I could never stand the fella, but the more I listen to him the more I like his world view and his opinions, which are not a million miles from my own.
Whether he's talking sense or bollocks is irrelevant. As a comedian, he could do with some lessons from John Oliver!
Brand has a way with manipulating the English language to make people think he's educated in certain fields, that he's not, he's just very good at talking in general. I agree with his views on a lot of things, I love him as a comedian actually as well, but sometimes he comes across a somebody who just wants to challenge authority on every level, a self-elected 'Power to the people' kinda guy, a Marxist by all accounts, but it's getting to the point now where you just expect him to raise his head during a controversy totally unrelated to his expertise.
I think that explains why there's a diverse range of stand up comics, I can say right now I've never laughed once at Jason Manford, John Bishop, Peter Kay, Frankie Boyle or Russell Howard but I love Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, Lee Evans and Sean Lock... if you can find an algorithm in there fair play to you mate, but I think it simply comes down to who makes you laugh personally. There's plenty of the older generation but I'm trying to keep that list down to the ones you'll see in the charts around Xmas time with their DVD's. I've argued with people before about Frankie Boyle, one of the least intelligent comedians I've ever seen, I probably feel the same about him as you do to Russell Brand.
I don't know what a fair share is , I suppose whatever is deemed as such by both sides involved in any future negotiationsbut, to argue that Scotland should get the square root of Hee Haw (as some on here have done) is likewise supremely arrogant or stupendously naive.
Mate, your logic is absolutely spellbinding. According to you If I can't disprove something that you say, then what you have said becomes a fact?
It's not exactly hard to prove is it? It's not like I'm asking you to prove that god exists. That's your quote, where you said I have no claim to speak for the Military and what their feelings are. I then asked you to back up why I can't and you can ascertain the 'feelings'. So far you've just faffed through this time and time again. If knowing 'plenty' (I can't really put a number on that) qualifies you to talk about it then guess what, me too! I know a load of lads from Scotland from when I served in the forces, so can you admit that I'm just as qualified as you now, or can you prove you know and have personally spoken to and acquired the 'feelings' of a large proportion of Scottish soldiers? It really is quite lucid pal, I'm struggling to understand how you keep messing this up.
I was in the Army for 10 years, both my brothers were in the Army, one has just retired as a Colonel after 40 years service, can I prove it? Yep. Can I be bothered, not really. So believe it if you will, I don't really care one way or t'other.
So I was right, you know a selection of people, same as me. Let's just agree that you have no more knowledge on Scottish Military personnel than me then. I absolutely believe that you and your brothers were in the army, there's nothing illogical about that statement. Here's what I think in the event of a Yes vote... Scotland will continue to contribute to HM Forces and as so will get the same levels of protection as offered now. There will be years and years and years of proposals on how to acquire and establish an independent military but they'll hit wall after wall. In 10 years, Scottish people will refer to the referendum as 'A load of pish, nothings changed'.
No mate, you are on your own, I know hundreds of them Joking aside, it's hard for anyone outside Scotland to grasp the depth of feeling this referendum has stoked. If the vote is a tight one and the Status Quo is obtained by Better Together, (between 1 and 5%) there will be more pressure for another referendum in the near future, especially when the promises made by Cameron, Clegg and Milliband are shown to be nothing but hot air. I'm sure they are heartfelt in promising more powers for Scotland, but the backbenchers (especially the Tories) and the House of Lords will veto any new powers for Scotland. I suspect the Better Togetherers will triumph, but it will be tight.
Even Salmond recognises that there'll be no new referendum for a generation. The thing is, even if the 3 parties fulfil their vows following a NO vote and give Scotland more local powers, etc, there will be a backlash of sorts south of the border. If it is a YES vote, you can also expect the English electorate to make sure you don't take what's not rightfully yours. I can see negotiations on sine issues going on for years. There'll be no quick friendly divorce!
Better Togetherers will triumph... what do you call that, an oxymoron? My issues were purely military-concerned, I'm not concerned about the referendum and how Scotland will develop as a nation independently... Some bookies are offering up to 4/1 on a Yes vote right now, for anybody who likes a gamble.
Salmond is a politician, he's only saying that to get people to vote Yes. But I agree completely there will be a backlash from South of the border, i'd expect no less, especially when people are being fed the guff that Scots are being treated more favourably than everyone else in the UK. As for the aftermath of a Yes vote, I don't see how the English electorate (or the Welsh or Irish) will have any say in what Scotland get whether they think it's "rightfully" ours or not. Using my "Divorce" analogy, Scotland has contributed to this "Marriage" or Union for 300 years, so I don't see why we should not get our share of the Marital home, including the fixings and fittings.
I think there's going to be something that Lizzy has to say about some of it, I'd imagine our Monarchy could come in quite handy should a few legal loopholes be discovered! You can have your share of the Monarchy by the way, you can have Sarah Ferguson.