Instead of hiding behind this usual rhetoric - try telling me what twists you see. You HAVE been rude to just about all of us; you CLAIM we are badlly informed - prove it; Salmond HAS said that most policies are for negotiation post independence - the two key ones are currency and EU; name anyone you think is NOT a Tory; tell us we do NOT have relatives in Scotland. There are no twists and turns in what I argue - you cannot refute what I say so pretend it is beneath you. If I am so beneath you smash me with your corrections. If you fail let everyone else here be the judge on your ability to present a case.
Scotland lagging behind Jersey on that one - 16 year olds have been able to vote here for 6 years and that was before we decided to have a referendum on the constitution of our Government. That referendum was a complete waste of time and money - the States Assembly decided that the result was void due to the low turn out - the same sort of turnouts that those same people got elected on (in the case of some members, they were elected unopposed). Whatever the result on Thursday, at least the MSPs/AS can't do that.
100% agreement from me on that one I am with you all the way. Perspective; as much as I hate Westminster and what it represents I do realise how lucky we all are when you compare Britain with many places in the world. Some people are just happy to survive. Good point yorkshire.
I see that Manchester wants the same deal as Scotland should the no vote prevail. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...otential-devomax-says-think-tank-9734431.html
1. Scotland is happy to accept people from all over Europe as it does. It also would like to stop the ten of thousands of Scots from heading south to find work, by increasing opportunities in Scotland. 2. By providing them with the right opportunities. I don't think Scotland would be in the business of stopping people crossing borders, it want's to be in the EU with open borders. 3. More people are coming to Scotland in recent years but this is one of the many reasons for wanting Independence so that we can produce the right conditions to encourage more to come. The SNP are looking for 24,000 per year (this is an increase of 2000 per year on current figures) but of course many Scots do not agree with this. 4. See 2. But all of this is SNP policy as they are at present the government it does not follow that the SNP will be elected in 2016. For me personally one of the attractions of Scotland is the low population and therefore the ease of travel, the peacefullness of the counrtyside, and the friendliness of the Scots. I think the major world problem is too many people so I am not into MORE people anywhere.
You see the last line, you present it in such a way to suggest that YES or I or both have no case. Leo you are not stupid I am sure you have understood perfectly well that the referendum is about Democracy and not policies. First comes the democracy if we vote YES. THEN comes the policies from ALL the competing parties in SCotland in 2016. Why try to spin that into 'you have no policies only bluster?' That is not a decent argument that is just the very kind of propaganda put out by the NO campaign. Those are your methods of arguing which as I am no longer a schoolboy enjoying debate for the sake of it, I find very tiresome. As regards the rudeness, yes I have been rude, and blunt but then I have received more from your side than I have given out. I honestly don't want to debate on that level and I admit I should have shown more tolerance at the start of this debate but I did apologise early on. Many on here have not liked the argument I have presented and have reacted accordingly and lets face it there have been posters popping in saying some quite biggoted stuff. If you wish to debate this subject then some mutual respect would help otherwise why should we bother each other.
Serious question, do you really believe you can disassociate the potential rupture of the UK without having policies and economics that are robust to apply in the separated state? My opinion is No these cannot be separated, if you are asking to vote on the ability to vote again in 18 months on options that may or may not exist but meantime to definitely leave the UK, leave Europe, leave NATO, leave your existing currency then I'm afraid it's pretty obvious what anybody investigating the facts has to vote No.
And since I got here in the USA on Saturday people really can't believe the stupidity of the Yes position and that's 100%. Now the USA has a history of opposing empire and British colonialism but they can't see the oppression in Scotland that I can't see either. This bodes for how an independent Scotland will be viewed internationally, crazy currency less lemmings committing HariKari... hard times ahead.
In true Spurf fashion a link which gives you the reality of the oil situation very professionally accurate..... http://euanmearns.com/for-a-few-trillion-barrels-more/#more-4504
On that basis no country would be Independent of the British Empire and it would still exist. Something over 60 countries have become Independent all had elections AFTER their Independence and NOT ONE has asked to be returned to the control of Britain. Very few would have been in such a strong position as Scotland one of the worlds wealthiest countries, richer in fact per capita than the rUK. I would be voting YES even if the signs were not so good because the most important consideration is DEMOCRACY. Scotland is not a part of England it is a country in it's own right, and needs the rights enjoyed by other countries all over the world. You either can't or won't see see what to me is an extremely obvious choice. The Me, Me's can't see this because they have grown up in a world dominated by Me Firsts. There is another way and hopefully a YES vote will deliver the opportunity to go for it.
Yes it looks authoritative without coming to firm conclusions suggests the North Sea will still be producing oil in 2050. There are claims as you know of a hundred years of oil in the west of Scotland and the Shetland field so there will be oil for some considerable time. Of course all this is a bonus for an Independent Scotland not a base essential. Our financial resources will be greater following Independence even without oil so that is just a bonus.
This is a well written article. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/9/16/harvard-scotland-independence/?
Have to disagree, but then I would, wouldn't I? No mention whatsoever of the main issues that drive the Yes campaign - the obvious and very real threats to Scotland's Health, Education, Aged Care systems and lack of job creation/job prospects for the young. No mention whatsoever of Scotland's history over the last 40 years under Westminster, of the reasons for the 'narrowly failed' referendum or the later consequences to it's manufacturing, mining & shipbuilding industries - the loss of which were never addressed in any way shape or form by any Westminster government....
Are you suggesting that people who will vote no are all selfish? I don't really see how wanting to stay as they are (don't forget it's likely that at least 45% of people will) be voting this way) makes anyone part of the "Me Me" culture. It could, of course, be argued that those voting yes are simply picking their ball up and walking away in a huff because they don't get their own way - or of course that the yes camp are just seeking attention. I don't believe either to be true.
I said before, and will reiterate, that for the vast majority the vote will have an emotional component... How do I feel about the choices? Which sits best for me? and.... like marriages... the choices we make are based on what we may feel, even though we may be worse off financially....
I agree with the points you make, BB, but what I like about the article is that it looks beyond the fear and trauma both sides are portraying if they don't win, and suggesting that what we could be seeing is the next evolution of the nation-state. The more I think about this the more I am coming to believe that the Tories have inadvertently started something that will not only change Britain irredeemably, but could also change the world. Large countries will become ungovernable as people demand local control, particularly countries made up of regions with separate histories and cultures.
List the reasons for staying with the Union. THe only one I can think of that is not selfish is the traditional Labour voter who believes he should stick with his brothers in England to fight for socialism. An idea which is not supported by history.
tradition ..... oh yeah...... national security world markets the currency joint business and trade enterprises health services foreign policy etc
