The Independence Debate

Wasn't very impressed by last night's shouting match.


The problem the no campaign has is that it is for the status quo. The problem is is that it is easy to argue against the status quo because you know what it is. 7 percent of the people own 84 percent of the land. Unemployment. Average life expectancy in Glasgow Calton 65 amongst men.Poor levels of social housing. Child poverty. Food banks. A disconnect between people and politics. And so it goes on.

Then when the Yes campaign comes along and promises the best educated populace in the world, and end to poverty, redistribution of land, a golden ecomomic era, it all seems wonderful.

I doubt there is a single person in politics who doesn't want to end Child Poverty. Who wouldn't? But the problem with politics is that solutions are not easy. Ask Obama. He's the most powerful man in the world, and yet he has been stymied time and again by Congress or public pressure. "Yes we can'" has turned into "With a lot of horse trading, we can get a fraction of what we wanted through, and the result is perhaps marginally better if you look at it through rose colour glasses."

The Nationalists want to increase borrowing to buy our way out of austerity, and this seems to me to be typical of the "you can have it all" philosophy of the yes campaign. Increased public borrowing (and possibly higher interest rates in an Independent Scotland) is really not a good idea. If you are in debt as a household, do you go out and buy a new car? No. It's simple, and for the UK too....we must live within our means, even if that means we don't have such good services as before, or the latest weapons and the best roads. Maybe we have to accept that we aren't as rich as we once were. Independence isn't a solution to this problem.

Be careful about people who promise the world; I doubt they would be able to deliver Scotland.