Hello there Beex. It's been a wee while. I've been too busy with general life to keep up with events here, but I've just given the last 10 pages of this thread a jolly good skimming. As usual, I find the input of Cavey to be most delightful and while occasionally a little zesty I think he's an invaluable contribution to this debate.

I read with amusement that Stu has this little angry independence blog, and incredibly is still pushing his scrounging £2/month subscription model without a trace of irony. Of course, the lunatic, demagogic ramblings of that man are entirely invalidated by virtue of the fact the hapless shitbag doesn't even live in Scotland. The first, most fundamental aspect of a credible argument is putting your money where your mouth is, and sounding off on the future of a country that you once lived in, but now choose not to, is so ridiculous as to be farcical. His sense of entitlement ("I can't be expected to write about Scottish politics for free) is undiminshed and as always, he's basically an internet beggar. If you have something to say, you can support it with unobtrusive advertising that more than pays for the cost of hosting, and a loyal fanbase will more than justify the time spent putting the 'articles' together. The cap-in-hand success of this crowdsourcing is an unfortunate boost to this notion that the maniacal ranting coming from his fingertips somehow justifies the money.

In such a polarising debate, each extreme will find a wealth of supporters who back you simply because you think the same as them, rather than due to the demonstrable integrity of your arguments and evidence. That's a shame.

As someone who actually lives in Scotland, and follows the local politics while actually living a stonethrow from the actual parliament in which these things are discussed, I am of the opinion that the SNP are a shower of ideological arseholes who want independence regardless of the realistic outcomes of such a declaration. They talk mightily about the limitless benefits without being backed up by evidence or legal advice, as has been previously demonstrated on multiple occasions. When very senior EU figures and organisations discuss the likely process Scotland would have to engage in to rejoin the EU, the SNP engage in a fingers-in-ears disagreement with such statements. Nicola Sturgeon is very often seen defending the SNP by continuously reiterating that 'we don't see that it would be a problem' in respect to issues such as currency, banking regulation, membership, et cetera without having any basis for such an opinion.

The fact these arguments are backed up by very little credible evidence is a great worry. No more so than this mentality that the oil will pay for everything, and that Scotland has the best renewable potential of the continent. The operative word there is potential, and while I'm happy to concur that the level of remaining oil is very hard to determine, you cannot base the long term future of a country on what is ultimately an uncertain and finite basis.

The Yes campaign have some great strengths, and I will hand it to Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in that they are both very effective public speakers. It is very often the case that a weak argument well-spoken will seem more convincing than a credible argument that cannot be delivered with the same effective articulation. That is the worry.

Scotland is an incredibly patriotic nation. SCOTTISH TEA is sold and advertised as being perfect for blending with SCOTTISH WATER. So many products and services are prefixed by 'Scottish' and notions and reiterations of pride that you simply cannot deny how patriotic this place is. I don't begrudge them that at all. My girlfriend is Scottish and proud, and it's ingrained so much more than you'd find in England. I'm indifferently English, I was born there, and that's about as much as I can say.

However much of the time, this Scottish pride amounts to a enormous chip on the shoulder about England. People who are not English in this union do so casually hate 'us' with a prejudice that can't rationally be justified. I do think Westminster considers Scotland too lightly, being a far-away place with comparatively few people, and so government policy is not made to match them. That merely makes a great argument for devolved government, which gives you local autonomy while having all of the scale benefits of being part of a larger union and trading block. However the average complaint that a Scot would have against Westminster government policy is no greater than an English person would have at the same policy. It just becomes a convenient to talk about unpopular policy here in terms of 'those bastard English', or 'those fucking English Tories', and this is the predicate for most of what the SNP say. We are led to believe that in an independant nation, everything would be pure roses. I'm very worried that because those sentiments are being said with a Scottish accent, some people will actually believe it.

The reasons against independence are so great I could start my own blog about it (accepting that I don't have the time regardless, I'd write this free without some egotistical expectation that my words were worthy of money), but the fact the SNP has consistently made claim after claim about how things will be, without any basis, shows you how stable and reliable any future independent government is likely to be.

Nicola Sturgeon's argument about EU membership is ridiculous. She talks about how Scotland couldn't possibly be 'ejected' from the EU, as they're a current member and could not be forced to reapply as a new member. The easiest comparison to make here is of a team in the Scottish Premier League. If you're part of a team that's in that league, but you decide that the team are a bunch of bastards and you want to start your own team, that new team doesn't therefore qualify for a place in the Premier League. This new team would have to prove their worth and apply as a new member - it follows with absolute logic. It wouldn't matter that your new team constitutes 10% of the players of the team you left - you wouldn't just automatically get in. If you CHOOSE to breakaway from your team in the league, you're CHOOSING to leave that league. The League isn't 'ejecting' you, you're the ones choosing to leave.

The opinion of Cookie is one that worries me. At 16/17 I had absolutely no insight in to politics, and at that age I would have been highly susceptable to some propagandist nonsense without the discernment to see beyond the bullshit. The SNP's desire to have teenagers vote in this election is not about inclusivity - it's a basic exploitation of the ability to con those too young to know better into supporting their cause. To me this was the greatest, weakest concession that Cameron made as part of the Edinburgh Agreement.

The debate will rumble on, but being advantaged of the ability to speak to people who actually live in Scotland, I am confident that the outcome of the referendum will be No. If I speak to anyone educated, well-informed, and politically minded, they invariably see independence as a risk too far, with promises that will never pan out. However the man on the street, that doesn't really follow the debates, doesn't know much about the risks, and is basically filled with a Braveheart notion of FREEEDOOOOOM, will look to vote Yes, if only to stick it to the Bloody English, not realising that a vast majority of the people down there wouldn't care or don't think they'd materially suffer as a result of Scotland going it alone. The only one at risk here is Scotland, imho.

Well that was a long post wasn't it? I could say much, much more, but there's just too little time in the day