I don't know who is the maddest out of all of them. Blair for originating the idea of a referendum. Cameron for offfering it. Salmond for exploiting it.
it's the future mate, what i find more maddening is sitting on a forum(like what i am doing right now) moaning about the shite state the country is in to the point where people arnt even bothering to vote anymore then criticizing the ones that are trying to implement change :Wtf:. this will be to the hole benefit of the uk..
Read this earlier after hearing about it on R4. Now this is near 40yrs old. Sadly it is as true today as the day it was written. It talks about the scots, now if he had used an adaptation of this he would have got my vote. Jimmy Reid. Scottish Left Review - Jimmy Reid Rectorial Address
None of my business, but I reckon Scotland are more than capable of looking after their own. Well, apparently, Northern Ireland is going down the pan if its a Yes vote
This is just the pre-op, you wait for the post mortem! We can only hope for decent anaesthesia.......
Excellent, yet to this day, no one listened. They don't give a shit and the people are to blame, they can't think for themselves
All three. But at least Blair and Eck as unashamed partisans had a predictable agenda. Blair wanted to protect his Scottish Labour stronghold to help him foil the Tories at Westminster, (Labour has used its Scottish voters with the utmost cynicism, I'm not surprised so many defected to the SNP) and Salmond craved his independent fiefdom. The idea of the referendum and the demand for it were always going to come knocking. No crystal ball required. But when the demand came Cameron failed utterly as a statesman. His response to Salmond was effectively to say "Yeah right! Referendum! Ha! You'll never win that. Carry on Salmond old son, do what you like I'm busy." He treated the subject with contempt. What he should have done was to say to Salmond, of course hold a referendum if that's what Scotland wants but lets get a few things straight first so we all know where we stand. And before any of this became public there should have been private meetings in the cabinet office between Cameron and Salmond with the leader of the Scottish opposition, the leader of the Westminster opposition, the chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England, the head of the armed forces, selected constitutional experts from both sides of the border and various other officials who would be at the forefront of implementing a YES result. So much of the unseemly and divisive wrangling, the making it up as we go along, could have been avoided. For example, it should have been made abundantly clear to Mr Salmond at this early pre-public stage that full currency union without political union was absolutely out of the question. They could have discussed what options really would be open to an independent Scotland and allowed campaigning based on the facts, with no one trying to make political capital out of uncertainty. It is not the for the Prime Minister nor any other politician to prevent a referendum nor to try and influence the result, but to manage the outcome. that it his job. He is an administrator not a dictator; and it is not for Mr Salmond to "win" the vote but to place the facts before the people he represents and then implement their wishes. If there is a defender of the Union at all it is the Monarch and she has maintained an admirable and dignified silence.
so you want all these unelected people to help make a decision on the future of the uk. why not same O same O. i guess you dont get the same editions down your way. the queen tells me i have to think very carefully about the implications.
The Prime Minister is certainly not an administrator, and nor is Mr Salmond. They are politicians, and their function is to try and win votes (in the country and in their parliaments) so they can implement their policies. It is the civil servants who are administrators, and who have the function of administering those policies. There is nothing wrong with politicians campaigning for the votes of the people.
This whole campaign may be based around disputed pipe dream stats which may have little basis on the reality,disputed pipe dream faith in the expected outcome which may have little basis on reality and a blind faith that if the Scots do indeed vote for yes they will get what they expect from their leaders and pursuade others to comply which is frankly less likely.If you honestly believe that then vote accordingly,if you feel that this somewhat sunny view may not be as rose tinted,concider.If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd,it may indeed be a turd.If you feel that all of this has rekindled some other feelings then you are voting for all the wrong reasons.If you say that its not,I cant imaging that the rest of the union will believe this now,sorry, but thats the way it feels like it or not. What ever the results are,I will accept and have the grace to acknowledge and congratulate but will push for England and Wales's best interest going forward.
No of course I don't think unelected people should make the decision. But I would have expected them to do their jobs and establish some facts beforehand so that people knew what they were voting for. As it is no-one knows. Its guesswork, passion, prejudice, and as stu-pendus says, pipedreams. That's a political and an administrative failure. Anyway, best of luck, whatever. I'm still hoping for a yes but I hope Scots can unite themselves whatever the result. And I hope you don't start driving on the right because that would spoil all the border biking roads..
