TMT please cease with this utter nonsense. For a start sassenachs are Scots. You are obvioulsy very badly informed on the subject of Scotland and are not doing yourself or the No case any favours by perpetuating a myth that is just not true. This is about DEMOCRACY not nationalism or nationality.
"I think the point ,RDBD, is that many ordinary Scots will get the jitters over their personal finances because of the economic/financial uncertainty and might be persuaded to vote "no" rather than risk the unknown after a "yes" vote. We've seen economic troubles in European countries leading to government's even seizing a % of savings to prop up the economy. They may feel it's better the devil you know when the banks show a lot of confidence." Of course. Dislike of any particular political status quo does not pay the bills or fund your retirement nest egg.
Nowhere did you mention mature students, who by the way can come from all sectors of society, the rich as well. Age bears no relevance to economic circumstances I'm afraid. You specifically said that the poor were no longer able to afford higher education, a claim which this study proves to be entirely contrary to the truth. EDIT: Also, please explain the relevance of your 'mature students are generally better' claim, the argument is about educational opportunities not academic prowess/drive.
The banter you describe is banter just like the banter between Arsenal & Spurs. Believe it or not in my tiny remote village in Scotland in the nearest house to mine lives an Arsenal fan (what luck is that ) We don't hate one another we are mates but we give each other stick all the time. That's how it is with all four home nations we all banter each other this is not HATRED TMT.
Spurf, I am not part of the no cause or any cause. I'm not doing the no cause any harm or favours or anything.
I said The mature students will often be the ones who have to finance their own education making it even more difficult. I stand by my ascertain.
Forgive me if you've covered this and I've missed it Spurf, but I've yet to see an explanation of why Scotland being independent is more democratic than say Cornwall or Glasgow. The inverse is true too, as leaving the union yet remaining part of the EU would seem to be contradictory moves in terms of self-governing. Why is one desirable, but the other not? Why is the apparently arbitrary divide of being a country more relevant than being a city, county, union, continent or state?
John Lewis warns Scottish independence means higher prices Sir Charlie Mayfield, chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, which also includes Waitrose, says it was “most probable” retailers would be forced to charge higher prices north of the Border. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...cottish-independence-means-higher-prices.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...cottish-independence-means-higher-prices.html <quote> However, Tesco has said claims by the pro-UK Better Together campaign that prices would have to increase are “entirely speculative”. </quote> It would seem to depend on how big a beast you are, and how big a market in Scotland you have. Tesco UK will obviously have a logistics/purchasing chain so large in efficiency and scale that perhaps it would barely blink whatever happens in Scotland. For John Lewis etc, perhaps they have no such luxury.
Before some other idiot posts another thinly veneered SNP manifesto masquerading as Gvt white paper, here are some independent facts and figures. According to OPEC figures, North Sea oil production this year - 2014 will be around 800,000 barrels per day. A mere 28% of the 1999 peak of 2.9mil. Production has declined by an average of 7% per year since, and continues to drop. Costs of extracting the remaining oil have increased sharply, especially in the past 3-4 years. The large oil fields of the past have given way to as many as 300 smaller fields, mostly owned by small independent producers. This decline is not the short term blip that Salmond would have voters believe, but a long term trend. The Scottish Gvt has taken an extremely optimistic view of oil revenues. It predicts a budget deficit of 3.2% of GDP. For the year 2016-17. Whilst independent figures from the IFS indicate this will much more likely be 5-6% It also says that should the uncertainties following independence hit the economy hard, this could easily rise to 10%. For comparison, the IFS predicts the deficit for the whole UK to be 2.4% for the same period. The IFS goes on to say. " If an independent Scotland wanted to achieve a sustainable medium and long term fiscal position, further tax increases and spending cuts would be needed after independence" the IFS suggests that it could amount to the equivalent of 10 points on the basic rate of tax. According to the SNP, of course, there is no fiscal problem. The vast majority of independent surveys disagree.
It isn't and it is arbitrary, but the days of City States would appear to be over Nation States will probably have their day but at the moment it is still the Nation State that is the body recognised throughout the world. If Scotland is to have it's say in Europe and the World it needs Independence. THis is how International Law works it is how treaties are made, and it is how the UN works. It is precisely that family of nations that Scotland is seeking to join. I could equally ask you what is so precious about reatining the status quo but I will probably only get the usual we don't have to prove anything reply.
The Gaelic definition of an Englishman was a lowlander but they were in fact Scots and even Welsh. SO here once again we have politics mixed with history and language producing all things to all men. It's a bit of a cul de sac SD
Many years ago, I had a girlfriend from the border region. Her father told me that many borders people considered themselves to be neither English nor Scottish, but borderers.
