It looks like the YES campaign is gaining momentum going into the final fortnight. It could be a really close result, perhaps like Florida 2000?



Salmond seems to have pulled a rabbit out of the hat, persuading voters that using the pound without a currency union would be a victory.

How can they be independent of they don't create their own currency?

Can they not have the Scottish pound?

And the bank of last resort would be?



How would they set interest rates?

Firstly I am against splitting up the union - the practicalities of doing it are insurmountable.



They would have to have their own version of the Bank of England.



On interest rates - how does every other country set interest rates, surely the same would apply to Scotland?

Having just got back from a couple of weeks in Scotland, the "Yes" voters are much more apparent. The No campaign seems to have a much lower profile and "No" voters seem afraid to express their views to their vociferous "Yes" neighbours. Based on what you see I think "Yes" could edge it. It is to be hoped though that the quieter No voters will simply turn up on the day and vote No.



Part of the problem for the No campaign is they have no cause and no credible "leader". The PM should be up there but, of course, given their hatred of Tories it has been felt he should keep out and also it would be wrong to have the English meddling in the Scottish vote. In some ways I think that is counter-productive as it suggests Westminster doesn't care about Scotland, which at the end of the day is in large part what this is about - distance and disillusionment with Westminster.



So, No is lead by a Labour figure and he doesn't seem up to the job, having no charisma.



Last weeks "debate", which I watched, was shocking. Salmond acted like a yob and just shouted down and interrupted Darling continuously. Nevertheless, because Darling was fixated with the currency question which the live audience were sick of he was felt to have been trounced. He didn't have the sense to change direction even when the audience were booing and heckling for keep asking about the currency.



I think it will be sad if they go independent. There will be lots of things that will change for us as well as them. One of the biggest losses will be the world's best flag! I think Scotland will become poorer over time and the rest of the UK poorer in the short-term. From a strategic point of view we lose a big chunk of our armed forces personnel and the US, fast looking East rather than to Europe, may lose interest in us.



One consequence may be the rise of English nationalism, which the establishment is always at pains to contain (although they may be happy to go along with to prevent independence movements in Cornwall, Yorkshire, etc).



A big threat to Scotland could be if they vote Yes and we get out of the EU. Then we could charge lorries crossing England to / from Scotland to use our M -ways (nice earner for Switzerland), could be trade barriers over time, etc if we are not all part of the EU single market.



Interesting times but I think a Yes vote will be detrimental to Scotland and us.

Alex Salmond claimed victory in the last debate partly due to apparently establishing that Scotland would be able to use the pound. That, and the fact he shouted down a flustered Alistair Darling.



What Darling attempted to get across, but was ignored by the whopping 'Yes' crowd, was that yes, they could use the pound, but they could also use the ruble, the Euro or the dinar if they so chose. It might be the pound in name and appearance but that's all. Furthermore, it seems it would be impossible for an independent Scotland to join the EU if it used the pound without a formal currency deal or its own central bank (taken from [url=http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/03/can-scotland-be-independent-sterlingthis excellent article[/url on the subject).



And the oil debate. So what if it runs out in 10, 40 or 80 years? The one thing everyone agrees in is that it's finite. It's going to run out.



Too many grey areas for me and most Scots I've spoken to. Unfortunately the emotive side of the 'Yes' argument is sucking people in.



Wonder if Braveheart will be showing on the evening of the 17th.

Surely, it should be the "Aye" campaign?

As long as there are no border controls that need passports then I don't mind which way they swing





One thing pointed out on R4 today is that a split would require MP's from Scottish constiuency's to withdraw from Westminster by 2016 (I think) which would mean a nett loss to the Labour Party of something like 40 seats making Labour far less likely to be a party of government in future and possibly in 2015 ?

The Yes campaigners say that they want to be free of Westminster and insist they have been screwed rotten by the London parliament for years, yet they want to stay tied to the Bank of England?? - If they think they have been screwed before this vote, then how well do they think the Bank of England will treat them once they are a 'foreign' country?? .....

The other side of that - which is where the traction for the Yes campaign has been coming from recently - is that Yes means no Tory government ever again for the Scots. That seems to be driving half of Glasgow at present. At the end of the day this vote will be decided in Glasgow.

Any why would that be? Until the actual split that would leave the people in Scotland with no representation at all. I personally think in the event of a Yes vote a formal split by 2016 is pure fantasy anyway. You aren't going to unpick the Union in around 16 months.



In the interim the Westminster UK government would continue to govern the UK while the representatives of the upcoming Scottish government negotiated with the UK government over the actual terms. You can't have a total limbo situation while its all worked out with people totally disenfranchised as it may take a lot longer than the ridiculously optimistic timetable of 2016.