Salmond's best response on Plan B

All Salmond has to respond with for the debate tonight (25/08/2014) and Darling's inevitable questioning on Plan B.

"Polling shows that the people of Scotland want a currency union. The people have spoken, and yet Better Together continue to claim a currency union will be denied; despite claiming they want what is best for Scotland, and despite Alistair Darling's claims that it is the most logical and sensible option.
"Scottish voters are not stupid. Most people can see that this talk of a currency union being denied is not reality, but instead pure politics from the no campaign, a tactical move for two reasons.
"One, an admission from the yes campaign that we have a 'plan b' can be pounced upon by 'Project Fear' to breed uncertainty over the currency of an independent Scotland. And two, it weakens our position in any post-independence negotiations.
"But for the record and in the interest of clarity, I'll state my position on it: in the completely unlikely and totally hypothetical scenario that there is no currency union, we believe Sterlingisation would be the next best option. This view is supported by the Adam Smith Institute and the two nobel laureate economic experts of the Fiscal Commission Working Group.
"However, the truth is that Better Together are fighting independence because they don't want to lose Scotland's resources - and they know this would only be compounded by Scotland no longer being in the UK pound. The recession presided over by Alistair Darling was caused by a negative growth of just -2.5%. If Scotland votes Yes in September, the UK will lose almost 10% of its GDP overnight, forever. It will lose a net contributor, and billions of pounds a year in oil revenues. Without a currency union, Scotland would have no obligation to take a share of the UK's crippling debt, the root cause for the current austerity measures - debt which the UK treasury has already publicly stated it will honour in full.
"So the question I would like Alistair to answer, for Scottish voters and for voters in the rest of the UK: what is your plan B if there's to be no currency union?"

Why I'm YES: the two futures facing Scotland

I've had various, undecided (as far as the Indyref is concerned) pals ask me recently to write an article with my main reasons for wanting Scottish independence summarised.

I've tried to be a little more concise than normal with this, although not by much...


SCRAPPING TRIDENT:
I, like the majority of Scots, believe that the Trident nuclear missile system is an affront to our collective moral conscience. That we would even entertain the idea of subjecting the world to another Hiroshima in the name of 'defence' is a scandal.

In terms of defence? It's pointless, a relic from the Cold War that bears no relevance to the modern day threats (cyberwarfare and terrorism) we face. Trident is a 'first strike' weapon - something to use first, not as retaliation.

How can we possibly vote to maintain the union, to give a 'thumbs up' to Westminster's sickening plans for renewal at a cost of 100 billion pounds? The £1 billion it'll cost Scottish taxpayers to keep Trident in Scotland over the next ten years is enough to pay for 3,300 nurses or 2,700 teachers, or to build 125 primary schools or 40 high schools or community hospitals.

Based just 25 miles from Scotland's most populous area - with nuclear weapons occasionally driven through the heart of Glasgow - it's time to bin Trident.

SAVING THE NHS:
I believe in Nye Bevan’s founding principles for the NHS: to provide care free at the point of delivery, decided on clinical need and not the ability to pay.

With health being a devolved matter, the NHS has been managed much better in Scotland since devolution than in England. That does NOT mean it is safe from Westminster's mistakes.

As Westminster continue to privatise the NHS down south - putting profits, not care, first - Scotland will feel the effect. Scotland’s budget is decided as a percentage of what Westminster spend in England on public services. When English public spending is cut thanks to austerity and privatisation, Scotland's will be too.

DEMOCRACY:
In UK general elections, Scotland's votes don't matter in the wins of either party - when Labour have won power, they could have done so without Scottish votes, and when the Tories win power, it's despite Scotland categorically voting against them time after time.

No one is suggesting that Scotland is some giant voting bloc where people across the country want to vote the same way; but at least in an independent Scotland, the will of the people will be heard.

It won't be some utopia where Scottish governments are always perfect, but there will finally be accountability; the opportunity to sack any government which fails us.

NO MORE WARS:
Since devolution, we have been dragged into two illegal wars, resulting in hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost, against the will of the Scottish people. This will happen again as long as warfare and defence remain non-devolved matters.

With thousands taking to the streets in Glasgow and Edinburgh, Scottish MPs voted against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The motion was carried by English Labour and by the Tories, who had just one MP in Scotland at the time.

Likewise, Scottish MPs voted against the renewal of Trident in 2007, and against the benefits cut and the bedroom tax in 2013, but they were imposed anyway.

MORE POWERS:
I want more powers for the Scottish parliament - devolution has clearly worked, so why would we not want control over the matters that remain outwith our control?

A 'Yes' vote guarantees more powers. Better Together claim a 'No' vote does the same, that if we vote against independence they'll sate us with more powers.

The idea that the 'Better Together campaign' can do anything to give us more powers is misleading. Alistair Darling, the head of BT, is a backbencher in a party that isn't even in government - he has no mandate to offer us more powers. David Cameron can promise us all the tea in China, but the people of Scotland have long memories - we were promised more powers by the Tories for a no vote in 1979, and what we got instead was Thatcher, industries closed down, the poll tax and the unions being dismantled.

One side of this - the Yes campaign, and the SNP - have genuinely campaigned for more powers for Scotland since the 1930s and before. The other side were, as recent as the 1990s, completely and utterly opposed to us having any powers devolved to our own parliament.

Even if they are sincere about suddenly wanting to offer us more powers - which I don't think they are - does anyone really think they'll pass these powers through the House of Commons reliant on the votes of 500+ English and Welsh MPs, when polling shows English voters are overwhelmingly in favour of Scotland being 'punished' in the event of a no vote? 

After a no vote and after any further threat of independence has been removed, I don't see what could possibly move these politicians to hand over more power to the Scots: rather, they'll look to take powers away and slash the Barnett Formula once and for all.

LEFT-WING POLITICS
I'm an unashamed leftie. Left-wing politics are drowned out in Westminster, with the Tories moving more and more to the right, and Labour following them in pursuit of middle England votes. With UKIP now on the scene, the situation can only get worse, with more anti-immigration and anti-EU politicians surely fighting their way into the House of Commons in 2015.

In an independent Scotland, the right wing will still exist with a revitalised Scottish Conserviative party. Clearly there are still people in Scotland who share UKIP's concerns: 10% of Scottish voters opted for them in the European elections. But, importantly, there will be balance. Scottish Labour can return to their roots, no longer shackled to their diametrically-opposed southern counterparts. With their founding goal achieved, the SNP might factionalise, giving Scots even more political choices, not forgetting the share of votes for the Greens and various socialist parties.

If that's not something that appeals to you more than a UK general election with choices like David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg, Ed Milliband and Nigel Farage, there's something wrong. And that's only in the short-term: looking at the bigger picture, we have the chance to rid ourselves of the private school elite and the unelected House of Lords once and for all. Not just swerving the awful ballot paper on offer in 2015, but every one after, with politicians cut from the same cloth as Cameron et al imposed on us again and again. 

A NEW, EXCITING, WEALTHY COUNTRY
While the UK government has squandered the golden opportunity that North Sea oil promised - using oil and gas receipts to pay for mass unemployment, tax cuts and government spending - we could follow Norway's example and set up a 'rainy day' oil fund. Theirs is currently worth around £450 billion!

The UK is on its way to being the most unequal society in the Western world. It has lost its AAA rating. Austerity measures are set to continue, with 450,000 jobs to go next year, and the pinch of benefits cuts and the bedroom tax still being felt across the nation.

This is our chance to break away from all of that. 

The Financial Times believes that an independent Scotland would be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. In fact, we would be the wealthiest country ever to become independent - no nation breaking away has ever had a better start than the chance we have on offer.

With the oil resources we're already drilling for - not forgetting massive new fields discovered off Shetland, and exploration to discover just how much oil lies off the south of Arran - Scotland has an economy on which to build a wealthy, new, independent nation. Throw in a whisky industry with exports worth £4.2 billion, a food and drink industry worth £10 billion, tourism which generates over £5 billion and 200,000 jobs, the Scottish construction industry worth around £21.4 billion annually and agricultural output worth £2.7 billion, it's clear that the Scottish economy is ripe for independence.

The OECD reckons we would be the 14th wealthiest nation in the world - ahead of close to 200 other nations - so it's beyond doubt that we would survive on our own. We would flourish.

Britain is STILL broken

In 2009 and 2010 as he fought to become Prime Minister, David Cameron told voters again and again: BRITAIN IS BROKEN.

In his analysis of the country's situation then, Cameron referred to what he called Britain's "broken society" and promised to bring in "radical social reform."

Just four years later, this same man is telling Scotland that we are "better together," that we should remain part of a Britain which he himself described as broken.

Is it now fixed?

Or could it be that he simply doesn't want to lose a net contributor? A country which between 1980 and 2012 contributed £1,425bn in tax receipts, including a geographic share of oil revenues. Scotland would be better apart, independent from a Britain that is still broken. Since 2010 under Conservative rule, the problems in Broken Britain have worsened.

The national debt is 1.5 times larger than it was then, now standing at £1.16 trillion compared to 2010's £0.76 trillion.

The UK lost its AAA credit rating, held since 1978, when it was downgraded in February 2013.

Britain's workers are now £1,600 a year worse off since 2010.

The Tories' flagship scheme, the Work Programme has been a complete failure, with a miserable 10% success rate - and all at a cost of £5 billion.

More than 8 times as many people accessed foodbanks as in 2010.

Source: Left Foot Forward

In 2012, the government closed down Remploy sites, putting nearly 3,000 disabled employees out of work.

One out of every six children in the UK lives in relative poverty. According to the chief executive of the Children's Society, "in the first full year of the coalition government, 300,000 more children faced a real fall in living standards that pushed them into absolute poverty"

The wealth gap continues to grow. The UK is now the most unequal country in the West. According to a UN report, 'the gap between rich and poor in Britain is the same as Nigeria and worse than Ethiopia'

If Britain was broken in 2010, it has only shattered further still since the Conservatives came to power via the coalition. For David Cameron to argue that Scotland are somehow better together with this Broken Britain is ludicrous.

What Scotland needs now is to become independent, to take the chance to start afresh. To do that we must be prepared to show a little faith and embrace change. Critics of independence cite "uncertainty" as a reason against a Yes vote. Uncertainty about tax rates, European membership, pensions, loss of public sector jobs.

The implication is that by contrast, the union and this Broken Britain offers us certainty.

Uncertainty about tax rates? Since 2010, Value Added Tax in Broken Britain has risen from 17.5% to 20%. Just last year the Conservatives introduced the "bedroom tax", causing higher levels of rent arrears and homelessness. The number of homeless people in England has risen for three years in a row.

Uncertainty about European membership? The biggest threat to Scotland's membership of the EU is the Tories' determination to hold an in/out referendum. After the proposed bill was killed in the House of Lords, David Cameron said that 'he would, if necessary, use the Parliament Act - which limits the power of the Lords to block legislation - to ensure it gets on the statute book before the next General Election.' 

Uncertainty about pensions? Following Gordon Brown's pension theft, the idea that the UK provides pension certainty has already been blown out of the water; to make matters worse, the Tories are considering the privatisation of pensions (like everything else in their Broken Britain)

Uncertainty about loss of public sector jobs? More than 600,000 public sector jobs have been lost since the Tories came to power, thanks to "the devastating effect of this Government's austerity cuts on total public sector employment."

Uncertainty? The only certainty that the union gives us is that things under Tory rule will continue to get worse. Scotland needs to vote for independence and guarantee that we always get the government we vote for; otherwise we will never escape the devastating effects of the Tories and David Cameron's Broken Britain.

Poll after poll returns YES vote

In the debate on Scottish independence, there seems to be a new article indicating No ahead in the polls every week at the moment.

While recent weeks has shown an increase in the Yes vote in these polls - thanks to the aggravating scare tactics of George Osborne and the rest of the Together Or Else campaign - the trend of poll after poll showing the unionist campaign in the lead has made for depressing and demotivational reading. Perhaps that's the idea...

How much weight should we really place in these polls? They typically come from a sample of a thousand or so voters. While this method has previously given us an accurate picture of voter intention for elections, it is far from infallible.

One look at this collection of polls in the leadup to the 2011 Scottish parliamentary elections proves that. As little as a month before the SNP won 45.39% of the vote to Labour's 31.69% , Panelbase had Labour neck and neck with the SNP; while just two months before, one poll showed 29% for SNP and 44% for Labour.

Clearly, alternative means of accurately gauging opinion are welcome. I've tried to collect as many different online votes, debate results and other means of surveying voters on the subject. The result is illuminating, almost always showing a completely different outcome for the Yes and No parties than the polls run in the media frequently show.

The first comes from the Channel 4 website, following Jon Snow's grilling of Alistair Darling.
Viewers quizzed on their voting intentions in the wake of it, via the Channel 4 website, came out in favour of Yes - overwhelmingly.

11,939 said they planned to vote Yes, while just 2,406 opted for No - giving Yes a huge 83% victory.

Another interesting sample of opinion came to light after the Donside by election of 20th June, 2013. In what is to date the largest survey conducted on the subject, the SNP canvassed 19,183 voters and found the result stood at Yes 34%, No 29%, Don't know 37%.

Debates around the country have also typically disagreed with the verdict of the media polls.
Strathclyde University's Students Association have held several debates, all emerging in favour of Yes. One saw a 12% change, resulting in 67% of the vote for Yes.

Napier University, meanwhile, produced a Yes vote of 80% in November 2013. (No figures available on how many participated)

The debate at Abertay University of September 2013 was a particularly encouraging result for the Yes campaign. Before the debate, a temperature check of the 200 students present showed 21% of the audience voting Yes, 59% No and 20% undecided. However, following the debate, this figure changed to 51% yes, 38% no, and 11% undecided.

Another such turnaround occurred at Ayrshire College's Kilmarnock Campus in January 2014. Beforehand the vote stood at 50% for No, 33% for Yes and 17% undecided. After the debate, the votes returned 46% Yes, 43% No and 11% undecided.

The Glasgow Caledonian University Students Association debate vote showed 62% of around 80 students voting Yes, 18% No and 20% Undecided.

Votes returning No as a result of debates are hard to come by. There was a No result following the debate in Perth & Kinross, with 51% ultimately voting against - however, the Yes vote did grow from 31% to 46%. Another No vote occurred at the University of Glasgow, where 62% (1614) voted no, while 38% (967) said yes.

Yes campaigners such as Yes Scotland and Business For Scotland argue that the more people engage with the debate and learn about the opportunities which come with independence, the more inclined they are to vote Yes - and these figures make it hard to argue with that.

East Kilbride Revenue & Customs branch of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) recently voted to back Yes. At their AGM, 570 voters returned a result of 60% for Yes, with No and remaining neutral each attracting 20%

At its nationwide conference however, PCS voted to back the neutral option with 18,025 votes. The Yes vote attracted 5,775, while there was not a single vote in favour of supporting No.

There are also huge numbers of Scots registered on the websites of their favourite football teams, almost all of whom have produced Yes results in their own online polls.

The following football message boards have all produced Yes results: Talk Celtic (80.61%), Pie & Bovril (78.3%), KillieFC (69.95%), Partick Thistle's We Are Thistle (68.25%), St Mirren's Black & White Army (67.94%) Hibees Bounce (67.86%), Aberdeen's AFC Chat (64.71%), Caley Thistle Online (62.34%), Hearts' Jambos Kickback (53.10%).

In fact, the only major Scottish football side whose message board has produced a resounding No result is The Rangers, with the Rangers Media forum producing a vote of Yes 18%, No 71.67%, Devo Max 3.83% (not set to be an option in the actual ballot) and Undecided 6.5%. Ross County's Over The Bridge also returned No, with Yes losing narrowly, 42% vs 50%.

I'll be continuing to collect results from online surveys, debates, message boards and so on as we get closer to the independence referendum. If you have any polls that I've missed, whether Yes or No victories, then please get in touch and I'll include them.

All of this provides a refreshing alternative to the barrage of No-favouring polls that the media run with and ultimately begs the question: where are the pollsters finding these 1,000 voters and who the hell are they...?

UPDATE 25/02/2014: Queen Margaret University held a debate in which 150 voted, producing 59% Yes, 41% No. Oil And Gas People, the world's leading oil and gas jobs board, surveyed 1,000 North Sea Oil and Gas workers and found 70% supported independence.

UPDATE 03/03/2014: Possibly the least scientific but best idea for a poll yet - the Royal McGregor bar has had customers choosing between taps marked 'Aye', 'Naw' and 'Maybe.' Aye won 41%, with 38% Naw and 21% Maybe! That's about as alternative from the media polls as it gets...

UPDATE 21/03/2014: Dundee and Angus colleges produced a whopping 83% Yes, 11% No, 6% DK. St Mary's church hall in Kirkintilloch put Yes at 63% with No on 24% and undecideds at 13%. After a debate held at Campbeltown Grammar School, a ballot put Yes at 51%, with No on 28% and undecideds on 19%. Glasgow City Chambers saw Yes win 64% of the vote, with No scoring only 15%.

The Common Weal project

Really just wanted to link to an excellent article by Robin McAlpine of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, from the Sunday Herald of September 15th 2013.

The full piece can be read here.

In particular, these paragraphs really resonated with me:

Britain, meanwhile, is offered two versions of a low-wage economy - one with cash transfers to the poor, the other with emergency payments to the poor. Where Nordic politics agrees about sharing economic growth among the people, British politics agrees on sharing austerity among the people. Their politics agrees on the benefits of universal public services, ours agrees on the need to ration public services. They agree that growth must be based on productivity and innovation, Westminster agrees that growth must be based on cost-cutting and speculation.

What the Norwegian elections really show is that genuinely plural politics in a genuinely competitive economy with genuinely high social cohesion and no real poverty is not only possible, it is normality for millions of our neighbours.

We've been sucked into the belief that there is no alternative; to our failing economy, to our corrupted politics, to our fragmenting society. We've been fooled into thinking that Westminster is normal, that apathy and alienation are normal, that finding endemic poverty in one of the world's richest countries is normal. These things are not normal - or they needn't be.

The Common Weal project isn't about creating a novelty replica of an imaginary Scandinavia and it is certainly not about creating one political opinion without diversity. It is about achieving a better socioeconomic foundation for Scotland precisely to allow genuinely diverse and plural politics to flourish.

The project is driven by the pragmatic attempt to identify where success has been achieved elsewhere and to work out how it was achieved. Crucially it then seeks to develop a distinctive version which is applicable to the Scotland we have today. It draws heavily (though by no means exclusively) from the Nordic nations because their social and economic outcomes are so good. Surely this approach makes sense? If you can find any social or economic statistic which would make you favour the British model over the Nordic one, you're either a multi-millionaire or a masochist.

Exploding the unionist myths... Again

Last night, I watched STV's Scotland Tonight debate between Nicola Sturgeon and Anas Sarwar. The debate was poorly handled by John MacKay and while Sturgeon won, it wasn't a convincing victory due to the distracting tendency of the aggressive Sarwar to shout, interrupt, take the debate off-topic and to avoid giving answers, instead sticking to sound bites and a pre-prepared script.

As always, whilst witnessing the arguments against independence put forward by Sarwar on behalf of Scottish Labour and Better Together (or Project Fear as members inside BT refer to the organisation), I could not help but be reminded of the scaremongering and lies told before our devolution referendum in 1997.

In fact, I recently watched 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' from 1997 and the claims made by the unionists (the 'No/No' or 'Think Twice' groups) throughout are depressingly familiar.



Hosted by Bernard Ponsonby (one of last night's analysts), the programme pitted Labour's Secretary of State, the late Donald Dewar, then leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Jim Wallace, SNP leader Alex Salmond, all on the Yes/Yes side, against Conservative constitutional affair spokesman Michael Ancram, Labour MP for Linlithgow Tam Dalyell and chairman of the Think Twice campaign, Donald Findlay QC.

Throughout the show, fears are raised by the No side which in hindsight have proven to be nonsense. Bear that in mind when listening to today's No campaign.

Early in the show, Tam Dalyell makes reference to the fact that in the lead up to the devo referendum, it was claimed that problems such as the Skye bridge tolls could be solved by a Scottish parliament. He argues that "No amount of laws are going to meet these grievances, no amount of talk in a parliament is going to address these problems."

In actual fact, the devolved Scottish parliament DID successfully abolish the tolls in 2004.

Clearly, the UK today is deeply flawed, with rising child poverty, unacceptable levels of unemployment,  austerity measures, cuts to benefits, a bedroom tax which hurts the most vulnerable in our society. When unionists argue that independence is not the solution to these problems created by Westminster, remember that we were told the same about devolution and the problems of the 1990s. We were told devolution would not solve various problems which it in fact has, the Skye bridge tolls being just one example.

Successes such as the public smoking ban, free prescriptions, the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee, the Scottish government's vastly better management of the NHS, these are thanks to taking decision-making powers from Westminster and placing them in the hands of the people of Scotland, in a government who are fully accountable to the electorate at the polling station rather than a parliament where we have effect on only 10% of the members.

Independence would allow us to take further control and enjoy further successes; do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise. They lied to us about devolution and they lie to us still.

Later in the devolution debate show, Michael Ancram states: "I believe that these proposals are bad for Scotland, they are bad for the people of Scotland, they are bad for business in Scotland."

He also later stated that a devolved Scotland would raise taxes, be less competitive, attract less inward investment and create less jobs.

In fact, inward investment in a Scotland with a devolved government is currently at a fifteen year high, with market share at similar levels to that of 2004. It would be nigh on impossible to argue now that devolution has been bad for business in Scotland.

That claim in relation to devolution has been well and truly busted, just as it has with regards independence. While many senior figures in the No campaign are on record as saying the uncertainty around independence is bad for business in Scotland, the opposite has been found to be the case.

UK Chancellor George Osborne said: "I think that uncertainty is damaging investment in Scotland – and there are major businesses around the world who have asked me as chancellor in the last year 'tell us what is going on in Scotland - we're worried about making an investment in that country'."

Prime Minister David Cameron said: "This is very damaging for Scotland because all the time businesses are asking 'Is Scotland going to stay part of the UK? Are they going to stay together? Should I invest'?"

Secretary of State Michael Moore repeated the claims, saying: "With too long a period, we will just increase the uncertainty about Scotland's future, which will affect jobs, it will affect investment plans."

Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: "…continuing constitutional uncertainty is damaging business in Scotland."

This has been proven to be completely false. Accountancy firm Ernst & Young, in a recent attractiveness survey, said: "There's certainly no sign of investors being deterred from coming to Scotland; if anything, the reverse appears to be true."

More scaremongering shown to be simply not true; just as it was in '97.

On the devolution referendum's second question regarding tax-varying powers, it is claimed during the '97 show that with local government taxation, a Scottish government could bring in new taxes. Of course, in reality, Scotland has been hurt not by new taxes created by our devolved Scottish parliament, but by Wesminster's Bedroom Tax.

Donald Findlay and the No/No side warned that with tax-varying powers, the Scottish government could raise taxes - despite the fact that, at the time, the status quo of Westminter was just as able to raise taxes to an unlimited level. These same claims, proven bogus in the reality of devolution, are made with regards tax levels in an independent Scotland, where we are told we will need higher taxes to survive. The same fears are trotted out.

In 1997's show, Tam Dalyell says looking forward at the effects of devolution over the next five to twenty years, he predicts marginalisation of Scotland within UK and Europe.

This has proven to be completely bogus. Our role in Europe and support for European Union membership has increased with devolution over that period. We have the major share of the EU’s oil production, almost a quarter of its offshore renewable energy potential, a fifth of its natural gas production and a twelfth of its seas. There are approximately 150,000 workers and students who have chosen to come to Scotland from Poland, Ireland, Holland, France, and other countries of the EU.

In the event of independence, IPSOS-Mori polling shows support for membership of the EU at more than 60%. This contrasts greatly with England, where recent polling suggests that a majority of people are in favour of leaving the European Union.

We were told lies about our role in the European Union then and we are told lies about it now; about the supposed risk to membership, about the strength of our position in Europe. Now, as then, the unionists are scaremongering.

The No side claim during the 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' show that a devolved Scottish parliament would have no resources to deal with:

- Nurses' pay (Scottish Government increased nurses' pay to higher than that of their English & Welsh counterparts in 2007)

- Hospital waiting lists (90.8% of patients for which 18 Weeks RTT could be measured were seen within 18 weeks while in England, waiting times are currently at a five year high)

- Education and school repairs (Audit Scotland’s March 2008 report 'Improving the School Estate' showed significant progress had been made in improving the estate and overtaking the legacy of pre-devolution underinvestment in schools, when expenditure on maintenance, repair and replacement failed to keep pace with the rate of deterioration)

We were told that the Scottish Government would not have the resources to deal with issues it has addressed far better than its Westminster counterparts. The reality has blown those lies out of the water. Now, we are told that Scotland does not have the resources to go it alone and be independent. The reality is that Scotland does have the resources and would in fact fare a great deal better with its own government having more power.

Only last week George Osborne during his visit to the North Sea oil rigs told us that our resources are better left in the hands of Westminster - that having the benefits of some 90% of North Sea oil in an independent Scotland, rather than our current 10% share, would somehow make us worse off, that we do not have the resources to cope. We had the resources to flourish with devolution and we have the resources to flourish further still in an independent nation.

Unionists told us before the devolution vote that matters such as education, housing, health, agriculture and justice would be better handled under continuing Westminster rule than in a separate Scottish government, yet few would vote now to reverse devolution. These decisions are better handled by MSPs accountable to the Scottish people.

Unionists tell us now that we would be best leaving such non-devolved matters as warfare and the economy at the hands of Westminster. The success of devolution shows us that this is not the case.

Unionists told us then that making just 10% of parliament in Westminster was better than forming 100% of parliament in Edinburgh. But the failings of government in the last 14 years have continued to come from Westminster; the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the economic crash and the resulting austerity measures.

At one point, Donald Dewar asks the Conservative why when there are powers presently exercised by Westminster, that's fine, but when those powers are passed to Scots who are going to sit in a Scottish parliament, unionists think they uniquely cannot be trusted to take sensible decisions. History repeats itself. We are being told again that decisions are better made for us in England when we have learnt from the past that this is simply not true.

Jim Wallace makes reference early in the show to the poll tax, nursery vouchers, quango-tisation of water and sewage,  reform of local government. These problems were left in the past with devolution, but could just as easily be substituted for today's bedroom tax, benefits cut, austerity measures, Trident. Westminster rule hurt us then and continues to hurt us still as we do not have full powers for Holyrood.

In last night's show, Anas Sarwar - when he wasn't interrupting Sturgeon or questioning the SNP's record in goverment, like next year's referendum is even remotely about one party - unintentionally summed it up best when he said "It's not about Tory welfare reforms. I voted against them."

Scottish MPs do not have a voice in Westminster. Our country's representatives vote unanimously against bills and they are passed regardless.

Just as the Think Twice and No/No representatives failed to present a positive case for the status quo then, Sarwar used his opportunity not to speak positively of the union, but to belittle the SNP, criticise Sturgeon and fear-monger where independence was concerned.

Just as the Yes campaign has a positive vision for an independent Scotland, the Yes/Yes side of 1997 were quoted that night as saying things like "We want to return power to Scotland," that they were looking to represent "every significant strand of Scottish opinion," with the message to "Show faith. Have hope. Take courage."

Then, as now, the language of the Yes side was positive and optimistic about Scotland while the No crowd were peddling fear, concerns and pessimism. Just as devolution has proven to be a positive step for Scotland, independence would benefit our country and hand power back to the people who live here.

One audience member summed it up best, telling people that they should "Vote yes with your heads and your hearts, not no with your pockets."

We should continue to show the same faith and pride in Scotland that we showed when we voted yes to devolution. Rather than let the unionists win by scaremongering and shouting down the chance to make Scotland better, we should grab our opportunity with both hands. History has judged us to be right in doing so in 1997 and the future would prove us to be right in voting for independence.

The link between devolution and nationalism

“Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead.”

George Robertson’s famous quote has looked ever more ridiculous as time has passed. It was quoted in 2007 when the SNP won control of the Scottish parliament and dug up again in 2011 when they won a majority many thought impossible. The quote has never seemed more ironic than it does now, as we head to a referendum on Scottish independence on 18^th September 2014.

Why was Robertson so wrong? Why, after 16 years of devolution, is nationalism on the Scottish public agenda more than ever?

Of course, the simple answer is that devolution has worked so well because countries are better governed by their own people. Independence is the natural next step to a model of devolution which has been successful but not without limits.

Since 1997, Scotland has fared best in areas of governance we control within Holyrood. Where we have been failed is in areas such as warfare – with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – and the economy, still controlled by Westminster. Naturally, this has lead to a debate on winning more power and more control for Holyrood.

Recent polls show that support for full-blown independence still lacks majority backing. However, it is clear that most Scots want further devolution; in a January 2012 Ipsos MORI poll, 71% backed the concept of ‘Devolution Max’.

While Devo Max is not on the table, this shows that there are a great number of undecided voters who want more power for Scotland, but are not sure how they want such a thing framed: in an independent Scotland, or as part of a United Kingdom promising more power after the referendum.

The challenge for the ‘Yes’ campaign is to convince these voters that Scotland would be better run with full control as an independent nation.

The unionists, meanwhile, will have to convince the public that greater autonomy will be best accommodated as part of the union.

The SNP were formed with the very purpose of winning independence and in turn more power for Scotland. The unionist parties, however, will have a job on their hands to convince voters that they truly care about more power for Scotland.

Promises of more power have appeared only as part of their campaign against independence, and not as part of any innate desire to see Scotland with more control of its affairs.

The Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems have all now been quoted as saying they want to offer more power to Scotland in 2015, after a ‘no’ vote. None are willing to provide full details of those powers, leading to shouts of “jam tomorrow”

Of course, before the 1979 referendum, Scots were promised that a future Conservative government would offer Scotland “something better”.  This proved to be the reign of Margaret Thatcher.

In truth, few voters – even those not born in ’79 - will be naïve enough to believe that in the event that Scotland returns a ‘no’ vote, there will be anything but a token gesture offered by the unionist parties in terms of further powers for Scotland.

The only way to ensure that full control of Scottish affairs is in Scottish hands - that the desire of those 71% surveyed by Ipsos MORI is met - is to vote ‘Yes’ for an independent Scotland.

Westminster control has hurt Scotland time and time again.

In 2003, MPs voted on an amendment to the Iraq war motion – that the case for war was not established. 52% of Scottish MPs voted against the war. Overall, 65% of Westminster MPs voted for.

In 2007, 60% of Scottish MPs voted against the renewal of Trident; in Westminster overall, 72% voted for.  Scotland’s share of Trident costs is estimated at around £163 million per year - and our share of the replacement costs about £84 million per year for 15 years.

In January 2013, Scottish MPs voted 11 for and 46 against in the vote on the benefits cut. In Westminster this was 324 for, 268 against.

In February 2013, 4 Scottish MPs voted in favour of the bedroom tax, 41 against. Overall, 265 MPs voted for whilst 224 voted against.

Our voice is not heard in Westminster. Only in an independent Scotland – with a government we elected – can Scottish politicians truly represent the people of Scotland and have their votes matter.

Nationalism is alive and kicking because devolution has stoked within the people of Scotland a desire for more control over their own affairs. It’s clear that the ‘no’ vote will lead only to more of the same for Scotland; that same lack of control and those same hurtful Westminster policies which have lead to a clamour for more power in the first place.

If you believe that Scotland ought to have more control over its own affairs, a ‘yes’ vote is the only decision which will deliver that.