Reflections on the Revolution in Scotland (2)

It's not a revolution of course, but .... 

So much has changed. People engaged in politics. Attending meetings in village halls, discussing the future, thoughtfully. A tripling (as of today) of membership of the SNP. But one trend is very difficult to understand: in an independence debate of such importance lasting two years (or more), how can it be that there were almost no undisputed "facts?"

One side promised you would be £1400 a year better off if you voted their way; the other side said you would be £1000 a year better off if you voted their way. The oil is running out - no, there's plenty left. Joining the EU might be a problem - no, commonsense will prevail. Keep the pound? No problem - or a big problem?  And so on. When I asked -- and I asked repeatedly -- various politicians how any ordinary person not an economist or oil expert could make sense of these supposed "facts" I was told it depends on whom you trust. Oh, I see. In the Enlightenment the great sages of Scotland weighed up the facts and then came to form an opinion. Now in the Enlightenment-in-Reverse do we form an opinion of whom we trust and then accept their "facts?" And what if -- as many of the Don't Knows presumably thought -- you decide that you do not entirely trust either campaign ...?