That's nothing more than a glib generalisation which doesn't even come close to representing the actual views of most of the voters on both sides.
The sort of pish that some ****e comic on Mock the Week would gibber out and the brain-dead masses would lap up as social commentary.
It's a perfectly clear and concise appraisal of both camps.
You get purple faced alcoholics, fresh faced students and limp-wristed lefties trumpeting Indy as a chance to finally rid Scotland of the basturt INGLUSH and the TOWREEZ, whilst you get equally purple faced alcoholics, students and right wing conservatives wanting no independence as WE IR TOO FICK or SAMOND IS A FAT ****.
The real debate should revolve around, what benefits will independence bring, will it generate wealth, are we willing to trade in 300 years of being one of the worlds leading nations on a leap of faith? England and Scotland (in particular) were a pimple on the backside of Europe before we sought a political union. The next 300 years spoke for itself.
Granted, those days are gone now, and in the past they must remain, but with the increasing likeliehood that the EU will want to integrate further, sitting with Nigel gives us a big voice.
But with the news this morning that my home city is again top of the league when it comes to poverty, health and investment, maybe it's time for us to go it alone as the Union isn't working for us Glaswegians.
Yes/No? Mibbees ayes, mibbees naw