As we get closer to the referendum, the barrage of shit from the Yes and No campaigns and their affiliates is thundering down upon us with a new sinister vigour that resembles a demonstration of Nazi Blitzkrieg tactics by the monkeys at Edinburgh Zoo. This unfortunately leaves the average voter wading through a faecal quagmire left in the wake of the most non-factual political campaign since Tony Blair’s invasion of Iraq in 2003. Even more regrettably this leaves those same voters to fling hearsay and rumour as unequivocal evidence for their views making the independence debate look more like a private-school playground spat over who gets to be Hugh Laurie when they play House.

The first point of the debate that is driving both sides bananas would appear to be if Scotland will get ‘The Pound’. The currency issue is, on paper at least what is swaying the voters in favour of the No campaign. Strangely the only question not being answered about the currency situation is ‘Why does it matter?’ Which makes its constant unwanted appearance on both sides of this debate along with it’s slipping validity a little hard for me to stomach. I can only imagine the reason the question hasn’t been answered is simply because it doesn’t matter. The hard facts are that if Scotland did become independent it would forfeit it’s right to use the pound unless Westminster deemed it profitable to form a currency union, which of course it would because no economically conscious government would reject an oil rich country supporting their currency. However if Scotland was forced to give up the pound then it should also lose any obligation to the debt the UK has accumulated, leaving Scotland either starting independence with a strong currency(The Pound) or completely debt free and in both cases financially stable. Even then there are many examples both home and abroad of counties that peg currencies (something I feel Scotland would and should avoid) successfully such as America (American Dollar) and Hong Kong(Hong Kong Dollar) or the working currency unions like the UK( Pounds Sterling) and the Isle of Man (Manx Pound) which should leave the currency issue having as much impact on the independence debate as a feather pillow.

With that issue out-of-the-way we can finally concentrate on the chunky part of the shit sandwich. ‘Would a independent Scotland be able to support itself financially?’ which seems to be answered by the opposing sides in very different ways . The No campaign seems to be under the impression that Scotland could never support itself as the UK subsidies Scotland quite significantly. This is perhaps the single biggest misapprehension by the No campaigners and is in fact entirely wrong. Even our Prime Minister David Cameron suggested that Scotland ‘Could make it on her own.’ in an interview with the BBC. The figures that settle this debate once and for all should be that Scotland pays more percentage of tax to the UK (9.4%) than it has a population within the UK (8.4%) which means that Scotland actually subsidies the rest of the union and if that wasn’t enough to silence the sceptics an independent study by the C.E.B.R showed that Scotland receives no net subsidy which in laymen’s terms means Scotland pays for itself and then some.

The Yes campaigners on the other hand always seem to answer this question with a quote about Scottish Oil. If you had to read any Yes propaganda that is circulating you would suddenly be under the impression that Scotland is the oil capital of the world and that Scottish rig workers actually piss crude oil. Unfortunately for the people in favour of independence this is laughable at best. Scotland does have a lot of oil in the North Sea but it is a rather small amount in comparison to Russian and Middle Eastern oil reserves. Looking at the statistics, even if Scotland based its economy solely on the selling of oil reserves (a finite resource) it would not make it significantly richer than it is now and would definitely not raise the standards of living in Scotland for the average voter. However if North Sea oil was managed properly and patiently the revenue would compliment Scotland’s economy and make is stable for the foreseeable future.

Another point there seems to be a massive dispute over is ‘ Would an independent Scotland get automatic acceptance to the EU?’ Ignoring the recent interview with José Manuel Barroso, on paper Scotland should get accepted into the EU without much resistance. It meets most (if not all) of the criteria that a country applying to enter the EU is asked to and has been a (partial) member before. Realistically Barroso’s point that Scotland may not get automatic membership to the EU is to me, politically motivated. It would seem he does not want to provoke unrest in Europe by guaranteeing that a country that rises from an existing EU state will get automatic membership . For example countries like Kosovo and perhaps the regions of Spain such as ‘Catalionia’ may get the idea that they to would get automatic membership if Barroso promised it to an independent Scotland. It could even be suggested that Barroso considers Scotland much like Ireland in the way it conducts its banking system and does not want a repeat of what happened to Ireland when its banking system collapsed. Regardless of Barroso’s intentions the easiest way for Scotland to find out for certain would be for David Cameron to officially ask the EU, something which the Prime Minister in his typical wanky manner has refused to do. Considering all of that even if Scotland stayed as part of Britain it would not guarantee permanent EU membership thanks to the sympathy votes for parties like UKIP. The EU issue is not one that can be settled right now and really should have no impact on the independence debate for the Scottish voter because either way it’s up in the air.

The issue of self-determination seems to be lost in this shit storm and is really the most relevant point of the most important decision a Scottish voter will make in their life time. What the facts show is that in the majority of elections for the UK parliament even if the Scots had not participated in the vote at all that the winning party would have still be elected. Scotland needs a government that looks out for it’s best interests. Isn’t that what the debate should be about?