Britain after Brexit

In spite of voting leave, many well informed advocates of Brexit would agree that the immediate economic effects of Britain’s leaving of the European Union would not be entirely positive. The less knowledgeable supporters of Britain’s leaving of the EU promote the notion that Brexit will control immigration. Pre and post the referendum, this idea has been giving a voice to racism in Britain.

It is hard to predict today what the future of Brexit will turn out to be in a decade or even five years time, but it is obvious that Britain’s planned exit of the EU is already provoking serious economic consequences. The most infamous, immediate and, arguably, the most important economic fatality of Brexit has been the value of the pound. Having sank to an alarming low against the American dollar and euro, in simple words, it seems as if us Britons have become poorer as a result of Britain’s decision to leave the EU. The pound lost 11 per cent of its value in the short space of two trading days, which raises the question that should have been answered to many less knowledgeable voters before they voted leave: how will Brexit immediately affect our economy?

Having dropped in value by around 13%, the pound, which was worth $1.50 on 23 June, is now trading at around $1.30, which is a new low for this decade, seeing as the sterling has not been at levels this low since the 1980s. On 23 June the pound was worth €1,30, but now trades at about €1,19, another alarming low.

Conversely, as a result of Brexit, the percentage of race hate crimes has vastly increased. In the weeks before and after the vote to leave the European Union, race hate crimes increased by 42%. Reports of racism have been amassing in the media, and this is no surprise. Immigration was highlighted as a common reason for Brexit amongst voters, and with the vote to leave stealing the coveted victory, those who were against immigration for racist reasons were revelling in their success.

With the value of the pound falling and the amount of race hate crimes increasing, the future of Brexit is not seeming as bright as advertised. However, some argue that the pound was overvalued before and there are, in fact, some benefits that come with a devalued pound regarding British exports and its net worth. Though there is no way to justify racism, some people believe that Brexit simply means reports of racism are piling up in the media, not the incidents themselves. Today, many people link racism in Britain with Brexit, albeit the vote for leave triumphing or the ‘problem’ of immigration may not have been the motive for all of the racist acts that have been occurring as of late.

AA

Brexit means Brexit

On the 31st August 2016, Theresa May led a “Brexit brainstorm” at Chequers Court. 

Along with the many ideas being deliberated at the meeting, Mrs May wanted to make it clear that “Brexit means Brexit”. Yet, there is no need to fret Remainers, as a legal analysis of Article 50 has recently been published, which would have Brexiters across the UK spilling their brandy all over their country-estate-carpet. May said the UK government will not trigger Article 50 until the start of 2017 at the earliest, which in turn would start the 2-year process of Britain leaving the EU. The proposition suggests that once article 50 is invoked there is no turning back – doomsday for Britain. However, the reality is that Article 50 is a notification of Britain’s “intention” to leave the EU. In law, the word “intention” cannot be interpreted as a final and irreversible decision, therefore the “intention” can be withdrawn. So, hypothetically speaking, if a new government was elected which represented the remain side, the intention to leave the EU would be no more, which would cause a rekindling of relationships between the UK and it’s former partner countries. 

Another issue issued discussed at Chequers was the approach towards a possible deal with the EU. May made the need for a "unique" deal for the UK clear, however, what the deal would be or how it would be ratified was not clarified. The reiteration of the issues is hardly ground-breaking progress and, if anything, it is making the idea of a perfect deal which pleases all seem more unattainable than originally thought. The SNP has accused the government of "breathtaking complacency", Mr Hugo Swire MP, who campaigned for Remain, made it obvious that the government has no idea what they want to achieve, and Ex-Chancellor Lord Lawson (a leave campaigner) wants the government to “stop wasting time trying to negotiate the unnegotiable”. 

Is it possible to achieve the “unique deal”? 

Unlikely! Why would the EU grant the UK a perfect deal that would possibly cause the collapse of the whole system? The most likely outcome is that the UK will remain part of the single market, which makes one question the point of the hassle and financial loss, for a life that practically mirrors one inside of the EU. 

Should Brexit really mean Brexit? FB

EU Referendum talk - Tom Brake MP

A Student Report

23rd June 2016, the day where the final decision will be made by the nation on whether or not the UK should stay in the European Union. It has been 41 years since the last EEC (European Economic Community) Referendum, in which the people made the call to remain in the European Economic Community (Now known as the EU). Has time changed the view of the people?

 

On the 28th of April, we are fortunate enough to invite Tom Brake MP (Carshalton and Wallington) from the Liberal Democrats Party to talk about his views on the issue. He, like the rest of his party believe that the UK should stay in the EU. The ‘Stronger In’ Campaign they call it - ‘Britain is stronger, safer and better off in Europe than we would be out on our own.’

 

Firstly, by staying in, it promotes and maintains prosperity of the economy. Britain receives an average investment of £24 billion per year from Europe. In fact, at this time because of the upcoming EU referendum, certain EU based companies have stalled investments for their UK regional developments in fear of Brexit bringing unsettling impacts to its operations, such as limited trade and increasing taxes. Other than direct investments being made by large cooperation, these businesses provide a lot of jobs to residents of the UK. Airbus, as an example of a European company that manufactures aircrafts, directly employs 15,000 workers in the UK with an estimated number of 100,000 other non-direct employees within the country. Not only that large companies contribute to the UK’s economic development, but almost half of the UK’s export is directed to the rest of Europe. Britain’s trade, regardless of export or import is very dependent on the European Union. The EU have well-established trade deals with 50 non-EU countries including the United States, Korea, and Australia ; whilst the UK have not negotiated a deal on its own for more than 40 years. So what will be the future after Brexit for UK’s trading?

 

Secondly, staying in the EU sustains peace both between the UK and other member states and by defending the UK in unfortunate cases of foreign attacks through NATO. Historically, the UK had come into conflict with France, Spain and Germany very frequently. Some say that the crucial reason for peace in recent decades is the formation of the European Union, installing mutually beneficial relationships between European countries. Furthermore, being part of the EU, guaranteed the UK’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Known as NATO in short). It is a ‘political and military alliance with the essential purpose of safeguarding the freedom and security of its members through political and military means’. Thus, as a member of NATO, the UK is protected by the organisation within the EU borders and will receive support from other NATO members against terrorist attacks and foreign invasions.

 

Thirdly, being part of the European Union assures freedom of movement. This is a huge advantage to the UK considering it was estimated by the World Bank in 2014 that around 7-8% of the UK population live permanently abroad. In comparison of 3% of Spanish and 3.8% of French, the UK is actually befitting rather than losing from this agreement. Not only so, but it allows easier travelling within the Europe and also for educational purposes especially aimed at students. Additionally, immigration of working people (usually aged 25 - 35) from other countries adds to the diminishing UK working force because of the gradually greying population. This thus boosts productivity and help support the expanding retired population.

 

Lastly, the EU has bounding legislations on the UK (which excludes the UK Parliament) regarding environmental and welfare protection. Currently, most European laws possess the Doctrine of Supremacy, meaning that it has the presence over UK law. Such cases are able to go beyond the ruling of the Supreme Court into the European Court of Justice. This not only restricts the growing amount of power held by the always sovereign UK Parliament but protects certain civil liberties and settles environmental concerns. For example, environmental targets are being set for minimising air pollution, this includes a ’47% reduction in loss of life expectancy as a result of exposure to particulate matter’ and another ’10% reduction in acute mortalities from exposure to ozone’ by the time of 2020.

 

Despite controversial debates concerning arguments on both sides, a lot of people have yet still not made up their minds. How would the nation decide? Is staying in actually better for our security, our economy and our people? Only time will tell.

 

CS

A Politics Student's view on the European Referendum

When David Cameron returned from the European Parliament clutching his ‘new deal for Britain’ it seemed to me that the concessions that had been granted were minor and didn’t address any of the real problems that the British people wanted resolving in the first place. The whole renegotiation process seemed to be a pre-arranged charade agreed by EU leaders which aimed to fool the UK public into rejecting Brexit and stay in a virtually unreformed European Union.

Mr. Cameron knows that anti-EU feeling in the country is growing so he has called for a referendum in just 4 months’ time on the 23^rd June 2016. It’s times like these where we will be seeing the establishment whip out any tactic to sway ordinary people in their favour. “EU exit could threaten jobs” and “sterling could lose another 20% of its value” are just two of the many headlines that will effectively scare Britons into voting ‘remain’ and not thoroughly thinking through the consequences of living under a superstate which is, in the words of the late Tony Benn, on board a ‘federal escalator, moving as we talk, going towards a federal objective we do not wish to reach.’.

The British people are faced with a once-in-a-lifetime decision – are we to be a self-governing nation or not? The so-called trading bloc has grown into much more than just an economic community, we are now dealing with a union which is inherently undemocratic and starves its member states of the power they once had. A fundamental principle of the UK’s constitution is the fact that parliament is sovereign. However, as a member of the EU, Britain must take all EU law over the statutory law passed in Westminster or the common law ruled by judges and it all, in effect, comes to nothing if the European Parliament passes a law that is conflicting.

No doubt, over the next few months we will be hearing endless claim and counterclaim from both sides of the argument, but in reality, no-one can know exactly what will happen if we leave the EU. Brexit will offer Britain a key to the rest of the world as we are relinquished from the harnesses of a powerful few at the top of the European food chain. I only hope that the British public will realise soon enough that we are a strong country, ready to break the status quo and once again trade with the whole world on our own terms, especially with the Commonwealth countries who we so shamefully abandoned when we joined the Common Market.  

The issue of ‘in or out’ rises above party politics and isn’t a question of whether you’re on the right or the left, it’s whether or not you believe in Britain and its people to govern themselves. If we do leave, whatever happens afterwards will be down to us to tackle as a sovereign state once more.

JW

 

The EU Referendum

As part of the Conservative party’s manifesto, a referendum on the topic of EU membership of the UK will be held before the end of 2017. David Cameron is now suggesting that this could occur later this year. There are pros and cons to both sides of the argument and the opinion polls show that Britain is very evenly divided, so the outcome of this referendum remains unclear. But what would leaving the EU mean for the UK and why is a referendum even taking place?

When it was announced by the Conservatives that a referendum would take place, David Cameron promised that changes within the EU for the benefit of the UK would first be sought. These changes were suggested to target what Britons were worried about with the EU and which led to demands for a referendum in the first place. So, at the EU summit in December, David Cameron asked the other member states for reforms in four areas. These were: that immigrants to the UK from the EU would not be given benefits until they had lived here for four years (this has proved to be problematic, as it requires a treaty change); that individual parliaments of the member states should be given greater control enabling them to block EU legislation; recognition that currencies other than the Euro exist within the EU and that the UK would be allowed to opt out of closer union of the European people. Cameron hopes that a deal will be decided upon in February, but so soon seems unlikely. For one, many of the Eastern European countries did not like that their workers would be paid less for their work than a British citizen and believe that this would be discriminatory.

In the latest opinion polls, it seems that Britons narrowly favour leaving the EU. 40% questioned said that they supported leaving, 38% supported remaining a member, 16% are undecided and 6% said that they would not vote. But why do people want to leave? What are the benefits? Many people believe that the billions of pounds of membership fees for the EU is not worth it and gives us few benefits. Also, groups such as Ukip want the UK to have greater control about the number of migrants coming here to work. One benefit of leaving would be that the rules and regulations decided by the EU regarding trade, agriculture and industry would no longer restrict the UK and more relevant ones for the UK could be put in place. This has been seen previously in Norway and they now have greater freedom in this matter.

However, there are many risks involved with an EU exit, which has been dubbed a ‘Brexit’. It is estimated that this could lead to a 2.2% decline in GDP, as Britain would no longer be able to benefit from free trade in Europe. Therefore, trading overseas could become both more difficult and more expensive. Additionally, a reduce in immigration would reduce the number of workers that employers have to choose from, most of whom are keen and help to fuel economic growth. Nick Clegg argues that 3 million jobs depend on Britain’s involvement in the EU. Others believe that a ‘Brexit’ would lessen Britain’s military influence and general status in both Europe and the world.

I believe, however, that the greatest risk in leaving the EU is that there is no clear plan of what would happen if this occurs. It is all fine to say what is bad about the EU, but Britons are not able to evaluate the alternative, as there isn’t really one yet. We have been a part of the EU since 1973, and we shall have to wait for the outcome of the referendum, to see if we will be for much longer.

AE

The Migration Cycle

When we say immigrant many words come into mind and over the summer it seemed to be a never ending news item. Immigrants are travelling across the globe in order to make it into the UK. Recently we have seen the chaos that has been provoked at Calais and how we have tried to stop them. As well as this, the recent evaluation of the migrants and refugees has made some interesting progress. We have now proposed to take in up to 20,000 refugees. Refugees are people who need to get away from their own country due to the fear of their lives being at risk. This switch in terminology has twisted the public viewpoint and since put pressure on the Government. However, we need to do much more as a continent in order to improve the situation as a whole.

First of all I wish to look at the source of the problem – the wars and poverty across the globe that have caused people to flee. Most of the immigrants want to get away from war and so try to make it to the UK. Most of the immigrants that are currently living in Calais are mainly from Syria and Afghanistan and have made the journey across the Mediterranean or through the land border at Turkey. From the media and politicians there is plenty of stigma and negativity surrounding the immigrants. Especially as Cameron called them a “swarm” and Katie Hopkins called them “cockroaches”. Neither of which is finding a solution to the overwhelming problem. One issue in the press that struck me the most was an article in the Daily Express which told of an illegal immigrant aged 13 being arrested. The dehumanisation of this piece astonished me and just shows the lack of sympathy the press has for children who have run away from their homes to be safer in the UK.

What we in Britain need to truly consider is the fact that the illegal immigrants are trying to make their way across because of our country’s actions. We started the war in Afghanistan along with the US so the immigrants are fleeing because of what we created and the destructive bombing that continues. As for Syria, the war that rages on and the air strikes that we place on it leads to thousands of civilians travelling to Europe to save their lives. Although we have done our best in supplying aid in Syria it isn’t nearly enough and the war has driven its people away. Whilst the UK has also managed to take in refugees of war there are plenty more looking for a safe home and for every refugee we take in, Germany takes in 24. What seems to be the underlying tone in most of the press is that they want to keep all immigrants out at all costs. This hardly seems fair as they are just human beings like you or I who wish to strive for a better life, one in which they have food and shelter.

However, as we do seem to be battling the current crisis with ‘the asset’ and police officers it seems way too focused and complicated than it really needs to be. First of all we are all aware that immigrants are trying again and again to get through the Channel Tunnel and across on the ferry now with more violence than ever before. This poses danger to the lorry drivers as well as the immigrants. It has also caused roads in the UK to be blocked by hundreds of lorries which are waiting to go to France. The solution to me seems quite simple but does require the cooperation of the French. All of the immigrants are based in Calais and most around France so the question is why are they allowed to stay in France? This is mainly because the French seem to be happy with letting the immigrants there as they know that they will soon move across to the UK. In order to stop the crisis we first need to try and remove the community that has been built around the port at Calais. Secondly we need the cooperation of the Gendarmerie and our own police force to remove any illegal immigrants from France and send them back either to the first European country that they came into contact with, (that mostly being Italy or Turkey as laid out by the Dublin Regulation) or back to their own country. Finally in the case of the hundreds of trucks that are being delayed hasn’t it occurred to them that there are plenty of other ports across the country which can get them to France such as Newhaven and Southampton.

All of this seems a bit harsh considering that we are sending them to their deaths. The immigrants are risking their lives to get to the UK every day. First by making the crossing across the Mediterranean to Italy on boats that are squashed and which pose so much danger. As we keep hearing, migrants are dying because the boat sank or they are being abandoned by those who claimed they could aid them. Then they try to make it past police and onto the trains by climbing over fences and holding onto Lorries. Then we send them back to their war stricken countries where they will try to repeat the process again. There is no real solution to this problem just that with so many wars across the globe that the problem has been heightened. If we want real change then we as a country need to stop creating wars and stop killing innocent people in air strikes day after day.

Financial Crisis in Greece

The financial crisis in Greece that began in 2009 shortly after the Global Financial Crisis is a disaster that is still going on today and has created quite a substantial mess of the country’s economy.

In 2009, while Europe was still trying to recover from the global market crash, Greece announced that it had been understating its deficit figures for years which, rightly, panicked a lot of people and soon after Greece’s credit rating was downgraded by all three of the big credit rating agencies.

In 2010, on the verge of bankruptcy, the International Monetary Fund and the EU agreed to participate in bailing Greece out of its huge debt if the country complied with issuing a number of austerity packages, which it did in return for the first bailout package of €110bn over three years.

Over the next three years seven austerity packages were issued which caused riots and outrage among Greek citizens. Measures in these packages included:

• Increasing retirement age from 60 to 67
• 10% cuts on salaries about €1800
• Increasing working hours of teachers with no additional pay
• Public pensions cut on average between 5% and 15%
• Public salary wage cuts up to 30%
•  Abolishing 15000 state jobs making it easier to fire civil servants

There have been violent protests all over Greece since the austerity packages were announced, with one man even committing suicide a short distance from Greece’s parliament in an act of protest which later became a symbol for anti-austerity groups and resulted in many violent clashes between protestors and police.

As of 2015 Greece has been leant around €240bn from the IMF and the EU and still has a whopping debt of €317bn. Whether Greece will ever recover from this crisis is difficult to predict. With a proper plan of action and constant guidance from the IMF and the World Bank, Greece could eventually one day settle its debt. However the government will need the full support of its citizens so introducing more riot-causing austerity packages is not the best idea. Although the EU and the IMF have attempted on a number of occasions to bail Greece out, the money has not been used efficiently. The money has been used to pay of international loans rather than rebooting Greece’s economy and actually allowing money to make its way back into the country through businesses. A proportion of the loans should have been used to rebuild the economy which would also provide more jobs in the country, which are essential now that the unemployment level has risen above 26% and youth unemployment is around 50%.

There is also the debate over whether Greece should remain in the EU. For now the answer is yes, Greece must stay, however difficult that may be. Leaving the EU would be far worse for the country as this would cause them to be shut out of the global capital markets meaning the economy would sink even lower. Trading would be off limits for Greece and the country would be in even bigger trouble as that time they wouldn’t have the EU to fall back on and be bailed out by. Furthermore if Greece left the EU they would have to change their currency back to the drachma which would only create further chaos and disruption as the drachma would lose value and most likely cause inflation.

Overall, there is a chance that Greece may eventually recover from this financial crisis but first it must rebuild its economy and begin to increase trading again whilst negotiating with the EU and the IMF about extensions on paying back outstanding debts.

Refugee crisis: Why the sudden surge?

As Summer bears to a close, the number of migrants wanting to enter the European Union from war stricken countries such as Syria and Afghanistan is rapidly increasing. Our Prime Minister David Cameron claims there is no room for them here in the United Kingdom, that we simply have room for ‘a few hundred’ when over 4 million are all fleeing the from the Afghanistan war since it broke out 4 years ago. But why has this sudden surge of migrants wanting to come into the EU appeared, and what are we doing to aid them? The answer is sadly, very little.

The Government have said that the number of refugees they will accept as a maximum 1,000.  Germany has offered 30,000 and Switzerland, a country that is just 15,940 square miles, has offered more than 3,500 to refugees. The fact is that the UK on paper and in practice have dealt with the situation far more poorly that its fellow European countries have. It brings shame on a country that prides itself on being the second biggest contributor to aid funds for the war-torn country, yet when confronted with the issues at hand, when they are effectively at your doorstep, Britain is shamefully turning a blind eye.

Whilst the government are fully aware of the issues that the migration of refugees poses to its 64.1 million residents and the effect letting in more than 1,000 may pose for our economy, our jobs and our standard of living; it appears they have forgotten in the midst of the crisis that these are real people. These people have families that need feeding and educating for them to even have a glimpse of hope of a future. At the moment this hope appears to not be something that the UK can offer them; yet we still continue to believe that one of the values we hold dearest as a country is compassion. Where is the compassion in accepting 1,000 migrants out of 4 million?

Articles are continuing to make headlines, offering different perspective and ideas on an ever growing problem- “Is military force the solution?”, “Who are the people smugglers?” and “Five obstacles to an EU migrant deal”. Due to an increased presence of Islamic State in Syria, the civil war there appears to not be calming, and as a result of this more and more people are fleeing, desperate to come to the haven which is Europe- where they will be fed and clothed; even if it isn’t by the UK. 

Scottish independence - a struggle for power

With a week to go until the vote on the Scottish Referendum the polls couldn’t be closer. Over the past two years Alex Salmond has been trying to convince the people of Scotland to vote Yes on September 18^th. Both of my parents have lived in Scotland during their lives and currently I have other relatives living there, this is why the vote is very important to me and why I don’t think Scotland should become independent. At the moment it seems like the voters are split in half, those living in Edinburgh and Glasgow don’t seem to want independence whilst those living in the Highlands seem to be voting yes. The question is what are the risks?

At the start it didn’t seem as though it would be possible as only 32% wanted independence. The last set of polls to be published showed that 51% of people would vote yes whilst 49% would vote no, this is the first ever poll in the campaigns history in which the yes vote won. This poll triggered a decrease in the pound sterling as well as a reduction in the share prices of Standard Life, RBS and Lloyds Bank, all of which are Scottish or are in control of Scottish companies. This shows what could happen if Scotland were to vote yes on the 18^th.  Opinion polls are the only indication as to which way the vote will go, however the only poll that really matters is the one on the 18^th. Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling have both said that every vote will count as the results will be very close. It seems quite similar to the campaign for independence for the Canadian state of Quebec when the public of Quebec voted against independence by only 51%, this caused riots in the streets.

Currency has been the most talked about topic in this campaign as Alex Salmond wants a currency union with the UK. This means that the UK and Scotland would share the pound Sterling, the only problem being that George Osborne has rejected this and has stated that he will not let Scotland have the currency union. The Plan B for Salmond is to use the Sterling anyway as it is an international tradable currency and the UK can’t stop Scotland using it. A similar situation currently exists in Hong Kong which uses the American Dollar. The only problem is that without a currency union Scotland can’t have the assets of the Bank of England. This means that company’s like RBS and Standard Life won’t be able to survive in Scotland and will have to move to elsewhere in the UK. The concerning issue for the UK is that without the currency union Scotland will not contribute towards pay the debts from the banking crisis, leaving the UK to pay it all off. This crisis was partly caused by RBS and HBOS both of which are very large Scottish banks which were rescued by the Bank of England and Lloyds TSB respectively.

Despite the fact that Scotland says the government they get is not the government they voted for, if they become independent the UK government will substantially change. This is because the majority of the Scottish seats are held by Labour and without these 41 seats it would mean a higher chance of a Conservative government. Even though the UK would have an increased chance of a tory government, David Cameron is supporting the Better Together campaign by visiting Scotland instead of Prime Minister's Question time. All three parties in fact are going on a campaign across Scotland.

Of course Scotland wants to be in the EU and the UN however, it doesn’t seem as easy as it sounds. They will have to reapply, which is estimated to take 20+ years which is too long to be out of the EU and not receiving the benefits of being a member. This is a big risk for Scotland because if they do fail economically, then there isn’t a backup from the EU.

The North Sea Oil seems to be the focus point of the income for Scotland, with an estimated 120 Billion barrels left, it doesn’t seem as though it will contribute greatly to the economy as only 10-20% of the money made on oil is given to the government. As well as this oil is very volatile and it does not seem sensible to me if the country’s economy is based on a volatile source. Despite having Norway as a model for the country’s future it does not seem as though they will be able to achieve this without risk and possible failure. Oil is not something you can give an exact price or estimate how long it will last which is why Scotland shouldn’t be so reliant on it.

The problem with the proposed government is that although it will be able to change all of the laws that they deem unsuitable, for example the Bedroom tax, they won’t be able to have as big a budget as before. From the referendum document it seems as though Alex Salmond wants to spend his money on lowering and removing taxes as well as supporting small businesses and increasing pensions. He also believes the NHS can continue to be free as well as having free education. The sums don’t quite seem to add up and this white paper is just a vision, it does not provide any evidence of a sustainable country. The Scottish National Party can promise all they like but the fact is if there is a yes vote on the 18^th the SNP will disband. The reason being that they were solely created for the purpose of gaining independence for Scotland. This means that the SNP will not be responsible for managing the country and therefore can make irrational statements without suffering the consequences. The fact is that it just seems like Alex Salmond wants to put his name in the history books rather than see the consequences of independence.

Trident is another word which bring shivers to those living in Scotland and one of the strong argument for the yes campaign. The idea that the UK will always have a submarine with Trident nuclear missiles has always been a defensive tactic however, it seem as though it is very unpopular with the Scottish people and that they have to look after something they don’t want.  In this situation you have to ask, what will Scotland’s defence be?

Generation 2014 is the name of those voting who are 16 and 17 years old, for the first time in history they will be able to vote yes or no to the referendum. This may seem a good idea to enable the next generation to get involved as it will be their Independent Scotland that they will have to live in if there is a yes vote. To me it seems like Alex Salmond wanted to do this in order to get more yes voters as it would be easy to convince them that an independent Scotland is the way forward however, as the day comes closer it seems as though the youth do not want to see their country at risk when it does not have to be.

Overall I do not believe that an independent Scotland should be the way forward as there are too many unanswered questions by the leaders. It isn’t clearly set out and even the white paper doesn’t show all of the figures. To me it seems like there are too many risks involved with the independence and with the UK willing to devolve powers such as income tax it seems more sensible to vote no because the UK is better together.

SB