Voters must be prepared to make their referendum choice without reliance upon “facts”, a leading academic has warned.
Around 800 people gathered at Perth Concert Hall on Tuesday evening as The Courier gave the public the chance to have their say in the great national debate.
With Courier political editor Kieran Andrews acting as moderator, a series of questions were put to Scottish Finance Secretary John Swinney, the UK’s Scotland Secretary Alistair Carmichael and polling expert Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde University.
The audience attempted to find the answers needed to inform their vote on September 18, but were warned by Professor Curtice that they may not exist.
“We can all make projections and we can make assumptions but the truth is that no one knows what Scotland will be like in 2020 with any degree of certainty,” he said.
“People here and across the country are looking for the facts, but the truth is that there are very few facts in this referendum.
“You are being offered the choice between two uncertain futures.”
The first question raised concerned the cost of setting up a new independent state.
Mr Carmichael noted that an independent thinktank had estimated the cost at around £2.5 billion, while Mr Swinney said the overall cost could not be calculated until talks had taken place with the UK Government.
Professor Curtice argued that, even taking Mr Carmichael’s figure, the cost was relatively low compared to total government expenditure.
He added: “I would be very surprised if anyone thought the cost of setting up an independent state would be a reason for voting No.
“It is relatively small beer.”
Other issues on the agenda included the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland, which Mr Swinney said was one of his key reasons for entering politics.
He said the projected £100bn required to renew Trident would be better spent on addressing poverty in Scotland and said a Yes vote could make that a reality.
Mr Carmichael suggested that such a decision could harm an independent Scotland’s intention to be part of Nato.
In addition, both he and Prof Curtice warned that a Yes vote did not necessarily mean that the country would follow SNP policies, suggesting that its first administration could be led by another party.
The two politicians then disagreed over how affordable benefits and pensions would be within a newly independent Scotland.
Mr Swinney said they were more affordable than in other parts of the UK and that future issues could be solved by retaining more young people in work within Scotland. He also assured voters that their pensions were safe.
His Liberal Democrat opponent, however, claimed the opposite, telling the audience that the “dependency ratio” that of those in work to those retired was worse than elsewhere in the UK and would get worse in the years to come.
“That is where the affordability problem is,” he said.
Mr Swinney summed up by saying: “This is it. This is our opportunity. Let’s just vote Yes and get it done.”
His opponent said he made it sound “so wonderfully simple” and urged people to vote No and put the issue to bed for a generation.