Shop now Shop now Shop now Up to 70% off Fashion Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Amazon Fire TV Amazon Pantry Food & Drink Beauty Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now

Customer Reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars8
4.5 out of 5 stars
5 star
5
4 star
2
3 star
1
2 star
0
1 star
0
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 12 May 2014
This book helped me to reach a decision - both sides of the argument are well-presented but overall, this has given me the confidence to vote 'Yes', as a matter of principle. After that, the real debate can commence; without that, there is nothing.
0Comment6 of 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 22 April 2014
A book of two halves. George Kerevan's pro-independence arguments are well presented and backed up by statistics, facts and footnotes. If anything, there were rather too many statistics but it was a full argument that covered all the main issues. Top marks.

The No argument from Alan Cochrane was, however, very disappointing. It began with rallying cries of shared history, the 2012 Olympics, the Union Jack and the Queen. It then went on to rehash all the old scare stories that have already been countered by the Yes campaign. I confess I was looking for a lot more. Sadly, it seems the No arguments have run dry.

This is an interesting book and certainly brings al the arguments together which makes it useful for anyone who does not know much about the issues. For anyone who has kept up to date with the arguments, you won't learn anything new. I'll give it four stars because of George Kerevan's excellent analysis but anyone looking for a powerful argument as to why Scotland should remain within the UK will feel let down by the NO case.
0Comment8 of 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 May 2014
I was looking forward to reading this book from two well known and informed commentators. It starts with the Yes arguement from Mr Kerevan and is well written and puts that side of the question well. So far so good. Then in the second part, Mr Cochrane simply repeats all the usual stuff we've heard already with the usual lack of balance or indeed any sign of good reasons for the "No" campaign other than "Better Together" which leaves me in the dark as to why this is so. Seems the "No" campaign is the same old same old "Vote No and things will get better tomorrow", but as we all know, tomorrow never comes.
Overall, it's just an OK read.
0Comment3 of 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 13 August 2015
Although out of date it is still very relevant
0Comment1 of 1 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 September 2014
As in the real debate the first half was passionate, well structured and thoughtful while the second half was a rambling collection of random thoughts and ideas
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 June 2014
very informative, it tends to get bogged down with necessary detail in places
overall a good addition to this important decision
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 8 August 2014
A book that gives an argument for both sides and leaves you to decide.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 20 June 2014
Journalist George Kerevan puts the case for voting Yes in the 18 September referendum. Alan Cochrane puts the case for voting No.

Kerevan offers us an English parliament, and calls for Welsh and Northern Ireland self-rule. He opposes what he calls a ‘little Britain’ attitude, but taking Scotland out of Britain would clearly result in a little Britain.
He praises immigration because it “makes labour markets more flexible”, the usual employer’s attitude. He assumes that adding numbers of people adds to GDP. He fails to notice that if Scotland had a different immigration policy from England, there would have to be border controls between England and Scotland. And only 2 per cent of Scots want a more liberal immigration policy, as Cochrane notes. Further, Britain is outside the Schengen free travel agreement, but Scotland would have to join it. Again, border controls would result.
Kerevan says that he wants to increase R&D spending, but he makes no mention of the threat to R&D that break-up would bring, as Scotland’s leading scientists recently pointed out.
Kerevan follows Salmond’s gamble that the Conservative, Labour and LiberalDemocrat parties were bluffing when they ruled out a currency union if Scotland voted to secede.
Cochrane observes that break-up would destroy jobs in shipyards, defence-related industries and at the Faslane and Coalport bases.
The Scottish government wants to continue to charge £36,000 fees to students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but, if Scotland became a separate state, this would be illegal under EU law. (For the EU, absurdly, allows governments to discriminate within member states, but not between member states.)
22 comments1 of 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse