2 ms·

Yes, the top .01% elite of Scotland had bankrupted themselves and it was they who accepted this deal in return for a bail-out of there PERSONAL assets, it was n

Yes, the top .01% elite of Scotland had bankrupted themselves and it was they who accepted this deal in return for a bail-out of there PERSONAL assets, it was never put to the Scottish people. You are buying into the propaganda that is all about Alex Salmond, a politician nearing the end of his career and, indeed, his time on Earth. The question you have to ask yourself is whether any independent country on the planet, regardless of its currency, would voluntarily had its governance to a neighboring country. The point is that, today, 100% of the Scottish people are partially disenfranchised. I am entirely aware that no representative "democracy" is fully democratic, but the connection between a people and their government is undoubtedly healthier when that government is in the same country.

sparkzilla 12y ago
>Yes, the top .01% elite of Scotland had bankrupted themselves and it was they who accepted this deal in return for a bail-out of there PERSONAL assets, it was never put to the Scottish people. Please. If you think this election is about "The Scottish People" you are deluded. It's always been about the elites. >You are buying into the propaganda that is all about Alex Salmond, a politician nearing the end of his career and, indeed, his time on Earth. He's 59. I know Scottish men die early, but he could easily live another 20 years, and possibly longer. There is nothing to say he won't be politically active until his death. He is a divisive figure who has capitalized on anti-English sentiment, greed and envy to increase his own standing. >The question you have to ask yourself is whether any independent country on the planet, regardless of its currency, would voluntarily had its governance to a neighboring country. But that's not the question, is it? The question is actually, "will the proposed system be better?" The distance doesn't matter. Ask the people of the Falkland Islands if they'd like to become Argentinian. Right now the polls indicate that 50% of the people don't think Independence will improve their situation. Even if YES scrape a win, that's hardly a mandate. Your enthusiasm blinds you to the real fears of half of the population. >I am entirely aware that no representative "democracy" is fully democratic, but the connection between a people and their government is undoubtedly healthier when that government is in the same country. It already is in the same country. It's you that propose to change it to another.
- WordSkill 12y ago
  No, you are wrong on the most basic point. The United Kingdom has always been, from the very start, recognised as a union of separate countries, with Scotland retaining its own legal system. The agreement handed over parliamentary and financial governance, but the country remained separate. That is why secession is even possible. Salmond. If he achieves independence, you can expect him to do one "Mandela victory lap" in office, but he won't risk his legacy as "Father of the nation" by mucking around for long with the dirty business of actual politics. I have no love for any politician, but I disagree with your assessment. If he had never existed, his basic pitch of "why shouldn't we run our own affairs" would, in time, have come to the fore anyway. He, personally, is being demonised because the arguments for staying in the union are not sufficiently strong. I do agree with you that 50% odd will not be a decent mandate for either side. From the start, I have presumed that the No side would win, but that the closeness of the result would force significant change. If it is now the case that the Yes side wins, well, their slim majority will greatly influence the subsequent negotiations. For all the current bluff and bluster, we will end up with something that falls short of true independence, but both the English and the Scottish, and the political discourse of both countries, will be better off.

sparkzilla 12y ago

>Yes, the top .01% elite of Scotland had bankrupted themselves and it was they who accepted this deal in return for a bail-out of there PERSONAL assets, it was never put to the Scottish people. Please. If you think this election is about "The Scottish People" you are deluded. It's always been about the elites. >You are buying into the propaganda that is all about Alex Salmond, a politician nearing the end of his career and, indeed, his time on Earth. He's 59. I know Scottish men die early, but he could easily live another 20 years, and possibly longer. There is nothing to say he won't be politically active until his death. He is a divisive figure who has capitalized on anti-English sentiment, greed and envy to increase his own standing. >The question you have to ask yourself is whether any independent country on the planet, regardless of its currency, would voluntarily had its governance to a neighboring country. But that's not the question, is it? The question is actually, "will the proposed system be better?" The distance doesn't matter. Ask the people of the Falkland Islands if they'd like to become Argentinian. Right now the polls indicate that 50% of the people don't think Independence will improve their situation. Even if YES scrape a win, that's hardly a mandate. Your enthusiasm blinds you to the real fears of half of the population. >I am entirely aware that no representative "democracy" is fully democratic, but the connection between a people and their government is undoubtedly healthier when that government is in the same country. It already is in the same country. It's you that propose to change it to another.

WordSkill 12y ago
No, you are wrong on the most basic point. The United Kingdom has always been, from the very start, recognised as a union of separate countries, with Scotland retaining its own legal system. The agreement handed over parliamentary and financial governance, but the country remained separate. That is why secession is even possible. Salmond. If he achieves independence, you can expect him to do one "Mandela victory lap" in office, but he won't risk his legacy as "Father of the nation" by mucking around for long with the dirty business of actual politics. I have no love for any politician, but I disagree with your assessment. If he had never existed, his basic pitch of "why shouldn't we run our own affairs" would, in time, have come to the fore anyway. He, personally, is being demonised because the arguments for staying in the union are not sufficiently strong. I do agree with you that 50% odd will not be a decent mandate for either side. From the start, I have presumed that the No side would win, but that the closeness of the result would force significant change. If it is now the case that the Yes side wins, well, their slim majority will greatly influence the subsequent negotiations. For all the current bluff and bluster, we will end up with something that falls short of true independence, but both the English and the Scottish, and the political discourse of both countries, will be better off.