Tag Archives: “Yes Scotland”


The time is 03:20 on 16 September. In two hours my youngest daughter and I will start our journey to Scotland – she for her final year at the University of Strathclyde, both of us to participate in the experience of the Independence Referendum.

Whatever happens on the 18 September will start a series of changes with momentous consequences for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They will spread beyond those islands to affect Europe and indeed the world. Britain will cease to be “Great” but it will become a country or group of countries better adapted to supply all of its citizens with an adequate standard of living and a return to a more democratic governance.

The campaign for Yes Scotland has said No Thanks to:

a centralised government run by a clique of politicians that serve the interests of the ultra-rich, backed up by a set of mainstream media which no longer see their function as holding the powerful to account on behalf of the weak

– a government that spends billions on billions of pounds on a military establishment so that its leaders can pretend that Britain “punches above its weight” on the world stage – a capacity that was important when the Empire stretched around the globe but is now a vastly-expensive self-delusion

– a government which is opening the public services of the country to the possibilty of US-style of litigation with its risk of immense, trumped-up claims for damages

– a government that has consistently ignored the needs of the periphery for those of the southern parts of the country, particularly the needs of London, which has become a black hole that sucks resources from the rest of the country.

The Better Together campaign has offered more of the same old, discredited way to run the country.

Whatever the result of the referendum the future is now fraught with uncertainties. This could have been prevented by an orderly political discourse initiated by a Westminster attuned to the needs of the periphery, particularly Scotland, Wales, the North of England and the South-West. The (disallowed) “Yes” vote for Scottish Independence in 1979 was largely ignored by Westminster as were the possible consequences of the Scotland Act of 1998. David Cameron was completely unable to imagine what forces he was setting loose by his refusal in 2012 to allow the referendum to include a vote for “Devo Max”: if he had agreed to that, the present situation would probably never have arisen, the pound Sterling would not be facing a long period of weakness and the country itself about to be rent asunder one way or another. David Cameron and his Westminster colleagues then and now signally failed to understand the mood of Scotland. The Better Together campaign has had an impossible task because the reality is, if Westminster cannot offer anything better than Better Together to the poor and deprived people in Scotland, then Better is not Good Enough.

Against all the odds, against every-day common sense, against the torrents of advice from the rich and powerful (looking after their own interests as always) the Yes Scotland campaign has held out a vision of another way of governance. The campaign claims have been exaggerated but the idea that it could be possible to do things in a different way has caught on. When the discourse changed from the technicalities of accounting and macroeconomics to this wider and greater vision, people living in Scotland embraced the idea that they could do a better job of running their country than Westminster could. They know that way of governance has been tried and repeatedly found wanting.

The opinion polls tell us that the people of Scotland are evenly divided between Yes for Hope and No for Fear. Because we face great uncertainty whatever the outcome, I support those whose choice, in the spirit of Nelson Mandela, “will reflect their hopes and not their fears”. My daughter has the vote on the 18th. It will be a proud moment for me when she casts it. I suspect that she will join a majority of the people of Scotland and vote “Yes”.

This blog is now closed.


“Kernow” posted this comment to


Upfront I’ll say I’m an English person, don’t read if you think my views aren’t relevent.

I’ve been following this with interest for months, and I really have to say – the Yes campaign has won the argument in my eyes. Years ago when the SNP were voted in and the referendum was put in place, I had the typical response many feel to the county being split up – hell no – but this wasn’t a view based on any informed opinion about Scotland or the reasons the referendum has come about.

It’s been difficult to sort through the rhetoric and junk arguments on both sides of this debate. The strongest arguments of the no campaign have all seemingly been economic, but seriously, is an economic argument alone enough reason not to want independence? It’s going to be hard. I think the majority of Yes voters already know that. Going it alone always is hard. I think the Yes camp have been honest that independence isn’t a magic wand. It’s a long haul, and it won’t necessarily be the current generation that benefits most from independence.

If I could vote for my region to have independence from the South East centric elites that comprise our government I would. Even if there is a no vote on Thursday the only thing it’ll guarantee is that Scotland will be back to the polls on this same issue in ten or twenty years time.

It’s plain to see whats going on from the news reports. When BBC cameras are pointed at the Yes campaign, there are a sea of faces, and lots of noise. When the cameras are pointed at the No camp, it’s five people in a line behind Darling, or Miliband, or Brown with an empty street in the background. I’m confident that the SNP have this one in the bag, at this stage. There’s no momentum left in the No camp.

So, any chance you’ll be accepting refugees from the other Celtic nations once you have your independence, guys?”

My only criticisms are that Kernow gives the Yes campaign a bit better press than they really deserve, it really hasn’t been strong on pointing out that independence will entail hard work and probably hard times, especially during the transitional period. Also the No side has certainly had a much greater, and mostly positive, press coverage in the last two or three days so from that point of view the Yes movement seems to have stalled. But I am told that on social media the situation is quite different. I’m not competent with Twitter and barely capable with FB so can’t confirm or deny that one. FInally its the Yes campaign, not the SNP, who are winning the race.

And here is a link to a letter written by William Pinkney-Baird, an English student: it is a well-formulated cogent argument for a Scotland that is independant of governance from Westminster (https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/william-pinkneybaird/letter-to-young-people-in-scotland). The letter is long so only I quote his closing paragraph:

“In a couple of short weeks, you will be faced with the decision of a lifetime. A choice either to accept the status quo of undemocratic rule from Westminster, including the youth unemployment and critical threats to free education and the NHS that come with it, or to reject this in favour of democracy, for a government that you can better hold to account to look after your needs. Independence will not solve every problem, for the young people of Scotland or for anyone. But I do believe that the benefits of independence—for young people as for everyone else—will be well worth any risks or uncertainties.”

I don’t think it is an exaggeration to claim that this is part of a quiet revolution. It has come out of the cupboard to confront the beast of neo-liberalism head-on.


A couple of days ago, the Labour ex-Prime Minster Gordon Brown, now an ordinary MP at Westminster, made an unexpected and widely-publicised entry into the IndyRef campaign. He claimed that he would get The Speaker of the House of Commons to set in motion a process that would produce a “cast-iron” timetable for a devomax solution starting on 19 September and finishing by 25 January 2015, which just happens to be Burn’s Night (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/05/gordon-brown-scottish-independence-devolution).

This was widely welcomed by the Better Together campaign in the belief that it would get some people to refrain from voting Yes.

There are number of important misunderstandings conflated here. Firstly, Cameron himself appears to have rejected a proposal by First Minister Alex Salmond to have a devomax alternative on the ballot paper (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/david-cameron-missed-chance-save-7727958). The ballot paper states without any doubt that this is about Yes for Independence or No for the status quo. Repeat – No is not a vote for more devolution. However Better Together understood early on that they would get nowhere with a genuine No campaign so its various factions have been talking about “devomax” – each political party offering a different version – which actually contravenes the rules set out in the Edinburgh Agreement of 2012.

Brown was hoping that his standing within the Labour party and his Scottish antecedents (he is MP for Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath) would give his proposal the necessary political clout although it was only a timetable, not actual powers. None the less Westminster politicians rallied round the idea with enthusiasm. But Yesterday William Hague, who was standing in for Cameron during Prime Ministers Question time, said:

Fast tracking further devolution for Scotland was not Government policy”.

This statement is absolutely consistent with the Edinburgh Agreement.

Gordon Brown had also overlooked a constitutional requirement that any bill put before the House of Commons has to be ratified by the House of Lords before it becomes legal. That body issued a report in 2012 which stated specifically that

Proper constitutional process requires that negotiations involving all parts of the United Kingdom precede any referendum on an agreed scheme of “devolution max.”

So not only would any devomax solution have to pass the House of Lords but it would also have to be negotiated with all parts of the United Kingdom (http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/uk-to-get-veto-on-gordon-browns-devo-proposals).

How such negotiations would be done is a purely academic question. DevoMax hasn’t died, it was stillborn from the start – another Dead Parrot on the Better together campaign trail.

One wonders why the Yes Scotland campaign hasn’t given more publicity to the funeral.


Dave Simonds cartoon on London's economic dominance

cartoon by Dave Simmonds

The mainstream press in Scotland can still come up with a truth or two. For example;

The Prime Minister talks about the ties that bind the Union, in other words, but heads a government and a parliament that barely seems to register Scotland’s existence, except at those rare moments when we threaten the Union with imminent extinction; and to say that this is no way to run a mature and functioning democracy is to understate the case.

The truth is that over the last generation, Westminster has become increasingly unrepresentative of anyone except a narrow caste of career politicians; has become steadily more dependent on funding by wealthy individuals and corporations; has – as a consequence – largely ceased to offer a real political choice between neo-liberal orthodoxy and other approaches to creating a good society; and has been found guilty of spectacular levels of greed and corruption in relation to its own expenses system.

… there are questions to be asked about how far we should allow our decisions on Scotland’s future to be shaped by the representatives of what is essentially a failed financial system, now propped up only by taxpayer subsidy taken out of our own pockets.

And not only are those structures still in place six years on, but they are still seeking to impose their failed ideology on ever-larger swathes of the planet. The next scheme, courtesy of global corporate lobbying, is the so-called TTIP, or Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, an imminent EU/US deal which will effectively forbid governments from running public services, and force them – regardless of the views of voters – to open up all services, including the NHS, for commercial exploitation.

And this is the paradox at the heart of the referendum debate, as we reach its final hours. On one hand, we are told of what are clearly real economic risks associated with independence. Yet, on the other, we cannot help but be aware that those risks are often being imposed, and even engineered, by corporations and structures whose power needs to be challenged – thoroughly, bravely and soon – if democracy is to have any chance of surviving and thriving in the 21st century.

To vote Yes next Thursday, in the spirit of the remarkable grassroots campaign for re-empowerment that has swept Scotland over the last year, is to throw down that challenge and to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.


Genuine democracy at work is something rarely seen today, when political campaigns tend to be run by lobbyists in the pockets of the ultra-rich. An opinion poll predicts that next Thursday more than 80% of the electorate will cast their votes. Since when did a general election in any Western “democracy” come near to such a figure? This energy has been generated by the Yes Scotland campaign, not by the Westminster politicians currently rushing to Scotland in desperation – behaviour reminicent of lemmings rather than people.

By the standards of any fair society, Yes deserves to win.



För första gången i kampanjen har Ja-sidan tilldelats ledningen av en opinionsundersökning . Den är knapp men den bekräftar en stadig trend under hela den senaste månaden (http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/should-scotland-be-an-independent-country-1#line).

Samtidigt har ”Better Together” hamnat i fullständigt panik. Löften om ytterligare utökade maktbefogenheter haglar (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/westminster-prepares-offer-further-powers-scotland-it-too-little-too-late). Men det är “för lite, för sent”.

1979 blev skottarna lurade på självständighet: Westminster dolde McCrone rapporten som visade hur mycket inkomster från Nordsjöoljan skulle tillfalla ett oberoende Skottland och dessutom ogiltigförklarade 1979 års “Ja” på grund av en teknikalitet (se tidigare post).

Nu är skottarna är trötta på tomma löften. De vill ta sin framtid i egna händer trots svårigheter och risker hellre än luras en gång till.

Ett Ja-resultat den 18:e innebär stora konsekvenser för rUK, Europa och i förlängningen också Norden.


This is one view, of many similar, on the current debate over Scottish Independence that is going to climax on 18 September (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/scottish-independence-yes-vote-leaner-meaner-scotland?). An amazing 85% of voters are expected to turn out on the day (http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/on-a-scale-of-0-to-10-how-likely-is-it-that-you-would-vote-in-an-referendum-on#line), in stark contrast to an Independence referendum in 1979, where a majority for independence was turned down on the grounds that the turnout of less than 40% of the electorate was below the minimum required for a binding result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_devolution_referendum,_1979).

After weeks of heated discussions centering mainly on fiscal and economic issues, the debate has enlarged considerably to include social, health, defence and relations with the European Union. These themes were debated recently by panels of representatives for the Yes Scotland and Better Together, as well as active participation by the studio audience (see previous post). They continue to be discussed in town-halls, trades unions and street meetings around the country and may be a strong reason for the recent surge in the polls for a Yes vote. Whatever the outcome, the real struggle will come after the vote when campaign promises will have to be transformed into political realities.

It is surely telling that the joint leaders of the current Coalition government in Westminster, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, are invisible in the debate. The leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, together with ex- Prime Minster Gordon Brown and other heavies from the party, have begun campaigning in Scotland for Better Together (https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/pipe/336102/labour-to-wheel-out-big-guns/?). In order to make a credible message they are having to distance themselves from their Conservative and Lib-Dem “allies” in the movement, opening Miliband to the charge of campaigning for the next General Election rather for or against Scottish Independence (http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmond-miliband-is-blind-to-the-real-fight-in-scotland.25245155?). An independent Scotland would result in the removal of approximately one sixth of Labour MPs, leaving the Westminster door open for a major shift to the right. This would be warmly welcomed by Euro-sceptic Conservatives and UKIP (see previous post).

At a time when the political future of Ukraine is the subject of armed conflict and with the still fresh memory of years of fighting in Northern Ireland and the Balkan region, the Scottish people have shown the world that it is possible to conduct an intensely democratic yet non-violent discourse on the future of their country. That is an all-too-rare victory for the democratic way of governance.


Yesterday evening (2 September) a third and final TV debate on the subject of Scottish independence was held in Edinburgh. The format was different, with each side represented by three prominent politicians, Bernard Ponsonby again in the chair, and a larger number of questions from the select audience directly to the panel. You can watch it yourself on this link: http://player.stv.tv/programmes/yes-or-no/

Thanks to the change of format a greater variety of topics were covered than in the previous debates, including EU, employment, oil revenues, defence and Trident, social justice, gender equality, local government financing and youth unemployment. It was also refreshing to hear a wider range of voices supporting the respective positions. One has to observe that the lead speakers for Yes Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, MSP (Deputy First Minster of the Scottish Parliament) and Better Together Douglas Alexander, MP (Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary) both presented more reasoned, yet still engaging, arguments than expressed in previous debates by their respective leaders. Questions from the public were mostly well-informed and well-expressed, resulting in a genuinely informative debate climate.

The second section of the debate was on social justice and welfare, conducted between Kezia Dugdale, MSP (Scottish Labour shadow education secretary) and Elaine C. Smith, MSP, (Chairperson of Scottish Independence Convention). Elaine Smith got off to a better start as Kezia Dugdale spoke so rapidly that few could follow what she was saying. However, when she slowed down a little Kezia came across as better informed and as equally engaged as her opposite number. None the less, according to my notes, Elaine Smith received three rounds of “heavy applause” from the audience against none for Kezia. I thought it surprising that the audience didn’t respond more strongly to Smith’s observations on the increasing threat of UKIP to the Conservative position on EU – this should be a Yes Scotland winner.

The third section of the debate, on defence and foreign affairs, was conducted between Ruth Davidson, MSP (leader of Scottish Conservatives) and Patrick Harvie, MSP (Co-convenor (språkrör) of the Scottish Green Party). While Ms. Davidson spoke with authority and conviction, Mr. Harvie ranted and raved more like a lunatic than a politician, giving us his own wildly unrealistic views on unilateral nuclear disarmament and a refusal to engage on topics such as NATO and the current threat from Russia. Mr. Ponsonby kindly referred to this as showing the breadth of political opinions within the Yes campaign. On a positive note, Mr Harvie did make the point that an independent Scotland was the only way to keep it within the EU and received heavy applause for his claim that the UK was “trying to punch above its weight” geopolitically and this cost money that would be better used on social justice at home.

After an extensive Question and Answer exchange between the public and the panel, the debate was rounded off by closing statements from Ruth Davidson and Patrick Harvie. Ms. Davidson made the point that independence, if won, was irrevocable but her claim that Better Together would offer further opportunities to improve one of the best countries in the world range hollow. Mr. Harvie had by now cooled down a bit and claimed that Yes Scotland represented a way out from the inequality and exploitation of Westminster and offered a new model for society. His final statement “We deserve better” was greeted by prolonged and heavy applause.

As before the audience was hand-picked to fairly represent both sides and included a number of undecided voters.


Olli Rhen was the European commissioner with responsibility for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro. He left this post in July. There is no reason to think that Mr. Rhen has any personal position on independence for Scotland. So any statement he makes on the currency issue for an independent Scotland has to be given credibility.

According to the Guardian, Mr. Rhen has written to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Danny Alexander, to make clear the currency position of an iScotland applying to join the EU. He claims that iScotland must either have a currency agreement with rUK, i.e. the Bank of England, or else it must have its own central bank. To use Sterling without a formal agreement with Westminster would not satisfy the entrance requirements (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/02/indepdent-scotland-not-join-eu-without-central-bank?).


This must be a heavy blow to the Yes Scotland movement, which has been on a massive upswing since its leader Alex Salmond trounced Better Together leader Alistair Darling in a second debate broadcast nation-wide on 25 August. A YouGov poll published yesterday (2 September) showed that a swing of only 3% would bring the two sides neck-and-neck (http://research.yougov.co.uk/news/2014/09/02/support-scottish-independence-jumps-47/) and claimed that support for No had “collapsed”. The Yes Scotland campaign to win over women voters is expected to have gained from a heavily-criticised Better Together videoclip (see previous blogg) and there is a groundswell of pro-independence reporting in the media.

All is not lost for the Yes Scotland position, which is that a currency union is in the best interests of both the rUK and iScotland. Such an agreement would make the Bank of England also the central bank of Scotland. However, the political price of such an arrangement has gone up.

Currency agreement in exchange for Trident, anyone?

NOTE: as this blog is aimed at Swedish people, it has so far been published in Swedish. Articles have been checked for grammar by native Swedish speakers. As the rate of the debate increases, this is no longer feasible. Given that all Swedes interested in this subject can read English, I believe that the change to English will not cause them any difficulties. I would like to publically thank Maj Hasselgren and Lars Jannerdal for thier generous help.


En andra debatt hölls i måndags mellan Ja- och Nej-sidorna i Glasgow. Den var ett intensivt utbyte av idéer som stundtals handlade mer om vem kunde tala högst och längst (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/25/alex-salmond-and-alistair-darling-clash-in-second-scotland-independence-debate_n_5711095.html). Trots allt skrikande var debatten intressant, lika mycket för vad som inte blev sagt som för det som blev sagt.

Enligt en opinionsundersökning var vinnaren denna gång Ja-sidan, med 71% mot 29% för Nej. Ett par dagar senare visade en återkommande undersökning att gapet för Ja sidan har minskat med 10% och står nu på 41,6% för Ja mot 47,6% för Nej med 10,8% fortfarande ”Vet Ej” (http://www.newsweek.com/scottish-referendum-no-campaigns-lead-halved-after-debate-267429). Nu var Salmond tydlig med en positiv vision för ett självständigt Skottland medan Darling bara kunde upprepa riskerna med självständighet, oavsett sakfrågan. Hans nästan maniska upprepningar om en “plan B” för valutafrågan möttes nu med hånskratt från åhörarna eftersom Salmond hade klargjort på ett övertygande sätt att det fanns flera alternativ för en självständigt Skottland men att en valutaunion med rUK var det som var bäst för båda länder.

De ämnen som debatterades var valutan, sysselsättningen och sjukvården. Ämnen som invandring, pensioner, utbildning, räddningstjänster och EU var helt frånvarande. Försvar diskuterades bara utifrån sysselsättningsperspektivet – vad innebär ett avlägsnande av Trident från Skottland, hur kommer självständighet att påverka nya beställningar från försvaret? Jämställdhetsfrågor var också frånvarande trots att kvinnors röst anses vara en nyckelfråga. Ett nytt videoklipp från Nej-sidan att övertyga kvinnor har förorsakat muntra parodier på sociala medier (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/watch-patronising-anti-scottish-independence-advert-4121120). Jämför med Yes Scotlands budskap som behandlar kvinnor som vuxna individer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbWnBX6BY5A.

Nu försöker Salmond att få David Cameron att ställa upp i en debatt (http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/news/289723-alex-salmond-calls-for-independence-referendum-debate-with-david-cameron/) . Cameron har hittills hållit en låg profil – enligt uppgift följde han debatt #2 på TV under bara någon minut – men kommer att få svårt att hitta en bra ursäkt för att inte möta Salmond, eftersom han kom till Skottland igår (torsdag den 29:e) för en middag med skotska affärsmän mot självständighet. Om Cameron inte ställer upp mot Salmond så kommer det att tolkas som feghet, om han ställer upp så kan Salmond öppna en “andra front” och grilla honom beträffande EU – en fråga som egentligen är långt större än självständighet och som oroar självaste CBI-chefen (http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/cameron-humiliated-as-cbi-chief-attacks-eu-vote-plan.25180163).

I sina försök att blidka hemmaopinionen (läs: opinionen i södra England) om medlemskap i EU har Cameron upprepade gånger förolämpat såväl kommissionens ordförande som EU parlamentet. Han har också visat sig okunnig i författningstekniska frågor. Sannolikheten är försvinnande liten att Cameron, om han blir omvald 2015, skulle vilja eller kunna driva en trovärdig positiv kampanj inför EU-omröstningen 2017 – han har redan börjat förlora parlamentsledamöter till UKIP (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28967959). Som del av Storbritannien kan EU-positiva skotska röster aldrig väga upp södra Englands röstövervikt. Konsekvenserna av Storbritanniens utträde ur EU har ännu inte tagits på allvar men skulle bli enorma för alla parter, inklusive Sverige.

Självständighet för Skottland är den enda vägen som garanterar dess framtid inom EU.

Nej-sidan har argumenterat att hela frågan om självständighet ju är illusorisk – i förhållande till rUK, NATO och EU. Detta är en typisk Nej-rökridå eftersom det är självklart i den globaliserade världen att alla nationer är bundna i relationer till varandra och överstatliga organ. Självständighet för Skottland innebär vissa risker och kortsiktiga administrativa kostnader. Men att stanna inom det Förenade Kungadömet innebär den ojämförligt större risken att sluta som del av ”en avlägsen ö i Atlanten” (Carl Bildt).


Den första debatten i kampanjen för skotsk självständighet är över. Enligt “The Guardian” fann 56% av TV-tittarna att Nej-sidans Alistair Darling vann debatten över Ja-sidans Alexander Salmond. Tyvärr var länken från konferanshallen var under all kritik. Efter att helt ha missat de inledande presentationerna så kom den till sist igång, men med upprepade, långa avbrott. Att döma från tweets till “The Scotsman” så drabbades de skotska tittarna av samma problem. Man kan dock se debatten på nätet med play (http://player.stv.tv/programmes/salmond-darling).

Det som vi kunde se i Sverige handlade till stor del om valutafrågan. Darling pressade Salmond gång på gång om en plan B för den skotska valutan om inte Skottland fick använda pundet. Sal­mond påpekade att pundet var lika mycket Skottlands som Englands och att framstående finansiella experter, inklusive f.d. ministrar, har sagt att Skottland visst skulle kunna fortsätta använda pundet. Detta var debattens hjärta och här fick Darling ett övertag över Salmond, som med sina fantasilösa svar stundtals påminde svenska tittare om Bosse Ringholms ökända upprepningar i Ahlenius affä­ren.

Inför debatten kunde Salmond glädjas åt en fortsatt rörelse i opinionsundersökningarna till förmån för Ja-sidan, enligt Ipsos-Mori upp 4% till 40%. Dessa röster kom från “Vet ej” väljare medan Nej-sidan är kvar på 56% (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3429/Yes-continues-to-make-progress-as-we-enter-the-final-stretch).

Uppenbarligen kommer inte dagens debatt att vara den kioskvältare som Ja-sidan behöver för att fortsätta ta röster. Andra positiva nyheter kommer sannolikt att drunkna i mediabruset kring debat­ten. T.ex. att fler och fler rapporter understryker närvaron av stora oljefyndigheter väster om Skottland (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9535-rumours-of-massive-oil-find-follow-camerons-secret-shetland-visit samt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxZlMLmbgQ4#t=167). Samtidigt är en sedan 1977 hemligstämplad rapport om hur Skottland kunde ha blivit en annat Norge tack vare Nordsjöoljan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL8rPmkkcAY) nu offentlig. Det var inget slump att denna för skotsk självständighet så positiv rapport hemligstämplades av Westminster innan en tidigare omröstning om självständighet.

Negativt för Ja-sidan är den ökad osäkerhet i geopolitiska frågor (http://www.scotsman.com/news/comment-foreign-policy-will-affect-referendum-1-3500217) samt ytterligare ett lamt försök från Westminsters sida att lova DevoMax till Skottland (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/08/05/scots_offered_more_tax_powers_to_stay_with_britain). Men av debatten att döma är konstitutionen, EU, försvaret och liknande frågor så gott som osynliga för väljarna: ”It’s the economy, stupid”!

Stämningen under debatten och i tweets var det att väljarna vill nu ha konkreta svar istäl­let för “pie in the sky”. Med dubbelt så stor kampanjkassa och med stöd från de flesta massmedierna samt från Whitehall etablissemanget kan Nej-sidan känna sig nöjd. Om inte Ja-sidan börjar leverera övertygande svar om ekonomin till väljarna så är det farväl till självständighet för Skottland i min livstid. Och i så fall skulle ytterligare en möjlighet har gått oss förbi. (http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/08/04/scotland-a-world-leader-again/).