We are now hurtling towards September 2014 and Scotland's independence referendum. Previously I was a confirmed 'No' voter but things have changed over recent months. I've decided to avoid the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, both of which seem to resort to childish mudslinging at every turn. Neither of these campaigns would convince me, so I have tried to ignore the campaigns and gather information and educate myself on all aspects of independence, both positive and negative. Heck, I've even downloaded and read the White Paper (and was even still awake at the end of it!).
Although I briefly swayed towards voting yes, I still have some major doubts about whether we could succeed on our own, for example in terms of economy and defence, so the yes camp still has a lot of convincing to do. However, the idea of establishing a fairer society is highly appealing. The opportunity to create a fairer benefits system, or abolishing the bedroom tax, would be a positive aspect of independence.
Historically, this country has always been more left-wing than its southern neighbour, and I still believe that a lot of the SNP's success in the last two Scottish elections was down to protest votes and disillusionment about Labour's failings during the Blair era. However, in an independent Scotland, we will inevitably be led by politicians. With all their MPs removed from Westminster, this would be a perfect opportunity for Scottish Labour to reinvent itself as a party to represent ordinary people in Scotland, who watch on in horror as the Cameron regime drags the UK further down into a climate of intolerance and hate, with seemingly no opposition in sight and the possibility of a future Tory/UKIP coalition ruling the country. Do we really want to be part of that? It's interesting that Salmond and Sturgeon are now targeting disaffected Labour voters like myself and trying to convince us that a Yes vote does not necessarily mean a vote for the SNP.
I have still to be convinced however, about how independence would work in practice, in a number of areas. Even the most simplistic matters become complicated. Just over a week ago, I queued with my fellow passengers at border control at Edinburgh Airport, on our return from Denmark. At that point I wondered about the differences in our national status, post-independence, as travellers from Scotland to Europe. Would we then need to join a different queue, for 'non-EU' travellers? As a newly independent country, Scotland would need to reapply to become an EU member. How can we really be sure that acceptance into that 'club' would be a formality?
There are so many unanswered questions around our national status, and the economic cost of independence from the UK. On the one hand - yes, in an ideal world we should be an independent country. Why not? But the whole 'UK' thing has been around so long - give or take 500 years - that it's only natural to wonder whether we would be doing the right thing by divorcing from the UK. How do we defend ourselves, for example? How do we pay for all the transition, when many 'UK' businesses are already getting uncomfortable about the idea of an independent Scotland? You can't count on oil, Mr Salmond, no matter what you say. Just where will all the money come from?
As I said, so many unanswered questions. Perhaps the referendum should have been extended to the whole of the UK, rather than just Scotland: that would have provided a more accurate result. Oh, and by the way, could they make referendum voting compulsory please? It's hard to take something seriously when only 30-odd per cent actually bother to turn up at the polling station. This is the future of our country, after all.
To conclude: I'm still in the 'don't know' camp. With 3 and a half months to go till the referendum, will someone please convince me one way or another?
