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.
So currently Alex Salmond is debating Alistair Darling over the merits of Independence versus staying in the Union.
Salmond is on the rocks in my opinion, he's consistently failing to answer basic questions. I'm for Independence but I don't want this fat clown leading us there.
He hasn't thought this through at all. Scotland is not ready for independence. We need a better man, a better party, to lead us there.
I'm posting this up as you'll all be able to watch this once it's finished and I'll post it up.
Not sure if any other fellow Scots or Brits are watching this at the moment?
Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
A lot of English people aren't even able to view it, nevermind the rest of the world. It's only been shown on STV - Only available either in Scotland, or by massively messing around with your tuning settings on your satellite boxes. - And even then, only if you know the right code for the channel...
Was on a call with a Scottish CEO, and English COO. After 30 minutes i just wanted pelt everyone with office supplies. The rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr's were murderizing my ears.
So I vote no, and being a Texan that means the issue is settled.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I caught the tail end of it (playing with toy soldiers tonight was more important than watching a debate), but stopped watching it after a few minutes of having to listen to Darling. Meh, I already know how I'll be voting, hearing some more propaganda won't change or strengthen my position. The last debate was a shambles, though I'd put that one down to the participants rather than the actual topic. This one, from the BBC highlights looks like it amounted to the same (ie neither side could pin down a straight answer most of the time, though Darling wound up getting himself in a Limmy style "Yes or No" moment which was funny). So yeah, if you're going to have a debate I won't be watching it if one of the debaters is someone I hate hearing no matter what topic they're on about.
Oh, and BBC Alex Salmond isn't the "Leader" of the Yes campaign. ¬¬
Whatever, everyone's already decided how theyre voting by now for the most part. Vote how you like, but just do it for the right reasons. Working at the Commonwealth Games the past few weeks I've heard so much misinformation on the subject. The Better Together supporters have come out with some pretty crazy fear mongering twaddle at times. The people wanting to discuss the matter were a bit horrible in the first place, so perhaps I was a bit biassed against their point, but politics isn't a topic that aught to be discussed in casual conversation in any case. As ever though I'll say that it isn't a party or a man that's being voted for, its a country. For some reason people try and keep pinning this down to whether you support the SNP and Alex Salmond, but its not as if either will be in power for very long after independence. Meh, more bollocks on the media I suppose. The debates don't change people's minds, its people discussing things amongst themselves (and well if you aren't up for talking politics for fun then you're going to lose some friends that way).
Hi guys. I'm quite annoyed that it's not been as easy to view as STV claimed.
The debate was a joke to be honest.
On the one hand you had Alistair Darling asking fairly easy questions and Salmond kept dodging them.
I think regardless of your views on Independence you probably would want to see the guy that's leading it know what he's talking about.
We need to get some fresh blood that knows what they're talking about and with a solid framework of separation.
Frazzled, you love the are rolling really. Maybe Scotland can join the Great State of Texas? We'll send Whiskey and you can send us Texan stuff and Weiner dogs.
I'll keep checking and post it up when it appears.
Medium of Death wrote: Frazzled, you love the are rolling really. Maybe Scotland can join the Great State of Texas? We'll send Whiskey and you can send us Texan stuff and Weiner dogs.
Medium of Death wrote: Hi guys. I'm quite annoyed that it's not been as easy to view as STV claimed.
The debate was a joke to be honest.
On the one hand you had Alistair Darling asking fairly easy questions and Salmond kept dodging them.
I think regardless of your views on Independence you probably would want to see the guy that's leading it know what he's talking about.
We need to get some fresh blood that knows what they're talking about and with a solid framework of separation.
Frazzled, you love the are rolling really. Maybe Scotland can join the Great State of Texas? We'll send Whiskey and you can send us Texan stuff and Weiner dogs.
I'll keep checking and post it up when it appears.
Sorry but that would be an Act of War (an attack on our ears).
I'll take the Scotch though....
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
You will know true fear when the Haggiskreig is upon you, Frazzled.
I'm not bothered about how it's spelled, Dread, everybody knows the Scots do it better.
I'm not wanting to come across as being for Darling I just think Salmond was a smirking shambles. I not happy to give the go ahead for separation to a man without a solid plan.
Team Wienie is looking forward to the attack of haggis. If any nation is prepared for the horrors of haggis, its a nation protected by voracious 4 legged eating machines.
They eat and eat and eat. Its what they do. ITS ALL THEY DO!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/05 21:44:06
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
"That's not an Ork, its a girl.." - Last words of High General Daran Ul'tharem, battle of Ursha VII.
Two White Horses (Ipswich Town and Denver Broncos Supporter)
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
Hear, hear. Thrown into sharp focus too, with the recent WWI commemorations. Tommies and Jocks have been dying together in foreign fields for a little over two centuries. Dying, yes, for Crown and country, but most importantly, for each other. That goes for our compatriots in Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. We are bonded by blood, and I firmly believe our countries ARE better together.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/05 22:31:29
whembly wrote: Question for the Scotland Independence advocates:
What is your biggest current gripe with British rule?
prima noctra
Prima noctra was a custom in parts of dark age Europe, but it wasnt used by the english at any point in our history. Something rather overlooked in your linked film.
Braveheart is not only unhistorical, it's deeply racist and intentionally divisive, don't take you history from it unless you want to be spoon fed propaganda.
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.
The problem is I don't know who the film's meant to appeal to. Its offensive to both the Scots and English. Then again, its Hollywood History, so any topic covered by that's going to hack off the people that're related to those involved. Meh, a statue of "William Wallace" in the style of Braveheart was made, but IIRC it was sent back to the artist who made it pretty sharpish. =P
Eugh, the amount of times I've been abroad and had that bloody film quoted at me. ¬¬
Still undecided as a lot of the questions posed were a joke. Any serious question led to both sides floundering. If both sides could get new spokespersons with cliffnotes on the political stances they champion for the next debate that would be fantastic.
I think Scotland probably would be better off independent in the long run if everything went perfectly, but it would suck for 10 or so years whilst the set up took place. I don't know if I'm selfless enough to take the hit.
Zond wrote: Still undecided as a lot of the questions posed were a joke. Any serious question led to both sides floundering. If both sides could get new spokespersons with cliffnotes on the political stances they champion for the next debate that would be fantastic.
Which means that any debate could only possibly be represented by Sir Ian McKellan (for England) and Sean Connery (for Scotland)
If there were secretly some political system with the ideals of the Swiss and motivation of the Norwegians being suppressed by West Minster, then maybe I'd vote for independence.
But there's not.
It's the same bunch of useless louts who govern the rest of the UK but with different accents. Nothing will change if Holyrood starts running the show, just like nothing has changed since Salmond has been First Minister. I like being part of the United Kingdom's legacy and history and I don't want that to change.
Well, as a serving police officer with the Police Service of Scotland I am not allowed to express any opinion on the Scottish independence debate, on or off duty, via any form of communication. That includes over the internet, via the press, or apparently by even speaking to friends and family.
Whilst I appreciate that we have to keep policing seperate from politics, it's interesting to note that this instruction came a few weeks ago after several stories in the media about police officers and staff making various allegations about how the new single Police Service of Scotland was performing. In particular various criticisms were leveled against the new service regarding new procedures, their legality, and the impact on public safety and performance.
For those not in the know the Scottish National Party were the driving party behind the amalgamation of the regional police forces into one national service (somewhat ironically with an Englishman as the Chief Constable) with a view to 'increased efficiency', which has also coincidentally resulted in cuts to the numbers of police staff.
I'm sure there is no connection between this ban on police officers expressing their opinions and the allegations made against the new service. And I hope everyone notices I've not expressed any such opinions myself
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting the ultimate practitioner."
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
Hear, hear. Thrown into sharp focus too, with the recent WWI commemorations. Tommies and Jocks have been dying together in foreign fields for a little over two centuries. Dying, yes, for Crown and country, but most importantly, for each other. That goes for our compatriots in Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. We are bonded by blood, and I firmly believe our countries ARE better together.
Assuming you two are serious and not just Poe's Lawing the risible "NAW SURRENDAR" Loyalist flag-wavery that we have to deal with up here from a depressing minority, and of which only perhaps the Northern Irish could justifiably be sicker of;
Oh well then, if we all got sent off to be slaughtered together by the toffs in years past, that's that then. Best call Australia, New Zealand, India, and all the other former colonies of Britain and tell them that since we fought together in the War, they should just give up all that independence malarkey and put themselves back under the benevolent auspices of Westminster
Nevermind the food banks, the neoliberal austerity economics(subscribed to by all the main parties), the victimisation of the disabled and unemployed by the press and politicians(of all main parties), the estimated 50,000-100,000 additional children in Scotland who will be in poverty by 2020, the fact the UK's nuclear arsenal is located less than thirty miles from the centre of our largest city, the fact we can't address our demographics issues because Westminster controls immigration and are completely in the grip of UKIP-driven hysteria; can't prevent the entire central belt in which the majority of the country's population lives being fracked to hell and back because Westminster controls energy policy; can't prevent our young people being sent off to die in unnecessary wars perpetrated to fuel the arms trade, cut back our military spending to fund necessary social programmes, or formulate our armed forces in a way that actually makes sense for Scotland(like getting back the maritime patrol aircraft the UK government scrapped, or stationing more than a couple of bloody rowboats in Scottish ports for coastal patrol and oil field protection rather than having to wait 20 hours for the RN to chug up the coast from Portsmouth) because Westminster controls defence policy; can't invest in our burgeoning renewables industry to drive job and revenue growth because any additional monies that would accrue would do so to the UK Treasury, there to be frittered away propping up their failed policies just as they did with the oil revenues; can't defend the interests of our farmers(who get some of the lowest CAP payments in Europe and, when the EU gives the UK a top-up specifically for Scottish farmers, find that money dispersed on a population basis meaning 90%+ of it goes to farmers in the rest of the UK) or our fishermen(which were considered "expendable" in pursuit of the UK's meaningless Euro opt-out) because we have no direct voice in Europe and Westminster often refuses to allow Scottish Government reps to even sit in on negotiations nevermind actually speak out; or any of the dozens of other major and minor issues that arise out of living in a UK controlled by a corrupt, cronyist political and media establishment focused almost entirely on their own needs, the needs of London & the SE of England, and their international "clout" in that order.
There're a lot of folk up here, a lot, who would vote No in an instant if there was any real prospect of addressing those issues and concerns, or even just of reforming the UK establishment in a short enough timescale to see them addressed at some point in our own lifetimes, but that's a fantasy. The Tories are the Tories, Labour have been fully captured by the establishment(with a very few exceptions like Tom Watson) and thanks to the Blair years and their pathological terror of actually having a principle rather than a focus-grouped soundbite are committed to neoliberalism and austerity for years to come(indeed the shadow Work & Pensions secretary has vowed to be tougher on the disabled and unemployed and cut social security harder than the Tories), and the Lib Dems have proven themselves to be the most spineless and dishonest kind of careerist scum. Who else is on offer, UKIP? UKIP who want to eradicate human rights law, demolish what remains of the welfare state, eliminate protection for workers from employment law not just in terms of pay/pensions etc but also laws that ensure safe working conditions, even further deregulate the financial services sector, and that's setting aside their incoherent, often disturbing views on immigration and Europe. On which subject, no matter who we vote for in the next UK general election, we'll be getting an in-out referendum on EU membership which, current polling suggests, would see Scotland vote to stay in the EU but be taken out along with the rest of the UK regardless because England would narrowly vote to leave and, simply by virtue of the massive disparity in population, their votes would trump ours.
That, if there is one, is the rarely seen "positive case for the Union"; vote No, vote Labour and hope the rest of the UK agrees with you, vote to stay in the EU and hope the rest of the UK agrees with you, and maybe possibly things will be a little bit less gak than they will be if they disagree on either or both.
Independence isn't a magic bullet, it won't solve our problems in and of itself, but it provides us with opportunities we simply won't get within the UK: our parliament uses a system of proportional representation so the views of the electorate are more fairly and accurately represented, we'll have the chance to write a constitution that befits a modern developed nation, to reprioritise government spending in ways that make sense for our economy and resources, to rid ourselves of nuclear weapons, and for those of us who want such things, to fight for much more radical policies with a far higher chance of success.
And lastly, for the OP and anyone else who'll base their vote on whether or not they like or trust Alex Salmond, a few things to consider; rejecting independence because you dislike or distrust Salmond or the SNP would be like refusing to buy your dream home because you didn't like the wallpaper - do what a fair whack of us plan to, vote Yes, then vote for someone else in 2016. If you're concerned over the idea of Salmond or the SNP negotiating our exit from the UK, relax, because they won't be, there's already been a public commitment that the negotiations will be undertaken by an all-party team with access to independent academic and legal advice. Finally on this point, bear in mind,if you base your vote on the politicians and parties of the day(I'm adding so much emphasis to attempt, likely in vain, to reinforce that I'm only arguing that the following statement is true if the preceding statement is; voting No or Yes for any number of other reasons are perfectly valid and don't have the same connotations), then a No vote is an endorsement of Cameron, Osborne, Clegg, and Milliband every bit as much as it's a rejection of Salmond and the SNP.
All that said, ugh, that debate was atrocious. Salmond was acting like he was in an everyday points-scoring session at First Minister's Questions, far too much time spent whinging about "Project Fear"(a valid point to make at one time, but in year two-and-a-bit of the campaign, completely played out) and playing semantic games with what Darling said, not nearly enough actually discussing the issues. The currency issue was a pain in the arse as always, but frankly there's not much he can do with that subject; the Fiscal Commission Working Group already examined all the options, they're all there for anyone to see if they're actually interested in the issue rather than using the it to score points off a political opponent, and no matter what answer he gives he will be attacked for it, so despite the fact I disagree with the SNP's position on currency(we'd be better served with a distinct currency pegged, in the short to medium term, to the value of Sterling in my view) there's not much he can do other than stick to the "this is my preferred option, I believe it will happen because of these reasons, I won't be drawn on a hypothetical that I think is incredibly unlikely" line and hope that A; genuinely undecided folk will look up the info themselves and make their own judgements and B; the polling which suggests that currency is actually fairly low on most people's list of priorities is accurate.
Darling, well he's Darling, he only has one setting; angry ranting, rabid blinking, false incredulity, and the rampant dishonesty that seems inherent in all politicians. He often came across as more focused than Salmond, but that's not difficult when your job is essentially to regurgitate Better Together press releases over and over again(seriously, watch this debate, or any Darling or Lamont appearance for that matter, and take a shot of whisky whenever they repeat "better together", "best of both worlds", "strength and security", or "pool and share risk" - you'll be reekin' drunk within twenty minutes. The press will declare him the victor, but that's been the intent since the debate was announced; have a read through the papers for the last week or two and notice how many columnists and editors who previously dismissed Salmond as some jumped-up regional politico with a Stalin complex are suddenly ebullient with praise for his oratory skill and cunning - a strategy popularised in America, "expectation management"; build up one guy, talk down the other, when both have an average performance as was always likely, declare the latter the winner because they "exceeded expectations" by not collapsing into a heap of incoherent goo.
Overall a complete waste of time; likely nobody was better informed at the end, both Salmond and Darling just went over the same tired talking points they have been for months in other mediums, and a format with two opposing speakers, an audience split evenly between supporters of each, and discussion often curtailed because of time-limits or off-topicness which is already set up much more to provide fuel for the evening news and the papers than it is to inform the public was made even worse by STV cutting out the middleman and just cramming chunks of "analysis" from their "Spin Room" right into the debate itself.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Zond wrote: Still undecided as a lot of the questions posed were a joke. Any serious question led to both sides floundering. If both sides could get new spokespersons with cliffnotes on the political stances they champion for the next debate that would be fantastic.
I think Scotland probably would be better off independent in the long run if everything went perfectly, but it would suck for 10 or so years whilst the set up took place. I don't know if I'm selfless enough to take the hit.
Vote yes, move to England for 10 years, then move back when the dust has settled.
Orlanth wrote: Prima noctra was a custom in parts of dark age Europe, but it wasnt used by the english at any point in our history.
The ius primae noctis (not "prima noctra", that's just gibberish) never existed at all as far as we know. It's another myth from the "Age of Enlightenment" to shock and thrill (then) modern audiences.
If you already correct somebody who made a joke, at least get it right.
Oaka wrote: It's getting to the point where if I see Marneus Calgar and the Swarmlord in the same unit as a Riptide, I probably won't question its legality.
It always surprises me on this site that when a country talks of breaking away from Britain, other American members aren't more supportive. I'll mention no names
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote: I don't expect to sway anyone, one way or the other, but Salmond comes across to me, from the times I've seen him as a man looking for a footnote in history and damn the consequences.
I'd rather Scotland doesn't go, as ignoring ancient history for a second, all our modern history has been shared and men have bled and died together for the crown. Feth those mongrels in Westminster, it should be about the jack and the Country.
This coming from a Welsh lad.
Hear, hear. Thrown into sharp focus too, with the recent WWI commemorations. Tommies and Jocks have been dying together in foreign fields for a little over two centuries. Dying, yes, for Crown and country, but most importantly, for each other. That goes for our compatriots in Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall too. We are bonded by blood, and I firmly believe our countries ARE better together.
Not for the first time, I'm disagreeing with you but from a logical perspective, that comment doesn't make sense. Tons of New Zealanders, Aussies, Americans, etc etc died fighting with Britain during the wars, as you know, but none of those countries have ever wanted to rejoin Britain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Gonzo wrote: Well, as a serving police officer with the Police Service of Scotland I am not allowed to express any opinion on the Scottish independence debate, on or off duty, via any form of communication. That includes over the internet, via the press, or apparently by even speaking to friends and family.
Whilst I appreciate that we have to keep policing seperate from politics, it's interesting to note that this instruction came a few weeks ago after several stories in the media about police officers and staff making various allegations about how the new single Police Service of Scotland was performing. In particular various criticisms were leveled against the new service regarding new procedures, their legality, and the impact on public safety and performance.
For those not in the know the Scottish National Party were the driving party behind the amalgamation of the regional police forces into one national service (somewhat ironically with an Englishman as the Chief Constable) with a view to 'increased efficiency', which has also coincidentally resulted in cuts to the numbers of police staff.
I'm sure there is no connection between this ban on police officers expressing their opinions and the allegations made against the new service. And I hope everyone notices I've not expressed any such opinions myself
Generally, in England and Wales, Police officers are encouraged to be non-political. It's why you're not allowed to strike!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
I would disagree. Not calling you an English nationalist, but the rise of UKIP and their unpopularity in the other home nations, would suggest that English nationalism is on the rise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Well it's up and should be available for International audiences.
Watched bits of it. I would call it a draw. Salmond tried to project a positive case, and Darling hung on for dear life. My view anyway. Still can't believe that the labour are acting as human shields for the Conservatives.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/08/06 10:12:28
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Whatever happens the Scots win. If you vote Yes, you go your own way, with no more interference from London. If you vote No, ok it means you are fully independence, but Westminster will be bending over backwards to give you whatever powers you want to keep you sweet. It will be close enough to independent for all but the hard core voters to be happy with.
The only concern I would have is if the Yes vote % is low, say 20 % -30%. It may mean Westminster thinks they don't have to give away as many powers as they thought they would. It would be a left off for them.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
Kilkrazy wrote: Not watching, I can't vote so it is of only academic interest.
My view on the whole issue is that it isn't realistically possible to be sure if Scotland would be better off or worse off as a separate country, so I don't see the point in upsetting the applecart.
Of course being English I do not have the nationalist feelings of a lot of Scots.
I would disagree. Not calling you an English nationalist, but the rise of UKIP and their unpopularity in the other home nations, would suggest that English nationalism is on the rise.
...
Oh granted, it is a most disturbing thing.
I was just saying that not being Scottish I do not have the feelings of resentment towards the English that apparently are fairly widespread and contribute to the pro-independence movement.
