robbylad

That's as maybe but no one expected the lib dems to jump into bed with the Tories. Scotland clearly didn't want them but got them anyway. Just look at how popular the lib dems are now.

Tripper

Yep, these rabid Nats are again showing their true colours posting hate filled abuse because someone dares to have a different opinion. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jonstone/scottish-nationalists-who-reacted-really-badly-to-jk-rowl I was going to suggest that Yes Scotland could capitalise by having a fundraising bonfire of Harry Potter books, but it sounds like their members don't have many left now. If you are suggesting that yes supporters are akin to book burning Nazis, you are every bit as out of order as the abusers you are so quick to condemn.

That'll scare the horses.

Have to agree. Tremarco isn't the tallest guy in the team but he looked very comfortable at centre back.

It is easy to justify either the inclusion or exclusion of Scots not currently residing here, but ultimately the ones living outwith Scotland have been excluded because they are less insular and are therefore far more likely to vote No. Insular??? By that logic, every country ever to claim it's independence must also be insular. I don't think it's insular to want to stand up in the world and engage with the world on your own terms. Westminster s plan for a referendum on EU? Now that must be insular too then?

Web

Hyperbole

I think Butcher will get til Christmas. If Hibs are still *****, he'll be oot on his erse.

I see where you're coming from on the EU issue but the chances are the UK will end up outside altogether with no chance of influence. As to your point about being outvoted by the central belt, with our (almost) pr system, we're already better represented in the Scottish Parliament. Certainly better than we are at Westminster with Danny boy at the wheel.

Dope

After a yes vote, people like yourself, with all that experience, could help build an education system that's the envy of the world.

OQ... call it what you like. Like most of the rest of the world, apart from the ultra-Nats to whom the term is , I use the working title of "Britain" for the highly successful state which resulted from the aggregation of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales, and from which part of Ireland (the "arc of prosperity" bit ) departed in 1922. And IF Scotland decided to secede from that, you could still call it what you like but in practice it would still be "Britain" because dropping off 8.3% of the population - sort of like Yorkshire - really isn't going to make that much difference to "Britain" which might regard it as a bit regretful, but perfectly bearable. However this would make one hell of a negative difference to the seceders who would lose the security and stabilising influences of something which was 12 times bigger. And we didn't cease to be "Britain" when the Irish went away in 1922. Our history over the last 1500 years or so has been one of ongoing aggregation. You had random tribes which became Strathclyde, Dalriada, Lothian, Pictland (that's the bit with the oil by the way ) Correspondingly the likes of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria became England. The next stage was that Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales, by 1801, became Britain or whatever the hell you want to call it. Fast forward another couple of hundred years and the debate has moved on further to the extent to which there should be further integration in the form of the EU. That's except among you lot in you who just seem to want to turn the clock back more than 300 years to "Scotland" which was really just an intermediate step - and in a lot of respects a failed state until it aggregated with its neighbours - in an ongoing evolutionary process. It's a bit like being a Homo Sapiens and saying you want to go back to being a Piltdown Man! But if you want to turn the clock back, why stop at 1707? Go on - adopt the slogan "It's Pictland's Oil" "Highly successful state".... now you bring humour into it.

Bang on OQ When you see the word "lecture" in the same phrase as "Alex Salmond" you know this is something you need to avoid for your own sanity. But tell me something. When are the SNP going to start actually saying stuff which might have a chance of getting people to sit up and listen to their case? Since the 670 page publicly funded manifesto divebombed without trace, I'm just noticing nothing - apart from random defensive mutterings off the back foot in response to the now almost daily battering their stance is getting from all directions. I do have to say that, although somewhat lengthy and sometimes a tad resentful, the contributions on here from your good self have been as good as I have seen - and have been like a veritable Nationalist Sermon On The Mount compared with what is coming from official sources. I don't think you can call over 100,000 copies of "Scotland's Future" dive bombed Charles. I think it goes to show that people are engaged with the debate and want to know more. Just because you think it's a waste of time doesn't make it so. I usually find that people who call the white paper a waste of money are usually the ones who fear the debate. They would prefer people stay uninformed in case they make an informed decision.

Don't want them relegated and don't want Adams sacked. I want us to hump them every time we play them and then watch Adams head explode like an alien in "Mars Attacks"

Gordie... I am a republican I find this presumption of Royalism a bit bizarre. Just the union Jack onesie then?

At least if he was a non Scot, we could accuse him of being racist lol

No it's not. It's been there for millions of years. It's just that it wasn't until about 130 years ago that technology started to be developed which created a demand for it and gave it an economic value. It's worthless if it isn't recovered though. Like I said, I don't think it would go down well if an independent Scotland tried to claim any shale gas or other assets recovered in a future rUK. Not at all. It's no more worthless than whisky sitting in a bonded warehouse awaiting sale. And as far as the shale gas is concerned, if that scenario arose, it would be a result of an active decision by Scottish voters to secede from the UK - and its assets. But why not do a deal if the whole national debt and the oil are both UK assets, why shouldn't UK continuing not keep them both - after all the SNP seem to be quite happt for UK continuing to keep the whole debt? If I rented a room in your house (unlikely I know), and you defaulted on your mortgage (unlikely I know), the bank wouldn't persue me. They would go after the mortgage holder. The UK "continuing" took on the debt, therefore the UK "continuing" are liable for the debt. Now, this myth that the Scottish government would renege on the debt is just that. As they are perfectly entitled to do, they've asked why Scotland would be liable for a debt yet not entitled to the assets. Everything is up for negotiation only Westminster stamp their feet and refuse to negotiate. It's Westminster that is causing uncertainty, not the Scottish government.

No it's not. It's been there for millions of years. It's just that it wasn't until about 130 years ago that technology started to be developed which created a demand for it and gave it an economic value. It's worthless if it isn't recovered though. Like I said, I don't think it would go down well if an independent Scotland tried to claim any shale gas or other assets recovered in a future rUK.

So that's Scotland's 8.3% share of the BofE, the military, the national debt (unless Alex were to throw the rattle out of the pram)... and just 8.3% of the oil as well? On the other hand if the national debt currently belongs to the UK, does that not also apply to the oil... so the rest of the UK keeps all of that if Scotland decides to walk away from the current owner of that particular asset? Once again we return to the separatist presumption of expecting everybody to agree to the breakup of the UK, and on their terms into the bargain.... or at least until they got the wake up call that the rest of the UK wouldn't be engaging in currency union for a start. Oh but I forgot! The other UK parties don't really mean that!! So maybe Alex Salmond doesn't really mean it that he wants a yes vote in September either and he's only bluffing there too? I don't see how the UK government can claim the oil. That is a future asset. An independent Scotland couldn't claim part of any windfall from fracking in a future UK.

didnt you know? we're too wee, too poor and too stupid.

American

Can't wait to hear Adams bleating!

Charles thinks they are comedy gold though.

Just don't forget to vote.