (a senior committee which amends and passes
laws) are taken up by bishops purely because they're members of the Church of England.
•
The Scottish parliament has a much more democratic system, which does not reserve places
for church members and uses a proportional electoral system for appointing members of
parliament.
•
Becoming independent would therefore arguably be a step for democracy.
•
In becoming independent, we'd need to integrate ourselves more heavily with Europe.
•
There are plans by independence parties here to set up ties with Nordic countries such as
Norway and Denmark.
•
Adopting a Nordic political model would arguably be more beneficial for Scotland, which
traditionally and politically has more in common with Nordic countries than wit Scotland is currently
heading in a different political direction from the rest of the UK.
•
Scotland is represented to the world by the Conservative party which we have rejected for
years.
Popular 'Against' Arguments
•
Unity is strength: in its unity with the UK, Scotland is part of a very powerful, rich and
influential state. Becoming independent would arguably significantly decrease Scotland's global
presence and influence.
•
Scotland's continued membership of the EU is not clear, as the European Commission has
not been asked by the UK Government for a clear response.
•
Experts and politicians have disagreed on whether or not Scotland's status as an EU member
state could be established before Scotland becomes independent.
•
The terms of this continued membership are also not guaranteed There has been
speculation over how Scotland will survive if we no longer have access to the British "money pot".
•
Many people say that going independent is an extremely large economic gamble, especially
in times of recession and rising unemployment.
•
for.
Britain owes some very large debts to foreign countries, which Scotland is partly responsible
•
In becoming independent we'd have to negotiate which debts we should pay off, and how
much we're singularly responsible for.
•
We have so many ties with the rest of Britain that this would be a very tedious process that
would take several years.
•
Scotland will have a smaller voice on the world stage if independent.
Research findings
•
There were 2,001,926 votes for No to 1,617,989 votes for Yes
•
A national referendum was held in Scotland on 18 September 2014. Voters were asked to
answer either "Yes" or "No" to the question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" During
the week prior to the election, there were heated debates about the consequences of a "yes" vote
for Scotland's economy, military, finances, currency, government pensions, its share of UK debt,
question of passports/citizenship, whether the Queen would be retained as Head of State, and its
relations with NATO, The Commonwealth of Nations, the United Nations, and the European Union.
The "No" option won, achieving 55.3% of votes, compared to the "Yes" proportion of 44.7%, from a
voter participation rate of 84.5%
Better Together was the principal organization that represented parties, organisations, and
individuals campaigning for a No vote in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. It was
established in 2012 with support of the three main unionist political parties in Scotland: Scottish
Labour, the Scottish Conservative Party, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The principal
organization campaigning for a Yes vote was Yes Scotland.
Yes Scotland was the organisation representing the parties, organisations, and individuals
campaigning for a Yes vote in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. It was launched in
Edinburgh on 25 May 2012.
Yes Scotland's chief executive is Blair Jenkins, and Dennis Canavan is the chair of its advisory board.
Stephen Noon, a long term employee and policy writer of the SNP, is Yes Scotland's chief strategist.
Its principal opponent in the independence campaign is known as Better Together. Yes Scotland
claims to be "Scotland's largest ever grassroots political campaign"
For six months, Alex Salmond seemed to be heading for a heavy defeat. Successive YouGov polls on
Scotland’s coming referendum showed the ‘no’ vote leading ‘yes’ by at least 16 points. Our last poll,
in mid-August, reported the narrowest lead yet, but still a substantial 14 points. In the past fortnight,
that has collapsed to just six points, with ‘no’ leading ‘yes’ by just 53-47%. A close finish looks likely,
and a ‘yes’ victory is now a real possibility
Support for Scottish independence jumps to 47%
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/02/support-scottish-independence-jumps-47/
aim4,1. 'Better off together'
The pro-union ‘Better Together’ campaign highlighted Scotland’s shared historical ties with its
English, Welsh and Northern Irish neighbors. The referendum has thrown up soul-searching
questions of what it means to be British. The allure of these shared historical bonds no doubt
swayed some voters to reject independence.
2. Fear
Many Scots were afraid of how an independent Scotland might change their day-to-day lives. While
the ‘Yes’ camp’s case for independence attracted millions of voters, the task of building a workable,
independent nation proved too daunting for many.
The ‘No’ campaign’s slogan ‘Why take the risk?’ no doubt played a part in fostering this view. ‘Yes’
campaigners say ‘project fear’ was a concerted effort by the British establishment to stave off a split.
Yes’ supporters argued that other countries with the same population or landmass as Scotland have
thrived following independence, citing countries that use the 'Scandinavian model'.
With just over 5 million people spread over a large land mass, however, it appears some voters felt
Scotland would not constitute a viable independent state.
3. Status quo
Despite ‘Yes’ camp claims that independence would create more jobs, protect the National Health
Service, alleviate poverty and protect public services, many felt that during a time of financial
instability, keeping the status quo was the safest bet.
This includes the question of currency. First Minister Alex Salmond argued for a currency union with
the UK and the continued use of the pound. The main Westminster parties overruled this option,
leaving Scotland a choice between a new Scottish currency, or adopting the troubled euro.
Uncertainty over Scottish tender will have endeared many to the status quo.
4. Prestige & pride
Once independent, the ‘Yes’ camp had wished to seek Scottish membership of the European Union.
However, the EU is a divisive issue in the UK. Some argued, including UKIP leader Nigel Farage, that
an independent Scotland could break ties with Westminster, only to find its freedom curtailed by
Brussels.
Supporters of the EU may also have had their membership dreams dashed, as key European leaders,
including the Spanish prime minister, suggested they would block Scotland’s entry. Beyond Europe,
Scotland also benefits from a seat at the G7 and on the UN Security Council by virtue of being a part
of the UK. Splitting from the union could result in Scotland lacking a global voice.
A fear of isolation may have swung some voters to a ‘No’.
5. More powers from Westminster
One option not featured on the ballot paper was ‘devo-max’, which would offer a slew of new
devolved powers to the Scottish parliament. As a last-minute offer to rescue the union, the leaders
of the UK’s three biggest parties signed a pledge to give Scotland fully devolved powers over taxes,
spending and welfare. Whether Westminster will stick to this pledge is unclear, but the offer appears
to have swung those who initially thought such powers could only be secured under independence.
. Support for Westminster parties
Of course, a section of ‘No’ voters do support the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats –
the UK’s three main political parties. No doubt there are many among the ‘No’ ranks who genuinely
believe Scotland can get the best political representation under a Westminster government. Alex
Salmond and the Scottish National Party court mistrust among sections of Scottish society.
7. It's the economy, stupid!
The UK government pushed the message that Scots would be financially worse off after
independence. ‘No’ campaigners said Scotland could secure its future by sharing in the common
resources of the UK. Again, a fear of going it alone without a share of the wealth will have swayed
some ‘No’ voters.
The ‘Yes’ campaign has said from the very beginning that the social democracy they envisage for
Scotland could be underwritten by the vast oil reserves in the North Sea’s Scottish territories. Many
‘No’ voters were unconvinced by this analysis, sensing the oil would not last forever, and that
alternative sources of revenue, including higher taxation, could haunt them later down the line.
8. Defense & nuclear weapons
The Scottish government had pledged to remove the UK’s trident nuclear weapons from its shores if
it secured independence. It had wished to spend most of its defense budget on health, education
and other public services.
However, defense experts warned throughout the campaign that heightened tensions with Russia
and the threat of global terrorism made the UK’s defense spending and nuclear weapons more
relevant and necessary than ever. Disarmament also undermined Alex Salmond’s case for joining
NATO.
For some voters, the need for unified security in a threatening world will have won out over the
desire to remove expensive, and for many unethical, nuclear weapons
http://www.rt.com/uk/188952-why-scotlandvote-no/