Forum menu
Well what is a Scottish anti-gay bigot supposed to do ? All the major political parties supported same sex marriage, and in the case of Scotland a year after England and Wales.
ninfan - MemberOur armed forces are tiny - even as a %age of population, as we opted for a small high tech professional army rather than a large conscript army like much of the continent
Quite right, mistake on my part- armed forces capability, rather than size, is what I should have said, size as you say is pretty meaningless.
For the rest; yes, our higher technology armed forces have paid peacetime dividends, but that owes little to nuclear weapons, it's conventional weaponry and systems we're exporting.
And besides, put that into perspective- the uk defence industry is valued at £35bn, defence spending is £58bn. And Germany and France have significantly higher defence exports than us. There doesn't seem to be a great correlation between defence spending and defence exports in general. You mention exporting strong crypto to Israel- that doesn't have much to do with how many submarines we have.
And of course, whatever else we might spend the money on could/would also create jobs, defence is no special case. There's a question here which I can't answer which is basically about stimulus value- does a £ spent on defence produce more economic benefits than a £ spent on building a new hospital, or a new road... Or, keep it in the family- how about a £ spent on conventional arms not nuclear. What are the opportunity costs?
It is part of the yes campaign's strategy to play down the UK's position in world affairs, as a loyal yesser you pushed that line on here. Unfortunately for you you've got yourself in a pickle because it's simply bollox. Do yourself a favour and give up.
I'm not a loyal anything, I'm certainly not getting the Yes campaign memos 😉
So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident? It's never going to be used. Why does anyone spend money on things that aren't used? For prestige. The UK likes being a nuclear power - I'm not sure what the rationales are, probably a combination of Cold War hangovers, pressure from the USA, retention of fancy manufacturing jobs in submarines, things like that.
Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With 10x the population, how could it be different? That's fine - we don't want to be a big player.
With regards to the corporation tax - yes, that's one reason I doubt I'd vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland. Once we have independence, we can vote for whoever we like - I'm probably more of a Green or SSP person really.
So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident? It's never going to be used. Why does anyone spend money on things that aren't used?
The basic "utility" of a (nuclear) deterrent stems precisely from it never being used. That's the whole point.
OK but in this case, we're never going to get any use out of not using it. Trident was introduced after the end of the cold war- it's spent it's entire life being a white elephant.
Even when the cold war was still on, the effective deterrant came from the USA- but at least then there was someone to point the missiles at. As long as you were pro insane nuclear armageddon anyway.
The basic "utility" of a (nuclear) deterrent stems precisely from it never being used. That's the whole point.
That worked* when it was us against the USSR - one enemy, you can assume that the other guy isn't stupid or crazy enough to destroy the world.
The Cold War is over. Islamists are exactly that crazy, the threat of nuclear retaliation won't stop them - and who would we retaliate against anyway? Other conflicts will never reach the stage where destroying the country is a realistic option. If, say, we decide to go to war with Russia, at what point do we launch the nukes? When Russia invades the Ukraine? When Russia buzzes our airspace? What can Russia do that makes destroying the UK a good option?
For a deterrent to work, the other side has to think you will use it. A deterrent that's so massively overkill that it'd never be used is no deterrent at all.
*for a given value of "worked" - we came very, very close to nuclear war several times.
Possibly, but fortunately that cannot be proved.
Actually ben, you are describing the Russian view on deterrent (massive superiority) rather than the western (equivalence)
(BTW, I am not a fan of nuclear weapons)
I should clarify - I meant destroying [u]our[/u] country. Because that's what would happen if we tried using nukes against Russia.
Really the only countries we could use nukes against and survive* are countries who don't have nukes. And for them nukes are a massive overreaction.
*assuming none of the countries who do have nukes have an itchy trigger finger.
Once you are at the point of actual use, then you are ****ed anyway. See my first point.
The only way nukes work as a deterrent in the modern world is if you assume your opponents are stupid or easily scared. That's not likely.
If nukes were so important, why don't most countries have them? They're not especially hard for an advanced country to build.
[quote=bencooper ]The only way nukes work as a deterrent in the modern world is if you assume your opponents are stupid or easily scared. That's not likely.
If nukes were so important, why don't most countries have them? They're not especially hard for an advanced country to build.
Indeed - if they are so good at keeping the peace, why aren't they mandatory?
The irony of a social-democratic Germany not being trusted with nukes because of a war that ended 70 years ago, whereas a UKIP-leaning UK is trusted with them.
Is that a joke? (Edit for x post - referring to Scots post)
If you have nukes someone else cannot nuke you. If you don't have nukes someone can nuke you. Is that not simple to understand? We lived under threat of nuclear war with the USSR for a long time. There are an increasing number of countries that have nukes or are trying to get them. Until we can all agree to get rid of nukes together it is simply not safe to do so. I personally would not want to be relying on the US or France to provide our nuclear deterrent.
A UKIP leaning UK? Next you will be saying there is an independence leaning Scotland. 😉
Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With 10x the population, how could it be different? That's fine - we don't want to be a big player.
It's not really that simple. Thailand has a larger population than you UK but can't be described as even equaling the UK on the world stage. The UK is an incredibly wealthy country, its importance on the world stage is derived from that.
fasternotfatter - MemberIf you have nukes someone else cannot nuke you. If you don't have nukes someone can nuke you. Is that not simple to understand?
It's easy to [i]understand[/i], it's just wrong.
The UK likes being a nuclear power - I'm not sure what the rationales are
Someone on the previous page was suggesting that it was so the UK can be on the Security Council.
It's not really that simple
I assumed I wouldn't have to add the caveats that we'd be starting with a Scotland and the rUK being similar in terms of economy, GDP per head, etc. yes, if the rUK's economy crashes to the size of Thailand's, then of course it's not going to be that simple.
Someone on the previous page was suggesting that it was so the UK can be on the Security Council.
What kind of delusional lunatic would come out with that rubbish?
GDP per head
It's not really that simple. China has a far lower GDP per capita than the UK but at least equals the UK on the world stage.
It's down to size of the economy.
What you should have said is [i]"Of course the rUK will be more important on the world stage than an independent Scotland. With Scotland's insignificant economy how could it be different? That's fine - we don't want to be a big player. "[/i]
Yup, that sounds reasonable. Still a good economy per capita, that's all that matters.
Still a good economy per capita, that's all that matters.
And how would you guarantee that ? You have already dismissed a central pillar of the SNP's economic strategy :
[i]With regards to the corporation tax - yes, that's one reason I doubt I'd vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland.[/i]
So what is your alternative economic strategy ?
Making stuff, exporting stuff - the old-fashioned things that people used to do to make money before they tried making money from money.
We've got the oil. We've got the whisky and haggis. We've got the renewables. We've got high-tech manufacturing, software development, R&D and cutting-edge esoteric bicycle manufacturing. We'll be alright.
I don't doubt that you have haggis but what do you mean you've got renewables ? For the whole of the UK renewables account for less than 5% of total energy use, which is less than half the EU average. And your North Sea oil rivals, Norway, over 40% of their energy comes from renewables.
I would concentrate on the haggis.
EDIT : My apologies, I've just checked and you are apparently on par with Norway. So it's haggis and renewables then 🙂
[quote=teamhurtmore ](BTW, I am not a fan of nuclear weapons)
Is anybody on here going to put their hand up and admit to being one? Personally this is one point where I agree with ben et al - we would be better off not wasting all that money on the Trident replacement.
Exactly what was the point of the argument about nukes? Yes it is one advantage of independence, no we don't need them to keep our place on the head table of the UNSC. Are we finished?
I'd say not given what's gone before.
Your off subject anyway. Freedom for The County of York! We'll be happy to take the UKs place on the security council. There's no place on it these days for them that can't get stuck in to a bit of bother.
Question about this renewables business. How are we going to export this to anyone but the rUK.
And if we can export this to anyone but the rUK, what's to stop the rUK buying energy from say France? I'm aware of two inter connectors to the continent, neither particularly big in the grand scheme of things. 1GW and 2GW is it?
So why, exactly, are we spending £100bn on Trident?
it's the going rate for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Question about this renewables business. How are we going to export this to anyone but the rUK.
At the moment there are no big interconnectors. However that's just because it's not been a priority to build any - it'll take investment, but with so many fossil fuel plants closing so it'd be a good investment.
Well that's the obvious part answered. What about the rest of the question.
Okay, other part - of course the rUK can buy electricity from anyone it likes. But with fossil fuel plants closing and not many new nuclear plants coming along, will there be a lot of spare electricity in Europe to buy?
So it's just the rUK as an export market which I did actually mention.
There's been talk of more than this.
Does anyone have a decent analysis of planned future energy production across Western Europe and anything on international integration of electrical networks?
The UK has a legally binding EU obligation to have 15% of its energy requirements come from renewables by 2020. Last year, including Scottish renewables, the UK's renewables totaled less than 5%.
So obviously if Scotland becomes independence from the rest of the UK any further investment in renewables will have to redirected from Scotland to the rest of the UK, and away from non-renewable, so that these legally binding targets can be met. I doubt that will do much good for the Scottish renewable industry.
BTW you do realise that saying we have oil, haggis, renewables, etc, doesn't amount to having an economic strategy, don't you ? I did ask what would be your preferred economic strategy since you reject a central pillar of the SNP's economic strategy ?
The reality is that should Scotland become independence from the rest of the UK one of the likely consequences of that is that there will be a corporation tax war competition between the two, especially if there is a Tory government in Westminster.
This will undeniably lead to cuts in government expenditure and of course social provisions, public sector employment, etc. And all the promises of increased social provisions being made by the SNP will become a distant memory.
The SNP is embroiled in a racism row after one of its student leaders publicly called David Cameron an “English t”.Roisin McLaren, president of Edinburgh University’s SNP branch, said that she had ignored the Prime Minister’s pleas to save the Union because it was “an English t
telling us all what to do.”
It's strange, I didn't see this Wings ❓
Miss McLaren, who has campaigned alongside Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond, yesterday said that her comments were “open to misinterpretation” and apologised for any offence caused.
😆
Arguing that Mr Cameron is a “toff Tory politician, who nobody here likes or voted for”, the 19-year-old dismissed his plea by concluding: “F*** off! If he If he’s had any sense, he would have kept his gob shut.”
Aside from the 17% who did in the 2010 general election.
Yeh, but he is a ****. That bit is fine.
Well if it's alright for Clarkson to call people scottish idiots (he only ever apologised for "one eyed")...
Any invocation of Clarkson is whataboutery.
BTW you do realise that saying we have oil, haggis, renewables, etc, doesn't amount to having an economic strategy, don't you ? I did ask what would be your preferred economic strategy since you reject a central pillar of the SNP's economic strategy ?
Luckily I'm not a politician, so I don't need to come up with my own economic strategies. Voting for independence isn't voting for the SNP, so as long as other Scottish parties have their own economic strategies that's fine with me. I'd probably agree with most of what the Greens or SSP suggest.
The reality is that should Scotland become independence from the rest of the UK one of the likely consequences of that is that there will be a corporation tax war competition between the two, especially if there is a Tory government in Westminster.
That's what was said before devolution. Didn't happen. Because the tax rate is only a part of what makes a company invest* in a country - there's a bunch of other factors. In fact there was a study which showed that the tax rate of one country had minimal effect on the tax rate of neighbouring countries.
*I hate that terminology. It's really the country investing in the company, with grants and the like.
aracer - MemberAny invocation of Clarkson is whataboutery.
Or jokery
Making stuff, exporting stuff - the old-fashioned things that people used to do to make money before they tried making money from money.
Making stuff is done abroad, in low cost production centres be that India/Bangladesh or Asia. I have a bag from a Scottish company, it was made in India. Scotland isn't going to prosper on manufacturing and I would wager not on technology. Scotland has a pretty decent sized financial services sector. Again I would wager the SNP does all it can to keep Standard Life in Scotland (so tax breaks) even though most of it's business is managing money for people outside Scotland. My main concern all along has been he size of an independent Scotland, it's just not going to be large enough to have a really viable domestic economy.
I have no doubt Scotland will be OK economically, you will be worse off but you seem happy for that to be the price of self-governance. Thats's your choice, the choice the UK government has allowed you to have.
Making stuff is done abroad, in low cost production centres be that India/Bangladesh or Asia.
Depends on the stuff. There's a high-tech satellite manufacturing company lust down the road from my house. There's quite a bit of high-tech manufacturing in Scotland.
My main concern all along has been he size of an independent Scotland, it's just not going to be large enough to have a really viable domestic economy.
Is it smaller than other "viable" countries like the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand etc?
Thats's your choice, the choice the UK government has allowed you to have.
That's very magnanimous of the UK government 😀
one of the likely consequences of that is that there will be a corporation tax competition between the twoThat's what was said before devolution.
What are you on about ? No one said before devolution that there would be corporation tax competition.
In fact there was a study which showed that the tax rate of one country had minimal effect on the tax rate of neighbouring countries.
Yes I've understood that you reject the SNP's argument that Scotland's future prosperity will be helped by low corporation tax which will draw investment away from the rest of the UK and to Scotland. I asked you to provide an alternative policy, not what was wrong with the SNP's policy.
You said you haven't got one, which is both fair and honest. But not very convincing.
jambalaya - MemberMaking stuff is done abroad, in low cost production centres be that India/Bangladesh or Asia.
The UK is still one of the world's strongest manufacturers- maybe not so much in terms of volume (though still huge amounts of food, pharmaceuticals, a surplus of cars) but in terms of value added we hit an all time high in 2010 and were IIRC 7th biggest in the world. (though Brazil was about to overtake us) So nah, making stuff isn't just done abroad.
*I hate that terminology. It's really the country investing in the company, with grants and the like.
Priceless!
Northwind - MemberWell if it's alright for Clarkson to call people scottish idiots (he only ever apologised for "one eyed")...
Which political party is he representing again?
To be fair to JC (though must add that I personally think he is a weapons-grade bell end) he said:
I have nothing against the Scottish and of course I regret making any remark that might have upset the disabled. But the idiot bit - there is no chance I'll apologise for that.
Anyway, it's clear that there is no anti-English sentiment in the SNP since they have asked her to stand down. Oh no, wait- actually they haven't. Because apparently her an apology for making comments 'open to misinterpretation' makes it all fine 😀
Is it smaller than other "viable" countries like the Scandinavian countries, New Zealand etc?
New Zealand's a fairly poor country largely dependent upon agriculture.
The Scandies are heavily dependent upon forestry and related businesses like paper. Their star industries have either failed and/or been sold to foreigners when they've run into trouble (eg Volvo, Saab, Nokia)
I don't see Scotland being much different in the medium term as the oil runs out, leaving a heavy reliance on tourism.
I'm curious about the high tech manufacturing, what is that exactly and who are the customers ?
It is magnanimous of the UK government to allow the Scots a referendum on independence, there is no requirement to do so. Ultimately it makes no sense to have a shooting war over it, we've seen that in the past and in the present elsewhere and we don't want that.
You seem to be living in the 1950s, Sweden is one of the most, if not the most, efficient manufacturing countries in the world. Less than 5% of New Zealand's GDP is made up by agriculture.
It is magnanimous of the UK government to allow the Scots a referendum on independence,
Really?
I am not sure which is the more telling. - Miss Maclaren's comments or the justification. No surprise in either really, the undercurrent rarely stays below the surface for too long.
Always puzzled by the idea that the UK is not a strong manufacturer. Look at where we rank globally and the contribution of manufacturing to UK exports - this is applicable to the whole of the UK. Then look at the record of inward investment.
I am not sure which is the more telling.
Telling of what? A student said something silly, a bunch of UKIP people got upset. They get upset at everything, especially any perceived anti-English bias.
In addition to the unpleasant language, immaturity of the rant and odious sentiments, the unfortunate "lady" should also learn some "gratitude". Her interest in politics should allow her to realise that the Tory Renaissance in the polls (overtaking Labour according to the Guardian) is a god send to her fraught cause. Eds call that "it's all right we will be in power in W'minster next", is looking a little less certain by he day. The yS joker card?!?! With a bit more maturity perhaps she might get it?
Edinburgh Uni and the SNP must be very proud!
Surveys showed that most Scots didn't believe Ed Milliband's promise of more powers any more than George Osborne's threat of no currency union 😉
But I agree, Labour's sinking popularity helps the Yes side.
@mefty - 🙂 very good. Many people do think I am stuck in the 1950's !
I had a look on the NZ government site and they quote manufacturing at 22% of GDP but this includes the generation of electricity plus water and gas - seems a bit spurious to me. They also include making food products as manufacturing. It seems making wine isn't classified as agriculture either.
I hate quoting Wiki but this is what they say
[i]It has only small manufacturing and high-tech sectors, being strongly focused on tourism and primary industries such as agriculture[/i]
This is what I think will happen with Scotland.
As for Sweden they certainly did make stuff (like cars, aircraft) but those businesses didn't survive as independents and where sold off. I do know they have some high tech shipping related industries, like propulsion systems, but I wouldn't have said they where a manufacturing economy. The old joke used to be that Abba where a bigger exporter than Volvo. They are also double the size of Scotland from a population perspective.
@gordimor - Countries generally don't allow regions to break off and gain independence. I appreciate the very strong sense of nationality which exists in Scotland, legal system etc but right now it's a region, a bit like one of the States in the USA.
This is what I think will happen with Scotland.
Yeah, but just think what Bay city rollers comeback tour could do for the Tartan industry!
teamhurtmore - MemberI am not sure which is the more telling. - Miss Maclaren's comments or the justification
I don't think either's very telling tbh, student politics in action. She's not an SNP representative after all- she might be a member, and she'll have been voted to the position by other (maybe) members so she can (sort of) represent the society but that's all. The SNP could condemn her I suppose but it's the words of a kid, how much time do you think the press or serious politics should spend on it?
Mainly what it tells us is that people have opinions, which I didn't realise before. And I suppose it tells you something about the press, but that bit shouldn't come as a shock either.
Well, we can beg to differ. Either way, great fun to watch the subsequent "wriggling". Its becoming quite a trend!
[and its A*A*A, or A*AA or AAA to get into Edinburgh these days - cant even hide behind "ignorance"!]
In addition to the unpleasant language, immaturity of the rant and odious sentiments
Enough about your frequent outpourings about the SNP and AS,tell us what you think about the student SNP leader. Boomtish! 😀
As for Sweden they certainly did make stuff (like cars, aircraft) but those businesses didn't survive as independents and where sold off. I do know they have some high tech shipping related industries, like propulsion systems, but I wouldn't have said they where a manufacturing economy. The old joke used to be that Abba where a bigger exporter than Volvo. They are also double the size of Scotland from a population perspective.
As I am sure you are aware from your own working life, who owns something doesn't necessary matter to the viability of the industry in the country, just under 28% of gdp comes from manufacturing in sweden (phones still being important as is volvo), this is pretty much the same level as germany which is a manufactuing country I imagine in your view.
[quote=Northwind ]She's not an SNP representative after all- she might be a member, and she'll have been voted to the position by other (maybe) members so she can (sort of) represent the society but that's all.
Well that and somebody "who has campaigned alongside Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond". Presumably they didn't want her there, don't take her at all seriously, she isn't representative of anybody else campaigning and somehow sneaked onto the campaign despite that?
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle 😉
On 19 Sept, will these folk be able to re-adjust to being even vaguely straight?
teamhurtmore - Member[and its A*A*A, or A*AA or AAA to get into Edinburgh these days - cant even hide behind "ignorance"!]
LOL, you can go to uni with straight As, pass out with a first, do a postgrad and a phd and still be pig ignorant.
aracer - MemberWell that and somebody "who has campaigned alongside Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond".
And what does that actually mean here?
True NW, there's a graduate in economics from Scotland's finest university who still thinks a currency is an "asset." But I prefer deceitful in that case rather than pig ignorant because I know that his prof taught him well. But a well made point!
I
In addition to the unpleasant language, immaturity of the rant and odious sentiments,
I am relived you dont stoop to such things and couch all your comments in the temperate moderate language that the BBC and the CS would be proud to use.
Brilliant
AS will probably be pleased if someone else is copping some flak after the recent embarrassments with Trident and fishing waters. Add "innocent passage" to "assets" on the list of definitions to learn.
At least Sillers knows the difference when referring to AS as a "liability" today:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-become-liability-yes-3533466
I am relived you dont stoop to such things and couch all your comments in the temperate moderate language that the BBC and the CS would be proud to use.
The BBC is much more subtle when it wants to be biased. The Yes campaign "claims" or "insists", the No campaign "states" or "clarifies". News pieces use bracketing - bracket a story that's good for Yes between quotes from the No side. Selectively edit interviews and coverage of FMQs. Stuff like that.
[quote=Northwind ]And what does that actually mean here?
I was assuming it meant she's been a significant part of the campaign team and out and about with them - clearly that's not the case though given how insignificant and unrepresentative she actually is.
You can assume that if you like but then, the ambiguity of the line could make you suspect that she's one of thousands campaigning "alongside" the party leaders, given the tone of the article. If they had some examples her apparent closeness and bighitterness they'd have used them instead of padding the article with mental claims from UKIP about student fees (seriously, how on earth does providing free education in Scotland for Scots "stoke resentment of the english"?). Or misleading claims from Better Together pretending this is a comment "from the SNP"
I'm sure they're frantically looking for pics of her shaking hands with Salmond as we speak...
I am not sure which is the more telling. - Miss Maclaren's comments or the justification.
The only thing that Student [s]Grant[/s] Greta's outburst tells you is that you shouldn't pay too much attention to nineteen year olds.
Like the link thm. Jim sillars is not daft, but has been accused of being a failed politician by nationalist support here. He is however guilty of "playing the man not the ball". 😉 I liked the slippery reply from the Salmond spokesperson.
Also where did we get the arrogance to assume that the renewables sector, based in Scotland, but heavily subsidised by the entire UK, is purely Scotlands renewables. If anything it could be said that renewables industries are a success story of the union, rather than reason to march to independence bragging about how wet and windy Scotland is!
seriously, how on earth does providing free education in Scotland for Scots "stoke resentment of the english"?
Its the politics of envy 😛
FWIW there is an party standing in the EU elections dedicated to stopping this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27218759
The English Democrats launched their campaign pledging to "look after English interests" and arguing it was unfair to charge English people for prescription charges and tuition fees when these are free for residents elsewhere in the UK. On its party website, it points out the launch took place on site of the 1381 Peasants' Revolt. Candidates: Fielding candidates in every region of England
seriously, how on earth does providing free education in Scotland for Scots "stoke resentment of the english"?
It's not just free for the Scots, it's free for any EU member state's kids. My mates kids have Dutch passports so they can go to Scottish Uni for free. That is going to stoke resentment amongst the English.
Also where did we get the arrogance to assume that the renewables sector, based in Scotland, but heavily subsidised by the entire UK, is purely Scotlands renewables
This sounds a lot like a rerun of that oil argument where it was suggested the oil should be divided up by population not geography. Are you going to divide the wind and tides up by population too?
@Jambalaya- But that's not what he claimed- he specifically claimed Salmond did this as part of an agenda to stoke resentment in Scotland. Which is just plain gibberish.
The funding criteria are based on residency not nationality, incidentally, so anyone who tells you english kids can't get a free degree in Scotland is either lying to you or clueless. Could be either, with UKIP.
(Oh and without dragging it too far off topic, you might want to mention to your mate that EU funded places are scarce- it might look like an easy route to a free education but in practice it's generally an easy route to not getting into uni. If they're approaching admissions age they will want to speak to the admissions department of their target unis to make sure they're not walking into trouble. No messing)
So why is outright UKIP misinformation being carried by the Telegraph in a feature on scottish independence? Couldn't hazard a guess 😉
The only thing that Student [s]Grant[/s] Greta's outburst tells you is that you shouldn't pay too much attention to nineteen year olds.
Quite a ridiculous comment, would anyone dismiss bigotry expressed by a 19 year old member of the BNP or UKIP as merely youthful indiscretions and therefore of little concern ?
Official SNP policy is that 16 year olds are political mature enough to have a vote in the electoral process as which as equal as that of any adult - which in the UK means anyone 18 years old and over.
I therefore fail to see why the president of Edinburgh University’s SNP branch should have any slack cut because she is "only" 19 years old.
Would rUK tax payers be keen to keep subsidizing renewables projects in a foreign country? I also seem to recall they have tides in rUK as well.
[quote=Northwind ]The funding criteria are based on residency not nationality, incidentally, so anyone who tells you english kids can't get a free degree in Scotland is either lying to you or clueless.
In the same way that English people can vote in the referendum?
Perhaps you can explain how scottish renewables would need subsidised athgray?
Jambalaya the UN seems to think people's are entitled to express their will democratically it's in article 21of the universal declaration of human rights.
And finally
[url=http:// http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/independence-poll-blocked-by-westminster-1-3409249 ]#publish the poll[/url]
ernie_lynch - MemberQuite a ridiculous comment, would anyone dismiss bigotry expressed by a 19 year old member of the BNP or UKIP as merely youthful indiscretions and therefore of little concern ?
I'd say it's one person's opinion, and absurd that we're even talking about it, frankly. That's the real point- it's not about making excuses for her, but about saying "Really, so what?" [i]That's[/i] why it's of little concern. Person says thing.
Obviously there are people who want to run with an "SNP hates the english" agenda so I suppose it's reassuring that this is the best they can find.
aracer - MemberIn the same way that English people can vote in the referendum?
Not quite the same rules, but yes, very similiar.
@ Ben- that story doesn't seem to reliable, with Mori denying they have an employee by the name... Keeping polling internal isn't really suspicious.
The thing I found interesting, is that the "Cabinet Office Devolution Team" is doing polls on scottish independence. Since when is the Devolution Team part of Better Together? Do they not have a job to do? Kind of makes you wonder if other westminster departments have been retasked to fight this and what affect that's having. The UKBA were certainly spending time on it while around them the department collapsed.