Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
I think most 19 year olds are fething idiots. Most 40 year olds too. The level of learned contribution in a democratic system doesn't have as much to do with age as you pretend.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
As long as they're all Salmond Youth by 2014 I'm not exactly caring. ...Heh.
=P And its 16+, not 15. I'm not saying sixteen year olds are as mature as eighteen or twenty one year olds, but still, if the government thinks they are, what's the point in arguing if they're going to be on the same side of the fence as you.
Grey Templar wrote: I agree, heck I think that should be mandatory for citizenship. You take a test at 21 to see if you can become a full citizen.
What if you serve in the Mobile Infantry? Does that count towards full citizenship?
On a more serious note, where does Scotland currently make its' money? From what I understand through various documentaries (ironically one was about Scottish Nationalism and the drives for independence), is that it relies almost exclusively on the Whisky and Tourism industries for the bulk of their income. If this really is the case, how can a country truly remain viably independent with such narrow "exports". If we assume that Scotland does become completely independent, what happens to the global Scotch market? I personally think that it'd basically kill it, since the prices would almost necessarily have to come up through taxes and other tariffs.
Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Ratbarf wrote: Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Presumably if they were pegged to the undervalued pound, export costs would remain the same. I have no idea what would happen if they joined the Euro.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Ratbarf wrote: Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Presumably if they were pegged to the undervalued pound, export costs would remain the same. I have no idea what would happen if they joined the Euro.
Well, with the costs incurred by having the free healthcare and school that others here have talked about, the only way to offset some of those is to get more money from your chief set of goods. So I would hazard the guess that it'd be export tariffs, and other associated costs to producing and selling whisky. I'd also imagine that since (apparently) the other main moneymaker for Scotland is its tourism, the costs of hotel rooms and restaurants would go up, presumably through taxes again. I mean, I am no economist, and so I am speculating and guessing at what could or would happen, should those who want an independent state get their wish.
Could the US go ahead an make Scotland the 51st state, in lieu of complete independence? It'd sure keep some of the all important whisky costs down I'm sure that Americans can get used to the Scottish national sport (i am referring to the completely awesome game of rugby here), and actually televise some games at decent times .
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Ratbarf wrote: Wait, the price for Scottish independence is an increased price in whisky and scotch! To arms! To Arms! The low price of whiskey is something I would fight to protect!
Presumably if they were pegged to the undervalued pound, export costs would remain the same. I have no idea what would happen if they joined the Euro.
Well, with the costs incurred by having the free healthcare and school that others here have talked about, the only way to offset some of those is to get more money from your chief set of goods. So I would hazard the guess that it'd be export tariffs, and other associated costs to producing and selling whisky. I'd also imagine that since (apparently) the other main moneymaker for Scotland is its tourism, the costs of hotel rooms and restaurants would go up, presumably through taxes again. I mean, I am no economist, and so I am speculating and guessing at what could or would happen, should those who want an independent state get their wish.
Scotland is a free market economy. The SNP may be left-wing but I doubt they'd slap a huge import tariff on exports, if only because Scotland has a large export sector.
Scottish GDP per capita is on a par with the Netherlands. They can easily afford their welfare state, including free universities.
Unnessesarily extravegant word of the week award goes to jcress410 for this:
jcress wrote:Seem super off topic to complain about epistemology on a thread about tactics.
Grey Templar wrote: I agree, heck I think that should be mandatory for citizenship. You take a test at 21 to see if you can become a full citizen.
What if you serve in the Mobile Infantry? Does that count towards full citizenship?
On a more serious note, where does Scotland currently make its' money? From what I understand through various documentaries (ironically one was about Scottish Nationalism and the drives for independence), is that it relies almost exclusively on the Whisky and Tourism industries for the bulk of their income. If this really is the case, how can a country truly remain viably independent with such narrow "exports". If we assume that Scotland does become completely independent, what happens to the global Scotch market? I personally think that it'd basically kill it, since the prices would almost necessarily have to come up through taxes and other tariffs.
Well frankly I don't think people under the age of 21 should be in the army. So that would solve the problem.
I think one exception would be in the event of a draft being needed, then the age could be dropped lower. With any underage people getting drafted gaining full citizenship rights as if they were of proper age. So a person couldn't vote, drink, or smoke unless 18(or preferably 21), but if you got drafted you would immediatly be treated as a legal adult. So you would either have to prove you had been drafted or were over 18/21 to do the above things.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The deal between Cameron and Salmond today was a blow for those who want to preserve the Union. Its difficult to take a look between the lines are the wording isn't described in most newspapers.
The full text of the front page of the Edinburgh Agreement that sets in motion plans to hold a referendum in 2014
Alex Salmond and David Cameron sign the referendum agreement in St Andrew's House, Edinburgh. Photograph: Pool/REUTERS
Agreement between the United Kingdom government and the Scottish government on a referendum on independence for Scotland.
The United Kingdom government and the Scottish government have agreed to work together to ensure that a referendum on Scottish independence can take place.
The governments have agreed that the referendum should:
• Have a clear legal base.
• Be legislated for by the Scottish parliament.
• Be conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, government and people.
•Deliver a fair test and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.
The governments have agreed to promote an order in council under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish parliaments to allow a single question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The order will put beyond doubt that the Scottish parliament can legislate for the referendum.
It will then be for the Scottish government to promote legislation in the Scottish parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice. The referendum legislation will set out:
• The date of the referendum.
• The franchise.
• The wording of the question.
• The rules on campaign financing.
• Other rules for the conduct of the referendum.
The details of the agreement between the governments are set out in the following memorandum and draft order, which forms part of this agreement.
Signed:
The Rt Hon David Cameron MP, prime minister
The Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP, first minister of Scotland
The Rt Hon Michael Moore MP, secretary of state for Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon MSP, deputy first minister of Scotland
Edinburgh, 15 October 2012
Salmond chooses everything except the 'single question' vs devo max option.
All decisions are passed through the Scottish parliament which has an SNP majority. So that Nats choose:
• The date of the referendum. - So like old general elections Salmond might give himself the power to call it with a months notice, allowing strategic timing to be taken on short notice and to allow campaigns to culminate at their tempo.
• The franchise. - What does that mean? Anything Salmond wants it to.
.
• The wording of the question. - So it can be loaded. With yes no questions the yes always seems more positive and has an advantage.
• The rules on campaign financing. - thats easy Scotland only and policed by the Scottish parliament. So they can turn a blind eye to some funding and not others and block UK funding for the No campaign. They have already tried that, so giving Salmond exclusive policing is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
• Other rules for the conduct of the referendum. - A jerrymanders charter here. it also means Salmond gets 100% his own way over the Orkneys who claimed the right to secede from Scotland if they choose no and Scotland chooses yes. Salmond wants to deny them that right and now has the mandate to do so.
This gives Salmond all he needs to give this election more rigging than a six mast tea clipper.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
And the new national anthem will be the soundtrack from Braveheart.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
On a more serious note, where does Scotland currently make its' money? From what I understand through various documentaries (ironically one was about Scottish Nationalism and the drives for independence), is that it relies almost exclusively on the Whisky and Tourism industries for the bulk of their income. If this really is the case, how can a country truly remain viably independent with such narrow "exports". If we assume that Scotland does become completely independent, what happens to the global Scotch market? I personally think that it'd basically kill it, since the prices would almost necessarily have to come up through taxes and other tariffs.
I very much doubt that a future Scottish government would increase trade tariffs when so much of our economy is dependent upon exports.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/10/16 06:31:08
RegalPhantom wrote: If your fluff doesn't fit, change your fluff until it does
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog
kryczek wrote: For me its the problems that we have in Scotland that are effectively being ignored. The chronic health problems, the drink situation,(we've had these for decades and nothing has been done) the cocaine epidemic that's sweeping our country, the utter lack of investment in Scottish infra-structure over the last 30 years, the slow privatisation of our NHS, the inherent corruption within our police, the dumbing down of our children and our education system, the scandalous PFI agreements, the systematic withdrawal of almost all military bases and personnel from Scotland over the last 10 years( if you want to know more about that I recommend the MOD review on what Scottish independence means for the UK Military).
Replace "Scotland" with "the rest of the UK" and you will have a pretty accurate indication of what successive governments have done to our country. It is not like Scotland has been singled out here...
Interestingly, the 800,000 Scottish people living in England are denied a vote, since qualification is based on residence in Scotland. That will anger my Scottish colleague.
Considering that the tories benefit from an independent Scotland, why would he not grant Salmon all he asks?
If England was voted for by the English, then I would not have to put up with Clegg. England is pretty blue except for scouser and the north east.
So, I win either way, I have a historical soft spot for us staying the UK, but as a Tory, I win if they leave as well.
And the look on all the geordie and scouse faces..... Oh feth it, I hope they leave.. Can we kick Wales out as well?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
Maybe, but this is still a decision that is going to have a big impact on those of my age, affecting job prospects etc. I think it is only right and fair that I should be given a say. I too am sceptical about allowing 16 year olds to vote, but I see no reason why those over 18 shouldn't.
As another 19 year old I'm taking issue with this statement. You are right, I am 19. I am a student at Edinburgh University, have held down several jobs over the last couple of years when needed, and am well enough educated to be able to vote with a reasoning and rational thought. Why should I not be allowed to vote? I'm probably better qualified to vote than many so-called adults, and calling me weak-willed just because I am younger is simply offensive.
In a few years time you'll find that your capacity to understand and deal with the world around you is much improved. That's all I'm saying.
Completely agree, but equally your capacity to understand is much improved between the ages of 16 and 18. It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and surely that should be the age at which the majority of people who would vote start taking an interest in politics, accumulating the information that they need to make an informed decision on how to vote.
-Tom Leighton
- Ireland ETC - Eldar - 2016
-Former 17 year old intro welcomer for dank post count. Pls forgive me <3
Rampage wrote: Completely agree, but equally your capacity to understand is much improved between the ages of 16 and 18. It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and surely that should be the age at which the majority of people who would vote start taking an interest in politics, accumulating the information that they need to make an informed decision on how to vote.
I'd say that 18 is probably the lower limit. At 18 you would have had at least some exposure to the wider world. At 20 or 21 virtually everyone would have been to work, maybe lived away from home, and generally taken part in society beyond going to school.
Rampage wrote: Completely agree, but equally your capacity to understand is much improved between the ages of 16 and 18. It's all a matter of where you draw the line, and surely that should be the age at which the majority of people who would vote start taking an interest in politics, accumulating the information that they need to make an informed decision on how to vote.
I'd say that 18 is probably the lower limit. At 18 you would have had at least some exposure to the wider world. At 20 or 21 virtually everyone would have been to work, maybe lived away from home, and generally taken part in society beyond going to school.
I agree, I don't think that 16 and 17 year olds are old enough to quote, I was merely stating that 18 year olds generally have enough of an understanding of the world and politics and the world in general while most 16 year olds do not.
-Tom Leighton
- Ireland ETC - Eldar - 2016
-Former 17 year old intro welcomer for dank post count. Pls forgive me <3
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
