PullMyFinger

You actually raise another serious questionmark against separation there - which I am sure you will try also to categorise in your so called "Project Fear". But with less than 9% of the BBC's current licence fee revenue, I would be interested to see what kind of service a Scottish equivalent would be able to provide - even if it were to try to raise a few more quid by imposing lots of adverts on viewers of and listeners to... what? The BBC is actually an excellent example of one of the fundamental benefits of the Union - economies of scale. Self-interest, perchance? It's the unionist way.

O.T. It was really kind of The Inverness Courier to provide a urinal outside their offices on Stadium Road.

This might shed a little light http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-hope-of-the-future/ Misinformation and disinformation will always influence the impressionable.

Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at. Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve. Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood. Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area. The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at. Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve. Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood. Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area. The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. That's bullshit, SNP will never hold a majority at Westminster so will never form government at that level. To change legislation you need the power to do it, why else enter politics? With respect, you seem to be rather missing the point. Of course the SNP will never form a Government at the UK level but despite that, some of their most able politicians choose to stand for election to the UK Parliament rather than the Holyrood Parliament. Actually, people do not enter politics simply because they believe they will have the power to change things, they stand for election because they hope to be able to influence change whether in power or not. Perhaps you should ask Angus Robertson why he sits in the UK Parliament when he would be assured of a senior Government post if he sat at Holyrood. The fact that the calibre of opposition MSPs is so low is not an argument for independence. You went from "very few would refuse" to "some would choose", yet I am missing the point? One of Salmond's officials said so a few months ago. How many officials does Salmond have? If you're going to post assertions at least have the decency to have a link to where there's a verifiable source. Especially when it's so inflammatory. Might I suggest they were misquoted or misrepresented? How about if they had said "It's anti-Scottish to support having the people of Scotland ruled over by a Westminster parliament consisting of two chambers, one of which is unelected and stinks of ****?". No!! Its about the rights of those living in Scotland to choose their own future. Scotland is a multi-national country and every resident living here is entitled to a vote. SNP candidates, like other parties, are selected to stand for election. Some may well want to serve at Westminster but thats not to say they will be selected for such a position. Their use may well be seen by the party selectors as being more useful at Holyrood than Westminster depending on their ability and skills. In other words would they better serve as a frontbencher at Holyrood than a backbencher at Westminster. Quite correct, I must be getting lazy. I meant to say the people of Scotland. I'll be calling Andy Murray English next. SNP candidates aren't like Lab, Con or FibDem candidates as the party is only standing in Scotland. Angus Robertson is the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas as he is a brilliant strategist. If this referendum succeeds it will be in no small part down to his hard work even though he's not front and centre.

Who has hinted it's anti-Scottish to support the UK? I'd say it's pro-Scottish to support independence for Scotland but does that make me anti-English? Of course not, nor anti-Welsh nor anti-Irish.

Because the more able politicians get selected to contest seats at the level they want to sit at. Whether you are in favour of independence or not, the UK Parliament is where the greatest influence is and where most career politicians would aspire to serve. Very few (including SNP politicians) would refuse the opportunity to contest a Westminster seat in favour of one at Hollyrood. Some able politicians prefer to work at local council level but that does not mean they want Independence for their local area. The relative abilities of politicians at different levels of Government is a fact of life and has absolutely nothing to do with the independence debate. That's bullshit, SNP will never hold a majority at Westminster so will never form government at that level. To change legislation you need the power to do it, why else enter politics?

Well deserved too, still another 96 points to play for though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24093736

If only there had been more Scots in Parliament in that time. Maybe like a prime minister or two? Possibly a few chancellors that had to be re-elected by the people of Scotland? Maybe the odd Scottish foreign secretary? How about the leaders of both of the main opposition parties? The referendum is not about nationality, it's about the right of Scots to choose our own future. Scots politicians in Westminster parties are answerable to the UK electorate as well as their constituents if they happen to be members of the government in addition to parliament. If we have politicians of the calibre that consistently make it to the top at Westminster then why at Holyrood, do we have what can at best be described as mediocre councillors leading the opposition parties?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-24090772

Care to comment now Laurence? Your biggest worry has come to fruition for rUK. An independent Scotland will have a publicly owned mail service. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/royal-mail-sale-rural-charges-under-scrutiny-1-3093469 Still nothing to say Laurence?

How do you know? I seem to see an awful lot of pronouncements from the separatist lobby which appear to presume to dictate what future government policy of a separate Scotland would be. In practice, these pronouncements apparently amount to no more than a wish list on the part of the SNP regarding what they would do in the event of their continuing to be elected - which I certainly wouldn't bet on. Indeed much of the yes case seems to rely on populist promises based on the assumption that those making them would have the authority to carry them out. Indeed in the increasingly unlikely event of a yes vote, there would presumably no longer even be any need for an SNP since the only thing they give a toss about would have happened. Let's just say it's a gut instinct, Chuck. Kingsmills I am rather less than sure about that. The SNP exists for the sole purpose of taking Scotland out of the UK and everything else comes a poor second to that objective. I am also sure that this will become even clearer as the referendum approaches - as will be their attempts to pick fghts wth "the Westminster government" which has become their latest bete noire now that they can no longer gripe on about "the English" since their Anglophobia count was getting dangerousy high. That changed many years ago, Chuck. As for the anti-English slur, really? Is that where you still are? The debate moved on long ago, do try and catch up.

Care to comment now Laurence? Your biggest worry has come to fruition for rUK. An independent Scotland will have a publicly owned mail service.

As opposed to prospective revisionism?

My mistake, but I've heard it put forward so many times that a reason for independence is that we won't get involved in foreign conflicts, I thought it was Yes party policy! Replace foreign with illegal and you're getting closer to the beliefs of most people I have spoken to and that's on both sides of the debate. The sycophantic Yes Men Salmond has got assembled round about him? Another well thought out post Chuckie, well played! I see Labour for Independence is growing, care to comment? Maybe not, eh?

Ooft, you go girl!!!

Is your vision of Scotland a country that would just stand back and allow genocide then? One which refuses to take part in international military operations, but would fully expect its NATO partners to step in to protect Scotland? The only think more defenceless than an independent Scotland is that stance! My vision is for a country that would try to get both sides round the table before events dictate the magnitude of international response to negotiate their differences in a respectful manner, failing that following UN resolutions on the matter, participating in NATO action and finally a peacekeeping mission and withdrawal. My vision is for a country who will do this in all conflict areas including southern Africa which has been largely ignored; there's no oil there so the international corporations won't be lobbying their governments to act. War is always about money and when the west gets involved you will see the same corporations and individuals cleaning up. Correction PMF. Proven African oil reserves are estimated ..... there are also vast reserves in Gabon, Congo, Cameroon, Tunisia, Equatorial Guinea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Cote d'Ivoire. Further to all those exploration is currently taking place in Chad, Sudan, Namibia, South Africa and Madagascar while Mozambique and Tanzania are potential high volume gas producers. It is also reckoned that many of the other countries could also prove fruitful in oil and gas but much has to be done before any exploration can take place to preserve and protect the vast nature reserves and areas of scientific interest all over the African continent. As for your vision. Yes that would be great but that can only happen in an ideal world. A world where the super powers could all agree. Unfortunately thats a long way off and meanwhile innocent people are being murdered. Actions have to be taken to show any nation that its wrong to do what has been done in Syria. I would hope that an independant Scotland would be one of the loudest voices and one of those prepared to take action against such atrocities. Well, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that there was so much oil in Africa, I thought it was just around the Sahara. What irks me about the situation in Syria is that this has been happening for so long and then all of a sudden it's talks of bombs which kill many more people. There are many more areas of conflict in the world but we only seem to report on the ones where our ruling classes have a financial interest and then we all have to pay either through taxation or human life. Correction PMF. Proven African oil reserves are estimated at 133,000 billion barrels, equivalent to close on 10% of the worlds reserves. So let me get this straight. Even though oil seems to be the only thing you ever think about, you Separatist chaps still don't seem to be able to agree about where it is! Oh well, I suppose that does sort of square with the statistical wishlist which emerges from Neverendum HQ every so often! We can agree on one thing Charles, there is no positive case for the Union. Neverendum HQ? That's hilarious! Did you come up with that all by yourself? Try contributing to the thread, have a pop by all means but be objective and who knows you might convert a few voters.

Is your vision of Scotland a country that would just stand back and allow genocide then? One which refuses to take part in international military operations, but would fully expect its NATO partners to step in to protect Scotland? The only think more defenceless than an independent Scotland is that stance! My vision is for a country that would try to get both sides round the table before events dictate the magnitude of international response to negotiate their differences in a respectful manner, failing that following UN resolutions on the matter, participating in NATO action and finally a peacekeeping mission and withdrawal. My vision is for a country who will do this in all conflict areas including southern Africa which has been largely ignored; there's no oil there so the international corporations won't be lobbying their governments to act. War is always about money and when the west gets involved you will see the same corporations and individuals cleaning up.

Is that when the pink pound was first printed? Seriously though, if we have a look at the credentials of Mr Darling he has been useless as a chancellor and equally useless leading Better Together. When he was minister for transport he signed off the HS2 High Speed Rail link which will not only cost us (Scotland) money but will see all London services north of Edinburgh being stopped. This isn't how I see a democracy developing in Scotland. No doubt we'll be getting involved in another Middle East conflict which will see many more Scots soldiers coming home in body bags too. I really despair for the UK but we have the chance to change direction in Scotland by voting for Independence and involving ourselves in the political process of the new government.

I am not for Indepence in the serious side but it would make England-Scotland rivalries rather more heated than they have been recently Voting against independence raises the question of why we have 4 national teams. How many other nations have 4 national teams?

Link isn't great http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/where-does-scotlands-wealth-go/

Actually he's right we were only top for two days

Has he got me on ignore?

9th August 2008, we beat Aberdeen 2-0 at Pittodrie which had us top of the league after the first round of fixtures, we then went on to secure 1st division football the next year. We're doomed.

bbc had him scoring 6 too

1 Where were you born? Johnston, should be a buddy 2.Where did you spend your childhood? Inverness, Dalneigh 3 When did you start following football in Inverness? Late 70s/early 80s 4 What is you current location? Forres