SSP Stirling Public Meeting 29th January - "Hear How a Yes Vote Will Benefit You"

On Wednesday the 29^th of January in the Cowane Centre in Stirling, the Stirling SSP branch held a public meeting named “Hear How a Yes Vote Will Benefit You” to discuss how a Yes vote in the upcoming independence referendum will benefit the people of Scotland. The Chair of the public meeting, Hugh Cullen, the branch chair, said that the event was to allow people to hear from panelists giving their own vision for an independent Scotland, and how it would benefit ordinary people in Scotland.

The panelists included: Lorna Binnie, the chair of the Falkirk Trades Council and the PCS Union, on the STUC equality committee, also an activist for Women for Independence, Johnathan Shafi, the co-founder and Convener of the Radical Independence Campaign, and Kevin McVey, the national secretary of the SSP.

The first panellist to speak was Lorna Binnie. She opened by saying she would be delivering her vision on how independence would benefit women and trades’ unions. She remarked that independence gives Scotland the power to make choices which would benefit women and women’s rights. For her, the fight for women’s rights is driven by culture, and independence would help to deliver that cultural change to provide a boost for gender equality. Lorna said that, “A women’s vote is a women’s voice”, and that it is imperative that women vote Yes in the upcoming referendum in order to voice their opinions to Westminster that they are not fully representing women.

An example she used to show how greater control of powers for Scotland benefits women is the track record the Scottish Government has with women’s rights, compared to the Westminster government. From her personal experiences, she remarked that the Scottish government is far more in touch with women in Scotland than Westminster, and meets with the STUC Equality Committee she chairs regularly. The gender pay gap and the severe lack of women in the board room in the UK was also an example she used to show how the UK is out of touch with women's rights.

In regards to the Scottish economy, Lorna used the small nation of Brunei to exemplify how Scotland’s economy will be better off under independence. Visiting Brunei, she found the wealth per head of the small nation a powerful example of how Scotland would be a more successful country per head under independence; it is a well-known fact that Brunei is regularly close to the top of the table when it comes to GDP per head. To sum up this point, she said “small can be successful too”, with independence giving a small nation such as Scotland more control over its domestic affairs.

In the second part of her vision for an independent Scotland, Lorna gave her view on how independence will benefit the people of Scotland from a Union perspective. A more stable pension system and a fairer progressive tax system are aspects she mentioned would benefit the people of Scotland, as anti-trade union laws passed by Westminster would no longer affect Unions in Scotland. She argued that a stronger presence of Unions in an independent Scotland would lead to fairer wages for workers, more reliable pension schemes, and a fairer distribution of wealth; as workers would have more collective bargaining powers.

The second panellist to speak was Johnathan Shafi, the Co-founder and convenor of the Radical Independence Campaign (RIC). His vision for an independent Scotland which would benefit the people of Scotland stems from how Scotland no longer being aligned to the British State would do away with such issues as wealth inequality and the “rolling back of everything working people have won since 1945”. He used the example of nuclear weapons being transported to Scotland in the dead of night to show how the British State is taking Scotland for granted and covertly working against our interests; as weapons the majority of Scotland do not want are being secretly transported through Scotland when no-one is looking. 

Shafi explained how the wealth of the top 200 in the UK since 1980 increasing 100 times is no accident, but a direct consequence of the neo-liberal policies of the UK government which are actively damaging the prospects for working people in Scotland. He also explained how the UN recently launching an inquiry into how food is distributed in the UK due to the rapid growth of food banks, shows that Westminster is not working for Scotland. 

He also said how the UK government is utilising the historic tactic of dividing the people of Scotland against each other, to minimise resistance to their policies; such as the stigmatisation of immigrants and those on benefits. To him, “independence in of itself isn’t a magic wand”, but is a tool the Scottish people can utilise in order to make the right choices to reverse the damaging neo-liberal policies of UK governments which have brought in austerity. 

The third and final panellist to speak was Kevin McVey, the national secretary of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), he gave the vision of how independence and the SSP will benefit the people of Scotland. He started off by utilising the example of how when he was driving through Glasgow and went from Bearsden, a leafy middle-class suburb, to Drumchapel, he noticed a stark wealth-divide present in Scotland. He followed this example by saying that such economic inequality isn’t an accident, but is the direct result of neo-liberal economic policies handed to Scotland by Westminster.

He remarked that he was a former Labour member as was kicked out of the party, something he is proud of, as it went from being a left-wing party, to now a centre-right party devoid of its Socialist roots. He said how the recent announcement from Labour of increasing tax for the wealthy, is but a tiny measure that will not do nearly enough to help working people in Scotland. 

He went on to say how there is clear evidence which shows how support for independence is highest amongst those who are the most deprived in Scotland. He explained how this was due to the British state failing millions of people across Scotland leaving them with no support for the status-quo. McVey then explained how “the largest growth of poverty is amongst those working”, and how independence would fix this issue as we would have greater control over who controls the wealth in Scotland, and how it is distributed in order to benefit the most deprived and those working.

The evening was rounded off by questions being taken from the audience. These included questions on how the Labour party would be able to get back in touch with its roots in an independent Scotland, how a socialist government such as the SSP in an independent Scotland would control the economy, and if independence is primarily a class issue.

Therefore in conclusion it can be seen that from the views given at the public meeting, an independent Scotland really has a chance of benefiting the people of Scotland. Greater control over our own powers will ensure women and Trades' Unions get proper representation in society. It will ensure an end to illegal wars and governments we didn't vote for. And it will also ensure that we can make the right choices to reverse the damaging neo-liberal policies given to us by Westminster throughout the years so we can shrink wealth inequality, and make sure working people are delivered the fair chances in life they deserve.

Pulling Strings

Much attention in the referendum debate over the past months has been devoted to David Cameron's involvement, or rather, his suspicious non-involvement. David Cameron has gave off the impression of trying to be a crafty puppet master pulling the strings from Westminster, whilst sending lackeys to Scotland to do his dirty work. After famously proclaiming that he would fight for Scotland with "with every single fibre that I have", Cameron has been surprisingly uninvolved in the ground-level fight for Scotland.

Much of the controversy surrounding Cameron's involvement began when he refused a call to debate Alex Salmond live on national TV. His reasoning was that he does not want to get involved in a debate as it is a debate for the Scottish people alone. In fact, he has refused to have a debate again at the start of this year; surely with the last year to go, Cameron would be wanting to put all those unspent fibers into use?

It turns out that Cameron's view that it is a debate for people of Scotland alone is at odds with public sentiment. A majority of people both north and south of the border want to see a televised debate between Alex Salmond and David Cameron. The logical view that the majority of people in Scotland hold, and share with the rest of the UK, is that Scottish independence is not a battle just between factions in Scotland, or between Scotland and England, it is between Scottish people and Westminster.

Therefore, it would logically follow that the elected representatives of both Westminster and Holyrood should have a debate; as Cameron and Salmond are, as a matter of incontrovertible fact, opposite numbers. Predictably, Alistair Darling has waded into the issue to save what credibility Better Together still has by trying to say that he will meet Alex Salmond instead. What Darling is missing, however, is that Alex Salmond is not his opposite number in the debate. That would be Dennis Canavan, who chairs the Advisory Board of Yes Scotland.

Cameron could be let off the hook saying he does not want to debate Alex Salmond as it is a matter for the Scottish people alone, if he did indeed stay out of the debate. His involvement in the referendum however, is extensive, albeit covert. It seems every week there is an announcement of some UK minister Scotland didn't vote for coming up to Scotland to lecture us why our powers are better kept in the hands of those we do not elect. First it was George Osborne, now it's William Hague. Perhaps the most laughable example was the new Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael traveling to my university, the University of Stirling, to deliver a new year's speech outlining why Scotland is better off represented by him and his government. An event attended wholly by the middle-aged, middle-class.

It is obvious that the recent shower of UK ministers traveling to Scotland is a plan devised by David Cameron. Why would he risk taking flak from the Scottish public over his out of touch values, when he can just send his ministers? It is far more effective for Cameron to spread his unionist conservative ideals to the north by sending others to do so whilst he sits comfy in Westminster.

Cameron has recently been caught red-handed trying to pull strings behind the scenes internationally by writing a letter to the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, asking for Russia's support in the 2014 referendum. This letter highlights the full extent of Cameron's desperation and craftiness in trying to win the referendum, in trying to appeal to such a iniquitous leader such as Putin. Thankfully, Cameron has been scalded in his attempt trying to gain international support for a domestic matter.

Putin expectantly has replied saying that it is a domestic matter for the UK, and that everyone "has the right to self-determination". Whilst unionists are reveling in Putin saying that having a strong, single-state has "some advantages", you have to remember the context in which Putin is saying this. Putin's Russia rose out of a USSR, which was on the brink of collapse as many of its satellite nations broke away. Plus, Putin has unlawfully influenced elections in Russia to keep his presidency. It is in Putin's interest to keep a strong single-state, as any instability could seriously threaten his premiership.  Also, Russia throughout its history has always been close to armed conflict at any moment, so stability is in his interest.

Finally, perhaps the most comical recent addition to the top-down No campaign is the impending 'love-bombing' expected from high-profile English celebrities and business-people. The bizarre new tactic comes as a recent Ipsos Mori poll revealed that 47% of adults throughout the UK thought the UK would be weaker as a result of Scottish independence; compared to the 9% who think it would be stronger.

Basing such a strategy on figures like these is complete nonsense. Of course people south of the border are going to think the UK would be weaker upon Scottish independence. It has been Scotland's offshore revenues throughout the years that financed neo-liberal agendas which have destroyed Scottish industry and Union's, whilst propping up the ravenous baking sector. The No campaign with this strategy are, again, missing the point of independence. It is not about Scottish people versus English people, it is about transferring powers which affect Scotland, to Scotland. Trying to guilt-trip Scots into voting No by making them think they are abandoning the English is not only deceitful, but weak.

Therefore in conclusion it can be seen that David Cameron's involvement in the referendum is nothing short of a crafty puppet master. He is happy pulling strings behind the scenes at Westminster whilst offering no real involvement in the debate. He says he will fight to stop independence with 'every fibre' of his being, yet when an opportunity arises to do so, he declines saying its not his place to become involved. Sending UK ministers to do his dirty work, trying to influence international leaders behind the scenes, and trying to make it into a debate between Scotland and England will not work much longer for the No campaign. It is time David Cameron either admits he is too feart to get involved, or that he is deceitfully pulling strings behind the scenes in order to influence the debate.

Scotland Needs a Public Energy Sector

A contentious issue within Scottish society, and indeed the greater world, that affects millions of people across this country, is energy. Right now Scottish energy supply is maintained in large by the 'big six' energy companies: British Gas, N Power, EON, EDF Energy, Scottish Power, and Scottish Hydro. The British media and political establishment devotes much gesticulation towards explaining how well these big six companies are benefiting the economy, and are the only way forward for the energy sector. The reality however, could not be further from the truth.

Anyone who has first hand experience with these companies will know they are nothing but profiteers that want nothing but to squeeze every penny out of the ordinary family they can. Within the past six years, energy prices have doubled. This is whilst one million families across Scotland are now living in fuel poverty. The Westminster government has valiantly attempted to fix fuel poverty; their method however is not what you would think. They essentially redefined what it is to be in fuel poverty, therefore lifting 800'000 people across Britain out of fuel poverty overnight; what a result eh! In real terms though, many people across Scotland are still living in fuel poverty and struggling to make ends meet with the average yearly bill being £1'315; 10% of some people's wages.It does not have to be like this at all. 

Scotland has an abundance of renewable energy potential.

Scotland is one of the most energy-rich nations in Europe. We have 90% of the UK's oil and gas reserves. The wholesale value of these North Sea reserves stands at an estimated £1.5 trillion. 25% of Europe's wind and tidal energy potential, and 10% of Europe's wave power potential. Currently, Scotland meets 40.3% of its energy needs from renewables, and is currently on track to meet 100% of its energy needs from renewables by 2020. It will be bewildering to many that a million families across Scotland are living in fuel poverty amidst swathes of abundance and potential in energy.

The problem lies not in our ability to produce the energy, it lies in how it is maintained, owned, and distributed. Studying economics myself, it is fact that sectors such as energy, which is vital infrastructure, are best run as a monopoly. This is due to the nature of the industry, it would be inefficient for the sector to consist of hundreds of small firms competing, it would lead to much duplication of resources leading to waste as many firms operate different networks that wouldn't link up efficiently. This would mean the traditional model of supply/demand in a free market would be offset as the equilibrium price for consumers would be much higher due to firms wasting capital and labour on unnecessary duplications in the market.

Since the free-market approach doesn't work. The next step would be to establish monopolistic competition, i.e. a few firms competing and offering slightly different services in order to attract customers. From how the current British energy market operates, it can clearly be seen that that approach too, does not work. Having just a few firms competing leads again to artificially inflated prices. Due to the inelasticity of demand of energy (it is an essential good, therefore people are not as flexible about how much they would be willing to pay for it), this lets the huge companies in control set high prices for no good reason.

Fuel poverty in modern Scotland. Affecting even our most vulnerable.

Right now, major energy companies are making record profits yet keep artificially inflating prices for no good reason. Although the British government is boasting tens of billions of investment in UK energy, don't expect the prices to come down anytime soon. Just like the rail industry, energy companies are being subsidised with billions in the hope that it will bring down prices. The exact opposite is happening however. Energy companies are pushing up prices year on year despite 'billions' in worth of investment, and no one is stopping them due to a toothless Ofgem offering no real opposition to their profiteering. It's subsidised corporate socialism for the big energy companies, and monopolistic price taking for the rest of us.

This is why Scotland, following independence, needs its own publicly-owned energy sector. With a publicly-owned energy sector, the government can operate the energy sector efficiently as a state monopoly, setting a price-ceiling on energy prices to make sure that we are paying the amount the energy costs to produce; not artificially inflated prices born out of greed.

 This would also allow the government to effectively invest in the sector. As instead of investment being dictated by how much money can be squeezed out of the ordinary family, it will be dictated instead by how much supply the country needs. Also, since a publicly-owned sector will not be driven by making a profit, it will be motivated to efficiently run in all ways. This will ensure maximum investment in the sector that will drive down costs for both the government and consumer.

Therefore in conclusion, it can be seen that Scotland would hugely benefit from a publicly owned energy sector. It would ensure families across Scotland would be protected from artificial energy price-hikes, driven by nothing but greed. It would ensure an efficiently run energy sector which would be driven to provide equitable energy distribution to the nation, instead of for profit. It would also ensure the much-needed investment into our energy sector. All this however cannot come about unless we in Scotland vote Yes in this year's referendum, to put control over our affairs into our hands.

Knowledge Really Is Power

It has almost become a staple fact in the independence referendum that the more people know about independence, the more likely they are to vote Yes. To some, this will appear an odd fact, as they think that they receive all the information they need about the referendum from the British mainstream media outlets. The information that comes from the mainstream media, however, is unequivocally biased and full of party political agenda, no matter how much they try to tell you otherwise.

 
The main flaw with the mainstream British media establishment, is that it is driven by an agenda funded by wealthy British businessmen and politicians. In our capitalist economy, the media relies on sources of funding to keep itself afloat.Outlets such as the newspapers and tabloids know they are a dying industry, and as a result will do anything to keep themselves afloat as the internet and social media, which is free for the most part, strangles them.


Thus, they will try to appeal to those in the establishment and the wealthiest in society in order to gain much needed revenue. The press will satisy the wishes of what those in the establishment and the masses want to hear. They will often appeal to those in power in society in order to gain revenue from donations. And will equally appeal to the whims of the masses in order to generate more sales. That is why, in the independence referendum, it is important to split the mainstream media from actual informed debate which will help people make up their minds which way to vote.

The debate about Scotland's future should not be held by those driven by wealth and a corporate agenda, it should be held in communities, schools, and universities; by the people actually affected by the issues in the referendum. The reason why this should be the case, is that time and time again debates in schools, communities, and universities have shown that even the information provided by one debate, is enough to sometimes drastically turn the voting intentions around.

A debate hosted by the marketing company Nth Degree in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, showed that after the debate, the Yes vote increased dramatically to 75%, compared to 25% for No. Another debate in Abertay University showed that the Yes vote increased to 51% compared to a No vote of 38%; the pre-debate poll showed a result of 59% No and 21% Yes. Strathclyde University held a debate where the post-debate vote was 60% voting Yes and 24% voting No. What's surprising about this debate was that at the start, Yes was actually winning 56.5%, and aftwerwards Yes rose whilst No and undecided voters shrunk.

At Edinburgh Napier University, the Yes vote attracted a stunning 80% after the debate. To provide balance to counter the inevitable claims that "It's just universities", St Ninians High School in Kirkintilloch showed an impressive swing of 50% to Yes from No and undecided voters. Prestwick Academy provided a swing to Yes after their debate.

As the infographic shows, before the debate, the majority of pupils voted No. Whereas afterwards, the majority turned to a Yes vote. To add further balance, a BBC News referendum debate even showed a turnaround for Yes. After the debate, 62% voted Yes, whereas 38% voted No. As can be seen in the graph below.

 Therefore, it can be surmised from the figures above that the Yes campaign primary need does not lie with trying to woo the population with high-profile celebrity appearances. It lies with informing the people of Scotland about the real facts surrounding independence. From my time writing and reading about the referendum, all the major facts surrounding independence are on our side.

We know that the Scottish economy is indeed not a backwater which cannot survive on its own. But is instead a vibrant, and diverse economy with potential coming out of its ears. The only thing holding it back is an archaic and unrepresentative government that does not pertain to our interests at home or abroad.

 The Yes campaign has to seize upon the advantage it has with facts, and attempt to drive them home by allowing the people of Scotland make up their minds through informed debates where the facts are most certainly on our side. The Scottish independence referendum will not be won through flashy propaganda or celebrity cameos, it will instead be won in communities, schools, and universities. Knowledge is indeed power in this campaign, and the Yes side has to grasp the opportunity to inform people and win them over through reason.

The Hungry Boxer

As the referendum date comes ever nearer, with the turn of 2014 placing it almost on our doorstep, both sides have became more distinct in their differences from one another. Especially with the margins narrowing, creating more uncertainty towards who will win. One aspect of both sides' campaigns which has perhaps the most difference is their grassroots campaigning.

Anyone who has had any first hand experience with both Yes Scotland and Better Together will have seen great disparity in both sides' ground-level activity. Better Together still relies on the manipulation of the media and top-down lectures from those in power telling the people of Scotland how to vote. The most recent, and perhaps most hilarious, example of the No campaign's efforts to mobilise those at the top of the political structure to influence the referendum can be seen in David Cameron's plea to the Russian president - Vladimir Putin ("Really?". Yes, Really).

This latest plea for international support from Westminster shows two things. One, that Westminster has lost any hope at convincing the Scottish people to vote No on their own. They know the people of Scotland are becoming increasingly aware of the disparity that lies between our interests, and theirs. No longer can they appeal to the jingoism of post-war British unity to inspire Scottish people to vote No. And two, that Britain is still locked in the past era of Cold War underhand governmental negotiations to stifle the contrary interests of their people.

Unsurprisingly, the No campaign have been quiet on this subject. Most No mouthpieces simply stating that any criticism of David Cameron's actions is "childish rhetoric". Better Together's silence on such a blatant underhand and dishonest tactic proves that they are still clinging to the powers of the establishment in order to win the referendum. They are so certain in their victory that they see no need to appeal to the Scottish people at a ground level; the people who are actually voting in the referendum.

This is where the Yes campaign differs greatly. As a political activist myself, I have noticed over the years following up to the referendum a great divide in the activity of the two campaigns at a grassroots level. To illustrate this example I took the time to search for both Better Together and Yes Scotland events happening within 100 miles around my home postcode in Coatbridge (the largest distance on both websites). Here are my results:

The top picture shows Better Together's events happening in Scotland. Fear not, your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Yes, that is right, in the year of 2014, the last run up to the referendum, Better together have a grand total of three events coming up. Yes Scotland on the other hand have 38 events running at the start of the year. If this evidence does not shine a definitive light on the differences between the campaigns, then I don't know what will.

This can be further portrayed by my experiences living in the city of Stirling. Every week both Yes Scotland and the SSP have stalls running; Yes Scotland on a Saturday, and the SSP on a Tuesday outside the Thistles shopping centre for those of you who are interested. Better Together however are nowhere to be seen on a ground level.

This brings us nicely to the main subject of the article. That being that Yes Scotland, for years being portrayed as being behind and never going to win, is the hungry boxer. The Yes side is more determined to win, more determined to interact with the people of Scotland, and more willing to campaign at a ground level to win people over.

The differences in campaigning can also be seen in the crucial role social media is playing in the referendum. The BBC article referenced here says that a report carried out by researchers at the University of Glasgow have showed that those who support independence on Twitter are more active and spontaneous, and start more conversations concerning independence. Whereas the No campaign on Twitter was more orientated towards top-down interactions and had a smaller network on social-media.

Des McNulty, deputy director of Policy Scotland in relation to the findings said this:

"It's interesting that in this particular snapshot 'Yes' has been more active and spontaneous," he said.

"They use more tweets and hashtags, and have a bigger network of tweeters.

"'No' tweets are coming from the top down, and there is no real network amplifying the debate."




The No campaign know they cannot get the people of Scotland to rally around the union and Westminster as it is a sick, dying giant of a political construct. Britishness as an identity is dying, and the politicians at Westminster who are trying to keep it alive are dying with it. Thus, instead of using real campaigning as a means to winning the referendum, they cling to those in power and the establishment. Utilising both the political structure and the media to portray Scotland as a country which is not fit to run its own affairs and make decisions by itself. That the powers that rightfully belong in Scotland are better managed by those we do not vote for.

What can be gleamed from this is that the Yes campaign must build upon the momentum is has gathered. It has to focus more on grassroots campaigning to reach out to the people of Scotland as to why Scotland will be a more democratic, prosperous, fair, and greener nation upon independence. After all, it has been shown that the more people know about the facts surrounding independence, the more likely they are to vote Yes. 2014 will be the year the referendum will take a sharp turn as people realise that Westminster and Better Together are making no effort to interact with them on a ground level.

Syria and the Downfall of Westminster

In recent days, the ferocity of the debate over whether or not western nations such as ours should militarily intervene in Syria has increased exponentially. Almost instantly after it was announced to the world that chemical weapons may or may not have been used in an attack on a civilian suburb killing hundreds, the UK and the US seem ready to invade at a moments notice. Something strange struck me about this conflict however, it seems to be the UK government which is putting the most pressure on the world to intervene.

This may seem rather strange to a lot of people. It is usually the US administrations which are the most gung ho when it comes to military interventions. The threats of Iraq and Afghanistan were almost entirely solely fabricated by the US in order to protect their economic interests abroad. Syria however does not fall into the category that Iraq and Afghanistan does. It contains neither the oil wealth of Iraq, nor the rich mineral deposits of Afghanistan. Therefore, it is not as much as a target for the USA as the aforementioned countries.

Whilst there is a clear case to be made that the use of chemical weapons, such as Sarin gas, is morally abject and abhorrent. That alone is not a reason to militarily intervene in the conflict. Discussion and diplomacy are almost always the better options when it comes to conflicts. It is far more beneficial for all sides in the long run for the conflict to be settled with words rather than weapons. An instant resort to violence is a means used by those who are weak of the mind and character.

Evidence of the disastrous effects of military intervention can be seen in Afghanistan. Not only has that country failed to recover in any way from extremism, it has actually become a hotbed for the growth of extremism. A young boy living in Afghanistan will not see the foreign interventionists as liberators, but oppressors.

This fervent support for war shown by the UK government shows just how little Westminster has moved on from the archaic days of projecting power through imperialist warmongering. Westminster is desperately trying to cling onto the last remnants of global military influence the UK still has. This desperation just shows how out of touch Westminster has become with the people of the country they are supposed to be leading; and is further evidence of the dysfunctionality involved with Scotland still being tied to Westminster politics.

The people of Scotland have consistently showed that we want nothing to do with Westminster warmongering. During the Iraq war days perpetuated by the Blair government, a majority of Scottish MP's voted against the war, many Scots took part in the massive two million strong protest in London, and parties such and three SSP MSP's, who were one of the most anti-war parties, were voted into Holyrood.

Hopefully this conflict in Syria spiraling out of control will show the people of Scotland once and for all that the views and actions of Westminster are not ours. Westminster is wholly and completely unrepresentative of the people of Scotland. It does not represent the governments we vote for, it does not represent our views both internally and globally, and it does not work in our interests. Its only function is to prop up a failing archaic system of privilege and elitism that should have died centuries ago.

There is no sense in Scotland being tied to Westminster when we are again and again forced to take part in the wars forced upon us by Westminster. We do not vote for them, and we do not want them. There is a clear course which Scotland has to take in the near future in order to avoid further pointless conflicts being forced upon us. We have to vote Yes in 2014. Not only will this ensure we do not get forced into wars we did not vote for, it will ensure our young soldiers will not be slaughtered in pointless conflicts, and will ensure we can stop spending money on wars and start spending it on helping the people of this country.

The Undecided Hold The Key

Throughout the independence debate, the unionist side has always claimed victory in the referendum in terms of opinion polls. They have consistently trumpeted time and again that opinion polls show that the Yes side is destined to lose, and that as time has went on, support for independence has been falling at a steady rate.

That is not what recent research is suggesting however. Recent polls and studies carried out this year has shown that the Yes campaign has been bucking the trend and are not gaining ground fast over the No campaign. The recent poll carried out by Panelbase on behalf of the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland has found that the gap between Yes and No has narrowed to just 9 points, with the undecided voters (17%) holding the key swinging influence.

Whilst many unionists will still proclaim that this further shows how the No campaign is undoubtedly bound to win in the referendum, it actually shows nothing of the sort. Studies this year have shown that many aspects of the Scottish electorate will provide a significant boost for the Yes campaign when the time comes to vote.

For example, research has shown that those more informed about the issues surrounding independence are more likely to vote yes in the referendum. Why is this? You might ask. Well, from this research it is clear to see that the Yes campaign has the more well-informed arguments that show the potential an independent Scotland would have to deal with many of its problems more effectively than Westminster would. It also solidifies the point that Better Together still relies on fear and ignorance in the electorate to win. Most of their support relies on the people of Scotland not knowing the issues surrounding independence, and just believing whatever the mainstream media tells them, along with the UK government.

Research also showed that those who have an intention to vote yes, will be more likely to cast their vote in the referendum. This could be a key deciding factor in the referendum, as it wholly relies on each side rallying their supporters to cast their vote on the day. This shows the fact that those who have an intention to vote yes in the referendum are more committed to Scotland's future, and are more motivated to change Scotland for the better; a Scotland that cares enough about itself to make a change is exactly the kind of Scotland we want to be running itself. It also shows that Better Together are having a tough time trying to rally their supporters to play and active role and vote on the day; probably because their messages of fear and pessimism can only be heard for so long without being driven to insanity.

So in light if this recent research and evidence, a Yes vote in the upcoming referendum is becoming more and more likely. If Yes Scotland continue to push its positive and progressive message to the undecided voters, support for independence will only grow stronger, as it is the Yes sides' positive message that is narrowing the gap and bringing the undecided to our side. We on the Yes side mus continue to project a positive message that will ensure the Scottish population is well-informed about the issues surrounding independence and is fully aware of the lies and fear being spread by the mainstream media and the No campaign.