Should Scotland Be An Independent Country

There was just one question – should Scotland be an independent country? The answer was as simple as a yes or a no, but it decided the future of the UK.  September the 18^th of this year was an important date, on this day the final decision according to the votes came out to be a no.

Let us first have a look at the reason behind Scotland wanting independence. The proponents of the Yes Campaign believed that Scotland would be richer if it separates from England. They wanted Scotland to make its own decisions about how resources are controlled and money is invested. They opposed investing billions of pounds in nuclear weapons and wanted to focus on social issues such as; childcare and programs to retain talent and encourage young Scots to stay.

Investigating the opposition and throwing some light on the Better Together Campaign we get to know about the arguments it placed against the yes campaign. They said that by being a part of the UK, Scotland can easily trade across other parts of the UK and therefore have access to more jobs. It also mentioned that Scotland has the protection of the UK armed forces and influence on the UN Security Council.

Shortly afterwards, Mr Salmond said he accepted the defeat and called for National Unity. He told supporters: “The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland. Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course – as a reminder; we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by March 27th next year.” Mr Salmond urged the Yes voters to reflect on how far they had come."I don't think any of us, whenever we entered politics, would have thought such a thing to be either credible or possible", he said. He also claimed the campaign had put "a scare and a fear of enormous proportions" at the heart of the Westminster establishment."Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this Nation forward."

BBC’s Nick Robinson said: “This referendum may have ended one debate in Scotland – for now. It has however, lit the touch paper on the explosive question of where power lies in the UK.” David Cameron also committed himself to be offering Scotland new powers, but it made clear that this would depend on the next general election and a settlement that would exclude Scottish MPs from voting on many issues confined to England. Robinson suggests that this would create two classes of MP with the possibility of a government having a majority to pass certain laws but not others.

Hence for now, Scotland and the UK will carry on as they have for the past 300 years; but there will be some changes and they will not be the same as it was before.

Can Young Voters Trust Who They Vote For?

Now more than ever the young vote counts, as was proved in the 2010 election where the Liberal Democrats received a major increase in their usual amount of seats.

My question is can young voters make an informed accurate decision on who they’re voting for this upcoming summer? I think not, unless you want to spend time to really dig deep into the parties. For the casual voter who has little interest in politics in day to day life, they will have a couple of ways to base their decision. One will be in the live debates shown across different TV platforms. Another will be from all the speculation in newspapers about promises and policies in the upcoming months.

There is one problem with the latter option, all these papers have political allegiance. Due to papers allegiances with parties it makes it hard for a casual voter to make the decision. With the Sun tearing apart Labours new policy while the Guardian pokes at Cameron’s latest gaffe’s, who is he meant to trust? And why are they to trust these media moguls? With phone hacking and libel claims being settled weekly they print media is hardly giving a good account for itself and is creating an unstable environment for democratic politics to be in. It creates an idea of us and them rather than informing the voter of the straight up facts of each party allowing them to make an informed decision. 

The television debates don’t offer much more than the papers. They’re set up in a way that by the end you only know which politician is the best orator. When you should be finding out which is the best leader for you, this is not helpful. Nick Clegg proved in last election debates that he was a brilliant talker, especially about policies.

But what Nick Clegg proved a year later was that he was only a good talker, and not much more. The whole of Nick Clegg’s election campaign was based around the fact the Lib Dems would not let University fees increase. Which made like a vote for Lib Dem seem like a wasted vote for the younger votes come one year later when University fees had been upped to £9,000.

Ultimately, the fact our views on TV and money for the papers is more important to the media than how we vote. Unfortunately this leaves young voters in a poor position. They are ill informed and left with no real idea on who will help them. 

On that day in May when we all decide who shall keep the country ticking for the next five years, there will be a shock. A shock that the turnout is low, especially amongst younger voters. Young people are disillusioned with politics, we don’t want to hear from Labour why the Tories can’t handle the debt. we don’t want to hear from the Tories why Labour put us in this much debt.  We don't want to know what we can do for you, rather what you can do for us.