We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
A Yes vote means better jobs for young people in Scotland
Comments
-
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Zag, leave him be.
He's been educated enough times in our posts that we have no hatred or racism against the English despite his ascertations.
He obviously has an agenda to try and get any Independence thread pulled by inciting a hatred and racism which is not prevalent, certainly not in our posts.
I'd recommend to just respond to points which are adding value to the discussions
you have one objective that allows you to justify any absurdity in the cause of 'independence'.
-using a the pound - a victory for Scottish independence
-having interest rates set in London - a victory for Scottish independence
-having immigration policy set in Brussels - a victory for Scottish independence
-using the Euro - another victory for Scotland
-no policy on bank of last resort - a victory for Scotland
where you would normally express sensible views on a wide range of issues, all intelligence is suspended on the issue of Scottish 'Independence'
I don't doubt you have a burning passion to break the union with England but it shouldn't cloud your reasoning on why you want to do it.0 -
you have one objective that allows you to justify any absurdity in the cause of 'independence'.
I understand you are focusing on issues where total independence is not achieved to make your point.
For some of these, there is no different to the current situation i.e. immigration and the IMF.
Of course currency will be a huge part of the negotiations, I accept that.
Your missing the point about the benefits of being able to have local control on all in country decisionsI don't doubt you have a burning passion to break the union with England but it shouldn't cloud your reasoning on why you want to do it.
I doubt you will ever accept or acknowledge despite being repeatedly advised by numerous posters, but this is not about England, nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland. I do not discriminate from any country unlike yourself.
This is about Self Determination.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
You do understand the concept of civic nationalism, yes?
It's more than just civic nationalism, Scotland is a country in it's own right.
Essentially, for everyone that believes that the union is better together, would they accept the total non use of "England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"?
If a "No" vote prevails, should we all stop referring to the individual countries and simply refer to us all as the United Kingdom.
Maybe Westminster could introduce policy to fine the use of individual states? :rotfl::wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I doubt you will ever accept or acknowledge despite being repeatedly advised by numerous posters, but this is not about England, nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland. I do not discriminate from any country unlike yourself.
This is about Self Determination.
Indeed, feel Clapton must be getting his information from mainstream media which has been, on the whole, woefully out of touch with the grassroots yes campaign. Suggests he googles 'Independence Live Events' and watches some real life discussions rather than arrogantly assuming he knows the real reasons for people's votes.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I understand you are focusing on issues where total independence is not achieved to make your point.
For some of these, there is no different to the current situation i.e. immigration and the IMF.
Of course currency will be a huge part of the negotiations, I accept that.
Your missing the point about the benefits of being able to have local control on all in country decisions
I doubt you will ever accept or acknowledge despite being repeatedly advised by numerous posters, but this is not about England, nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland. I do not discriminate from any country unlike yourself.
This is about Self Determination.
yes you say it's about self determination :
you already have the same level of self determination as most peoples in the world.
why is that a good thing to self determine with a smaller population?
what makes it a good thing for Scotland and say a bad thing for New York?
or a good/bad thing for a separate Lowlands and Highlands ?0 -
yes you say it's about self determination :
you already have the same level of self determination as most peoples in the world.
why is that a good thing to self determine with a smaller population?
what makes it a good thing for Scotland and say a bad thing for New York?
or a good/bad thing for a separate Lowlands and Highlands ?
You seem to have not read, miss read or chose to ignore answers on these points before.
I've stated this is not about population size.
I've also stated that the highlands and Lowlands are not and have never been a Country in their own rights.
I believe New York would also fall into this category.
Care to bring up anything NEW and refreshing to discuss:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »You seem to have not read, miss read or chose to ignore answers on these points before.
I've stated this is not about population size.
I've also stated that the highlands and Lowlands are not and have never been a Country in their own rights.
I believe New York would also fall into this category.
Care to bring up anything NEW and refreshing to discuss
what's special about somewhere that has or hasn't been a 'country'?
do the people in those two types of place have different human rights?
Scotland wasn't always one single country.
How do you define a 'country' : it's simply a name attached to a piece of land.
why wasn't pictland a country?0 -
Please find below answers to your querieswhat's special about somewhere that has or hasn't been a 'country'? I think you need to take some modern studies courses
do the people in those two types of place have different human rights? LOL, Even in the Union, there is a difference between Scottish Law and English / Welsh Law
Scotland wasn't always one single country.
How do you define a 'country' : it's simply a name attached to a piece of land. Again, go take some modern studies courses
why wasn't pictland a country?Who cares?, they weren't. Try citing examples of where they were a country and no longer are recognised as being a country. We can then explore the commonalities (or not):wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards