Independence - how would you vote?

[Mr. Bojangles]

irishman generally opposed to the idea of scottish independence quell surprise

All of the 'good points' were just the usual uninformed rubbish. I would say "I guess you'd be happy to re-join the UK" but he probably would. As for how well it's worked out for Ireland, they're back out in front of the UK again. Would they have had such a swift recovery if they'd been ruled by Westminster?

I'm guessing the unionists (other than Dee Gas and the pundit who didn't get the memo) have decided to disengage since they still can't come up with a convincing argument for the union. It's an interesting strategy since it's harder to debate something when you don't have an opponent.

We need a Dee Gas on our side to spout rubbish until a unionist responds. Actually, if there was an equivalent to Dee Gas he would be quickly banned for being xenophobic.

[DeeGas]

All of the 'good points' were just the usual uninformed rubbish. I would say "I guess you'd be happy to re-join the UK" but he probably would. As for how well it's worked out for Ireland, they're back out in front of the UK again. Would they have had such a swift recovery if they'd been ruled by Westminster?

I'm guessing the unionists (other than Dee Gas and the pundit who didn't get the memo) have decided to disengage since they still can't come up with a convincing argument for the union. It's an interesting strategy since it's harder to debate something when you don't have an opponent.

We need a Dee Gas on our side to spout rubbish until a unionist responds. Actually, if there was an equivalent to Dee Gas he would be quickly banned for being xenophobic.

It's a shame your Scottish nationalistic feelings have got the better of you Mr Bojangles.

I offered reasons for Scotland remaining in the Union.

Family,300 years of making British babies.

This border Rab C is after is very ugly,it will lead to divide.

Awful right wing stuff from the separatist movement.

Phoney socialists,posh Greens and nationalists united in their hatred of the English.

Sad.

Luckily the majority of Scottish people are not like this,they are Britions,they like us and we like them.

Better Together.

[Mr. Bojangles]

Just in case anyone is wondering, the positive case is apparently baby making.

[Hawk89]

Better Together.

Aye the Swedes told Norway that....

[DeeGas]

Just in case anyone is wondering, the positive case is apparently baby making.

We share these small islands,we should stick together.

Creating divide in this aggressive Rab C style is awful and yes,"baby making" new Britons is a massive positive,of course it is.

Nationalism has never been the answer.

Right wing groups all over the place has always been a bad thing.

The peoples of our island/s owe it to each other to stick together.

[vikingTON]

NB: Morons who fail to identify their British affiliation as 'nationalism' will not be permitted to talk at the adults' table in the second thousand pages of this thread.

[DeeGas]

NB: Morons who fail to identify their British affiliation as 'nationalism' will not be permitted to talk at the adults' table in the second thousand pages of this thread.

Creating yet another border,creating divide between the people of Scotland and the UK is not adult or clever.

It is a stupid mistake.

The four home peoples,with the various 'tribes' and other peoples who have joined us over the years should live together.

The very notion of creating divide is clearly wrong and I am sure the majority of Scots see Salmonds plans as backward.

[xbl]

1. The premise that worthwhile skills are the sole domain of colleges is categorically false: 'vocational skills', much as it is in school, is a lazy cop-out sector which the government doesn't need to fund. Top-quality research and teaching institutions quite obviously should be funded by the public purse, which is why Russell can point to truly exceptional levels of global attainment while Labour throw their arms in the air and demand 150 million appenticeships to prepare people for mass manufacturing roles that died on their arse in the 1950s.

2. Quite embarrassingly for all involved, colleges still find themselves below even the likes of Caley, UWS and other bovine universities in the academic food chain.

And last and by far the most important point:

3. The idea that the SNP's education policy can be credibly attacked by a Liberal Democrat, whose party has adopted about 15 mutually contradictory positions over higher education policy since Scottish devolution is laughable, and made your contribution an automatic swing and a miss from the outset.

Unlucky.

I have to say, I can see the merits in colleges. One of the good things about Scottish education is the lifelong learning programme, so people who don't get good grades at school for whatever reason (choosing not to learn, not mature enough, went and got a job etc.) have a route to take their qualifications at any time and get back on the education ladder. Thats not to be sneered at! I have plenty of respect for people who have gone back and taken qualifications at college. In addition, for people doing an apprenticeship, there are plenty of useful skills taught at college, so easy on the sneering eh?

I also disagree with the sneering that BOTH of you are doing towards some universities. University snobbery makes nobody look good.

However, Ad Lib doesn't care especially about college, and I agree with you about that. We both know the truth. Its an ideological attack. Some people benefit more than others, therefore, nobody should benefit. I.e. Nobody should benefit, ever. If the Lib Dems want to campaign on a policy of siphoning money away from universities towards colleges, they are welcome to it. But of course, if they were in power, they wouldn't care about that. Its purely something to try and hammer the SNP with.

[Ad Lib]

1. The premise that worthwhile skills are the sole domain of colleges is categorically false: 'vocational skills', much as it is in school, is a lazy cop-out sector which the government doesn't need to fund. Top-quality research and teaching institutions quite obviously should be funded by the public purse, which is why Russell can point to truly exceptional levels of global attainment while Labour throw their arms in the air and demand 150 million appenticeships to prepare people for mass manufacturing roles that died on their arse in the 1950s.

2. Quite embarrassingly for all involved, colleges still find themselves below even the likes of Caley, UWS and other bovine universities in the academic food chain.

And last and by far the most important point:

3. The idea that the SNP's education policy can be credibly attacked by a Liberal Democrat, whose party has adopted about 15 mutually contradictory positions over higher education policy since Scottish devolution is laughable, and made your contribution an automatic swing and a miss from the outset.

Unlucky.

1. I didn't say that worthwhile skills are the sole domain of colleges, so telling me this is false is irrelevant. Vocational skill are not a "cop-out". FECs are extremely important for those for whom school was inadequate to provide the essential core skills for participation in the workplace, and provide a range of flexible training opportunities not just in the old-fashioned manual labour sense you want to caricature them as providing. They provide a link-up to modern apprentice schemes, a route into Universities for those failed by the secondary education sector, and tackle the skills shortage where unemployment and deprivation is at its most accentuated. This cannot be said to the same extent of the University sector, considerable though its merits. Moreover, the notion that a University education is inherently more valuable has led to the denigration, both culturally and in terms of public support, of alternative forms of further education, and has seen perfectly good such establishments chuck away that distinctive approach in favour of becoming a third rate University in a city that already has adequate higher education provision.

Those who rely on a college education to get on in life are in considerably greater need of long-term state support than those who are going to University. And given the way student funding is actually structured as you full well know, asking University graduates to pay more into the system when they're earning would ensure more state funding could be redirected to colleges, whose graduates can expect to earn considerably lower salaries and for whom the withdrawal of state support will mean the difference between bothering and not bothering to acquire new skills.

2. My views on the funding of education are, with the possible exception of my views on human rights and immigration, the most consistent position I've held on any policy matter. Leave your ad hominem of the irrelevancy of the positions of a political party I only joined *after* the Tuition Fees pledge was broken at the door and engage with the actual substance of a policy which has cut funding to FECs, failed to secure as wide access to higher education as in England, and seen resources not put to the use that can best tackle our skills shortages and the negative social consequences of skills-related youth unemployment.

However, Ad Lib doesn't care especially about college, and I agree with you about that. We both know the truth. Its an ideological attack. Some people benefit more than others, therefore, nobody should benefit. I.e. Nobody should benefit, ever. If the Lib Dems want to campaign on a policy of siphoning money away from universities towards colleges, they are welcome to it. But of course, if they were in power, they wouldn't care about that. Its purely something to try and hammer the SNP with.

What a load of absolute bollocks.

1. I absolutely do care about colleges.

2. "Some people benefit more than others therefore nobody should benefit" - literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying "Group A need the benefit of cash X more than Group B, and Group A serve greater social utility, so some of cash X should be redirected from Group B to Group A". At no point do I complain about people "disproportionately" benefiting from anything. You're literally just making that up.

3. I'm not saying this because I'm a Lib Dem. I'm saying it because I believe it. Why can't you engage with the ball instead of the man? Just once.

[10 CC ICT]

1. I didn't say that worthwhile skills are the sole domain of colleges, so telling me this is false is irrelevant. Vocational skill are not a "cop-out". FECs are extremely important for those for whom school was inadequate to provide the essential core skills for participation in the workplace, and provide a range of flexible training opportunities not just in the old-fashioned manual labour sense you want to caricature them as providing. They provide a link-up to modern apprentice schemes, a route into Universities for those failed by the secondary education sector, and tackle the skills shortage where unemployment and deprivation is at its most accentuated. This cannot be said to the same extent of the University sector, considerable though its merits. Moreover, the notion that a University education is inherently more valuable has led to the denigration, both culturally and in terms of public support, of alternative forms of further education, and has seen perfectly good such establishments chuck away that distinctive approach in favour of becoming a third rate University in a city that already has adequate higher education provision.

Those who rely on a college education to get on in life are in considerably greater need of long-term state support than those who are going to University. And given the way student funding is actually structured as you full well know, asking University graduates to pay more into the system when they're earning would ensure more state funding could be redirected to colleges, whose graduates can expect to earn considerably lower salaries and for whom the withdrawal of state support will mean the difference between bothering and not bothering to acquire new skills.

2. My views on the funding of education are, with the possible exception of my views on human rights and immigration, the most consistent position I've held on any policy matter. Leave your ad hominem of the irrelevancy of the positions of a political party I only joined *after* the Tuition Fees pledge was broken at the door and engage with the actual substance of a policy which has cut funding to FECs, failed to secure as wide access to higher education as in England, and seen resources not put to the use that can best tackle our skills shortages and the negative social consequences of skills-related youth unemployment.

What a load of absolute bollocks.

1. I absolutely do care about colleges.

2. "Some people benefit more than others therefore nobody should benefit" - literally the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying "Group A need the benefit of cash X more than Group B, and Group A serve greater social utility, so some of cash X should be redirected from Group B to Group A". At no point do I complain about people "disproportionately" benefiting from anything. You're literally just making that up.

3. I'm not saying this because I'm a Lib Dem. I'm saying it because I believe it. Why can't you engage with the ball instead of the man? Just once.

Does anyone ever read those posts? I'm curious. I stopped months ago.

[Jamaldo]

Does anyone ever read those posts? I'm curious. I stopped months ago.

Nope. Then again he sometimes gets a few bites so obviously some people do.

[ForzaDundee]

Salmond delivers for Scotland once again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24806788

[wingsoverperthshire]

Salmond delivers for Scotland once again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24806788

A rather unlikely boyband.

[Mr Rational]

some do, but quite frankly I have more important things to do these days, like play with my balls.

1000 pages in, zero positive case. Maybe it's the No game plan to hit us with it 6 weeks out, then again, maybe not.

Anyhoo, still on holiday, have I missed anything?

[WFAANW]

A rather unlikely boyband.

There is clearly a growing appetite for European football coverage in China and now football fans across this country will be able to enjoy the action from iconic Scottish footballing venues such as Easter Road, Fir Park and Pittodrie," said Salmond.

The chinese must be creaming themselves at this prospect.

[DeeGas]

Salmond delivers for Scotland once again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24806788

Hope the money can be spread around the game in Scotland.

Oh and the Krankies could of nailed this deal.

[wingsoverperthshire]

The Chinese market is absolutely untapped (less than 1% of our exports) end up there. Expect to see more inward investment from China as Salmond continues championing Scotland's cause.

[WFAANW]

The Chinese market is absolutely untapped (less than 1% of our exports) end up there. Expect to see more inward investment from China as Salmond continues championing Scotland's cause.

This will be the same Salmond that apparently doesn't care about Scotland then.

[sophia]

Does anyone ever read those posts? I'm curious. I stopped months ago.

Not me.

[harry94]

About to hit page 1000