I lived on a desert island in Fiji with half a dozen other people, for a while, where we caught our fish etc. I was the baker. We imported flour. It was a lovely lifestyle but hard work. Trouble was that tourists would arrive and waste water which left us very short of the stuff in times of drought. Then the Methodist Church on a neighbouring island started objecting to us working on Sundays. It all got a bit fraught.
Spot on Aberdeen, we have the same problem. Chateauroux has a first class site, with toilets, shower blocks etc all provided at the tax payers expense. Went past it last Friday and there wasn't a single van on it. One mile away is a Campanile Hotel that had it's gardens filled with caravans, open fires and washing on the shrubs to dry. Last year about 150 caravans gathered in the grounds of the sports field there, and and created a right old mess. Since then they have spent several weeks moving earth around to prevent it happening again. From time to time we see a horse drawn caravan parked up in a lane, and after they have moved on you see no sign that anyone was there. Shame really that they all get tarred with the same brush.
Sweet... NZ really admire that, went to NZ when I was 10 and parents decided it wasn't for us, pace of life too relaxed. I'd actually say pace of life and priorities were right in NZ work to live rather than live to work......
To get back on topic. It has been stated earlier in this thread that if the No campaign wins, this will not stop future referenda until independence is gained. Once independence is won there will be no more votes to change that status. To deal with this seeming inequality, how about a trial separation? Give Scotland independence on the condition that another vote is held in ten years time with a guarantee that Scotland would be accepted back into the Union if that is then desired.
I can see the possibility that there will be future referendum on rebuilding the union but it would need to be all Brits involved. For sure the best thing for No is Yes as we know that yes will lead to disaster whereas a No result will end up in more blame flying South. Just get it over with and let the lunatics take over the asylum...
If it's no by a whisker watch the recriminations and acusations of cheating. In fairness it will probably be the same if the result goes the other way.
Well I'll get my accusation in now just in case... The new 'offer' that isn't new and isn't even an offer, depending upon which side of the No group you listen to as they contradict each other, already is a case of cheating. It either breaks the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement, or it is an 'offer' that the No group made knowing full well that Westminster could, and probably would, simply walk away from it saying 'Sorry, we didn't make any offer, but now that you've voted No, bad luck.....'
But Alex Salmond isn't cosying up to Barack Obama. Might be a bit more profitable if he did, how many American's could be mistaken about their ancestry and are really Scottish and not Irish after all.
The saving grace of Scottish independence is that we will never again see a labour government back in Westminster!
I am very interested to see how the fiscal policy of either a "devo-max" or independent Scotland pans out. Give the politicians an opportunity to take more money from the population and sure enough they will take as much as they think they will get away with. On a purely financial level the set up charges will be astronomic (less so for devo-max), there will be confusion for everyone outside the political bubble while the new Scotland, however it is in the world, takes its first steps; and there will be palms to be greased, pockets to be lined and troughs to be emptied. And who gave the Westminster MPs the remit to bribe 10% of the population to stay in the United Kingdom with even more than they get already? There was a very interesting pointer to an article on the BBC news last night (in between Gordon Brown and the attempted personalisation of the IS actions), which actually failed to go anywhere. The reporter started on about the cost of the NHS in Scotland and how much is spent per person per year on health care. The point being made outlined that Scottish heath care cost roughly the same as it did five years ago as an outlay of over GBP2100 per person while in England the figure was less at about GBP1950, although the English figure was claimed to be rising at 5% EACH YEAR, if you look at the NHS figures it is more like 5% over five years. I don't know how the BBC was trying to spin this but it is obviously either: 1. The Scots get more spent on them, have done for years and now England and the rest of the UK is catching up. or 2. The percentage increases in healthcare spending in England is far greater, why does Scotland not get the same? On a different I stumbled across this article while digging about for healthcare costs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...n-North-Sea-oil-costs-after-independence.html I rather thought that if Scotland took control of the oil it meant all aspects, not just get the money from fleecing the consumers - how silly was I on that point?
[video=youtube;fD-62qT0Sdw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD-62qT0Sdw&feature=player_embedded[/video]
