A Yes vote means better jobs for young people in Scotland

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Whether you sing that verse or not, it's in the Lyrics.

In Scotland, we tend to only sing two out of the three verses



It is.
there have been debates / permissions etc to offer alternatives such as Scotland the Brave, highland Cathedral, Scot's Wh Hae etc, but the Flower of Scotland has always prevailed.

Interestingly, you raise a good point.
Isn't God save the Queen the British Anthem.
Should "England" be allowed to use the British National Anthem?
Why not use the Rose of England?

At the moment there is a National Anthem for Britain AIUI. Then there are the Nations that form Britain which have songs that represent them.

I think the English soccer team use God Save The Queen.

Another thought strikes me. In the verse that is never sung, it's only the rebellious Scots that need crushing. It's not so much anti Scots as anti rebellious Scots. Maybe.

It's notable that in Aus it's only the immigrants that know the second verse of Advance Australia Fair.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

tell me,


what do you truly think will swing the vote to 'yes'

the purely economic arguments or the non economic argument?

I'm not sure that anything will. I think neither outcome's certain, but a slim Yes has a better chance than a slim no. And I don't think it'll be due to argument, it'll be in response to this risible car crash of a no campaign.

Generali wrote: »

At the moment there is a National Anthem for Britain AIUI. Then there are the Nations that form Britain which have songs that represent them.

I think the English soccer team use God Save The Queen.

Another thought strikes me. In the verse that is never sung, it's only the rebellious Scots that need crushing. It's not so much anti Scots as anti rebellious Scots. Maybe.

It's notable that in Aus it's only the immigrants that know the second verse of Advance Australia Fair.

If I were asked to sing the national anthem, my musical talents are so extemely limited, I'd expect people from every country would stand up.:(

N1AK

zagubov wrote: »

And I don't think it'll be due to argument, it'll be in response to this risible car crash of a no campaign.

I'm normally pretty sceptical, but I honestly can't tell whether the conservatives want to lose Scotland but can't admit it and thus are doing the worst job possible. I almost prefer that to the option that they're doing such a poor job of supporting the union by accident

sharnad

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As I understand it, whilst repeatedly defending Scotland, Scotland did move south and take over some English castles and territories in order to defend itself on foreign soil.

Guess it's a bit like the UK going into Iraq / Libya etc

It was one castle Carlisle. They isn't get any scottish castles

Generali

A yes vote is moving out in the betting now. 5.3 for a Yes vs 1.23 for a No.

The No lead in the opinion polls is pretty solid too, averaging about 10%.

It's interesting that Scots have been consistently voting pro independence in elections but seem set to reject it in the referendum. It's hard to see what Yes can do to change the situation. The message is clear and is being rejected.

I wonder if more of an appeal to hearts might have been a better approach. "Vote Yes for better management" isn't very stirring. "Vote Yes to cast off the chains of history" might get some passion going.

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

A yes vote is moving out in the betting now. 5.3 for a Yes vs 1.23 for a No.

The No lead in the opinion polls is pretty solid too, averaging about 10%.

It's interesting that Scots have been consistently voting pro independence in elections but seem set to reject it in the referendum. It's hard to see what Yes can do to change the situation. The message is clear and is being rejected.

I wonder if more of an appeal to hearts might have been a better approach. "Vote Yes for better management" isn't very stirring. "Vote Yes to cast off the chains of history" might get some passion going.

There's a disconnect between what's on offer and what people wanted. They want something closer to what the Isle of Man has or those countries in sovereignty association with New Zealand (e.g the Cook Islands) or what Flanders has within Belgium (I'd be keen on something like that). But Cameron knew best and decided it was too complicated to offer that to the Scots. Tells us all we need to know what he thinks of them.

My memory of living in Scotland was that there was a lot of cronyism if not corruption. Private Eye would have been out of their depth trying to keep up with it.

The Nats have a lot less of this (or I can guarantee we'd jolly well hear about it ) but they also have a certain amount of competence which no politicians needed to have before. They'll get back in no problem if there's a no vote.

I still think the referendum will be a close call, but that the the media have been shockingly poor at predicting results before, and the NO team are very much the B team.

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

There's a disconnect between what's on offer and what people wanted. They want something closer to what the Isle of Man has or those countries in sovereignty association with New Zealand (e.g the Cook Islands) or what Flanders has within Belgium (I'd be keen on something like that). But Cameron knew best and decided it was too complicated to offer that to the Scots. Tells us all we need to know what he thinks of them.

My memory of living in Scotland was that there was a lot of cronyism if not corruption. Private Eye would have been out of their depth trying to keep up with it.

The Nats have a lot less of this (or I can guarantee we'd jolly well hear about it ) but they also have a certain amount of competence which no politicians needed to have before. They'll get back in no problem if there's a no vote.

I still think the referendum will be a close call, but that the the media have been shockingly poor at predicting results before, and the NO team are very much the B team.

Isn't the referendum offering what the SNP want, i.e. independence for Scotland?

zagubov

Generali wrote: »

Isn't the referendum offering what the SNP want, i.e. independence for Scotland?

That's not currently what the people seem to want. The SNP would have let that option be one of the choices, but Cameron didn't.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

That's not currently what the people seem to want. The SNP would have let that option be one of the choices, but Cameron didn't.

surely it would be unreasonable to allow Scotland to choose to be (say) an IoM style tax haven with also allowing the whole of the UK to vote too?

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

That's not currently what the people seem to want. The SNP would have let that option be one of the choices, but Cameron didn't.

The SNP said "We will give Scots the opportunity to decide our nation's future in an independence referendum." There is going to be a referendum on the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?" There are no other options.