Although I have been a Yes campaigner through most of the referendum campaign, and will vote Yes, there will be risks and problems with a Yes or No vote, just different ones.
No-one should be condemned for the choice they make.
If there's a No vote it's likely that the genuinely disabled, the unemployed, and employed people on low incomes, will continue to have support cut or denied in welfare "reform", especially if the Conservatives are re-elected. The long slide to the right in UK politics will likely continue.
Additional devolved tax powers will be accompanied by cuts to the devolved Scottish budget which will mean either tax rises or spending cuts, unless public spending in the UK as a whole rises and the Barnett formula is maintained. If the Conservatives are re-elected cuts in spending in England will mean cuts in Scotland's budget too.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) might force us to allow private companies to bid for NHS contracts in Scotland.
The most serious risk if there's a Yes vote is the Spanish government vetoing Scottish membership of the EU to try to deter the Catalan devolved government's planned independence referendum, though Scotland could still have free trade with the EU, except in agriculture and fisheries, by joining the European Economic Area.
During the period of negotiations between Scotland and the UK, and Scotland and the EU, some companies and investors would continue to put new investments on hold, or move them to other countries, until they found out how the final result would affect their businesses.
There's a low chance of a currency or financial crisis, either during independence and EU membership negotiations or after independence, whether or not we keep the pound.
In the worst case scenario we might suffer a crisis like Ireland's, involving several years of austerity.
Such a crisis is less likely as Scotland's economy is more similar to England's than Ireland's is to Germany's, and even if it happened Scotland's economy would recover. We could eventually build the fairer society we want, but might suffer in getting there.
Duncan McFarlane,
Beanshields,
Braidwood, Carluke.
THE vote on Thursday will be close and if No prevails then I'm sure Alex Salmond will accept it with grace - and no doubt with some relief as even he, in the wee sma' hours of this week, might confront the twin demons of doubt and fear in his contemplation of the enormity of it all.
If he loses he will, rightly, claim victory in achieving devo-max - something most of us would have voted for anyway and perhaps, when the dust has settled, we would all come to recognise that what is best for Scotland is not independence today but independence in 10 or 20 years, when our very young Scottish Parliament has more maturity and some cross-party unity and wisdom.
Until then the SNP could plan and build on what they have learned from this campaign; for a start they would know that they must have definitive answers to all the major questions as well as a financially stronger banking sector which could, if necessary, confidently issue its own currency.
If the vote is Yes, then Mr Salmond knows he must deliver what he has promised, and quickly; very soon he must successfully negotiate full currency union, persuade the financial sector to stay here and grow, ensure that our non-euro entry to the EU is swift and seamless and, above all, halt the stealthy folding of tents as wealth, talent and commerce sail south on the good ship Uncertainty. If he fails in even one of these tasks, we will all be in big trouble.
This referendum campaign, whatever the result, has wonderfully shown that we all care deeply about our nation, but it has also amply demonstrated that for a great many Scots, leaps of faith, well-intentioned hopes and dreams and facile television debates aren't enough.
There's much to excite those pesky demons in the wee sma' hours of the next few days, I hope Mr Salmond sleeps well.
John Gould,
5 Fulton Place,
Dalrymple,
Ayr.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article