studiot Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 I have avoided commenting in this thread till now but removing Scotland from the UK is akin to a man with body dysmorphic disorder having a sound foot amputated, and just as silly. We would be better getting rid of Cameron than Scotland.
Delbert Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 They bottled out. I was looking forward to all the shenanigans and machinations of currency, businesses possibly relocating, their manufacturing facing ferocious world competition, border controls, banking runs and doubtless many others. But no, they bottled out.
DimaMazin Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 The Scotts already have a vibrant cultural identity and no-one ignores their accomplishments ( James Clerk Maxwell is a personal 'hero' ) Any person has right to ignore any cultural identity. And advanced empire is obligated to provide people with the right.
Unity+ Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 The only bad thing I see coming out of this is too much Scottish nationalism in the scientific community, which could draw some unwanted crackpots in the community to promote Scottish pride like with the French(I think) with their "discovered" ray that turned out to be phony.
Delbert Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) How things can change. Before the election I recall that in the event of a 'Yes' vote there were calls for the UK PM to resign (I hope the term 'UK' fits John Cuthber's definition). But now it seems, following a 'No' vote, commentary in the media appears to hail it as a magnificent demonstration of democracy in action! I'm now going up a ladder for gutter cleaning! Edited September 19, 2014 by Delbert
John Cuthber Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) I have avoided commenting in this thread till now but removing Scotland from the UK is akin to a man with body dysmorphic disorder having a sound foot amputated, and just as silly. We would be better getting rid of Cameron than Scotland. Who is "we" in this context? The Scots nearly voted to get rid of Cameron. They bottled out. I was looking forward to all the shenanigans and machinations of currency, businesses possibly relocating, their manufacturing facing ferocious world competition, border controls, banking runs and doubtless many others. But no, they bottled out. I was not aware there was ever any evidence they "bottled in" in the first place. They made a decision; what has"bottle" to do with it? How things can change. Before the election I recall that in the event of a 'Yes' vote there were calls for the UK PM to resign (I hope the term 'UK' fits John Cuthber's definition). But now it seems, following a 'No' vote, commentary in the media appears to hail it as a magnificent demonstration of democracy in action! I'm now going up a ladder for gutter cleaning! Well, since Cameron was massively in favour of a "no" vote he would have been proven incompetent by a "yes" vote. That would have been grounds for resignation. The vote showed that he had (in this matter) correctly judged the mood of the people (only just). And, at least he can claim that he gave the Scots the chance to choose- which is democracy in action. What did you see as a problem there? (Personally, I think Cameron should resign for a whole lot of other reasons but the outcome of the vote isn't one of them) Edited September 19, 2014 by John Cuthber
dimreepr Posted September 19, 2014 Author Posted September 19, 2014 How things can change. Before the election I recall that in the event of a 'Yes' vote there were calls for the UK PM to resign (I hope the term 'UK' fits John Cuthber's definition). But now it seems, following a 'No' vote, commentary in the media appears to hail it as a magnificent demonstration of democracy in action! I'm now going up a ladder for gutter cleaning! Whatever the result given the fact the vote was allowed and the percentage who voted, how is it not, “a magnificent demonstration of democracy in action”?
Delbert Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) I was not aware there was ever any evidence they "bottled in" in the first place. They made a decision; what has"bottle" to do with it? Oh dear, here we go again. Bottle meaning the courage to step into new territory by going for a 'Yes'. Well, since Cameron was massively in favour of a "no" vote he would have been proven incompetent by a "yes" vote. That would have been grounds for resignation. I think it's more the case the Scottish nationalists have been wanting a vote for a very long time and the situation probably got to the point of it being difficult to deny them. And it was a judgement as to the timing and conditions. And, I suppose, like all judgements, get it wrong and one is a fool. Whereas get it right, and for some one is then a hero with amazing powers of skill and perception. Such is life. What did you see as a problem there? (Personally, I think Cameron should resign for a whole lot of other reasons but the outcome of the vote isn't one of them) I can't say I saw a problem - if I understand what you mean by a problem. A good old political confrontation isn't a problem (if that's what you refer). And for resigning, my views are probably contrary to yours regarding who should resign out of the current lot. Edited September 19, 2014 by Delbert
MigL Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 Hey, John and Del, why don't you guys just buy the same dictionary ? 4
studiot Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) Hey, John and Del, why don't you guys just buy the same dictionary ? +1 Who is "we" in this context? The Scots nearly voted to get rid of Cameron. (Personally, I think Cameron should resign for a whole lot of other reasons but the outcome of the vote isn't one of them) Blimey, there must be something wrong here JC and I are in agreement! Edited September 19, 2014 by studiot
Royston Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 That's not very close to relevant is it? What ? Ophiolite, stated that one of the voters reasons for becoming independent is to make a statement about cultural identity. I pointed out, that joining a union doesn't mean you'll be stripped of that identity...using the EU as an example. Please go ahead and a name a country / state / whatever within the EU that has lost it's cultural identity due to joining the EU. The decision on EU membership is yet to be looked at in detail. So ? How does that invalidate my point ? Whoever, However, perhaps you might like to think about a related question- what countries in the UK (for instance) have been stripped of their cultural identity through joining the UK? None of them...clearly. Last time I checked Wales / Scotland / Ireland still retain the language, customs, cuisine et.c that are distinct from English culture. Or are you suggesting the cultural heritage of these countries has been completely wiped out ? Integration and evolution of culture can happen regardless of a union. Well, Wales and Scotland. http://www.bbc.co.uk...education.shtml OK the English failed- but it wasn't for want of trying. There is no mention of Scotland in that article, just the failed attempt at enforcing Welsh Not. How a union is abused is tangent to the effects of forming a union.
MigL Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 Cuisine Royston ??? Distinct in Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland and England ? Definitely not ! It is all similarily bad,
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now