Latest Polls and Latest Odds

[H_B]

Not quite, while both nationality and the colour of your eyes are by and large, accidents of birth, you as an individual and collectively can have an influence on how a nation develops, what it achieves.

Or as how a town develops, or street, or county, or continent.

[Blaven]

I get that Scotland is a 'country', but I don't see what difference it makes. It doesn't mean that the people living there need to be grouped as a whole all the time, with nationalists desperate to separate themselves as 'a people' away from everyone else. In these islands we can group ourselves any which way, from nationality, class, language, sexuality, race, political beliefs or whatever. I've just never been one to consider nationality all that important. I dislike how nationalists seeks to create divide and emphasise difference.

Would France like to be governed by Germany?

Would England like to be governed by France?

We want our COUNTRY to govern itself.

I want my governments priority to be my country.

The UK governments priority isn't Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or even England, it's London.

*uck that pal.

[renton]

Or as how a town develops, or street, or county, or continent.

Yup, overlapping identities, some of which come across stronger than others, mostly I would think as a matter of distance, both geographical and temporal.

[Blaven]

I've never been proud to be British.

Or a human being?

[BerwickMad]

Would France like to be governed by Germany?

Would England like to be governed by France?

We want our COUNTRY to govern itself.

I want my governments priority to be my country.

The UK governments priority isn't Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or even England, it's London.

*uck that pal.

France being governed by Germany is nothing like this situation. A person in Scotland has as much say as a person anywhere else in the UK.

If France and Germany were one nation state, but the government happened to be based in Berlin for example, that would be something similar I suppose, assuming individuals across both countries had an equal say, like we do here.

[git-intae-thum]

I get that Scotland is a 'country', but I don't see what difference it makes. It doesn't mean that the people living there need to be grouped as a whole all the time, with nationalists desperate to separate themselves as 'a people' away from everyone else. In these islands we can group ourselves any which way, from nationality, class, language, sexuality, race, political beliefs or whatever. I've just never been one to consider nationality all that important. I dislike how nationalists seeks to create divide and emphasise difference.

Wonderful sentiment, but unrealistic.

Unfortunately the world is and will be for some time divided into nation states. Ours for the moment being the UK. Now unless you would be happy for these islands to be ruled by someone from anywhere in the world, (say Germany or Argentina for example,) you are in small part, a nationalist. ????

Perhaps a "British" nationalist.

I also hate certain types of nationalism.

I have no problem with nationalism that is inclusive of all in a nation despite their background, is based on the principle of self determination and is not expansive or seeking to dominate others. Very much the Scottish example.

I hate nationalism that is overbearing, expansive and seeks to deny other persons the right to determine their own destiny.

It is not the fact that peoples and nations are different that causes problems. There is always going to be differences.

The issue comes when nations cannot accept that other people are different. They seek to dominate . That is the true evil side of nationalism.

[strichener]

France being governed by Germany is nothing like this situation. A person in Scotland has as much say as a person anywhere else in the UK.

If France and Germany were one nation state, but the government happened to be based in Berlin for example, that would be something similar I suppose, assuming individuals across both countries had an equal say, like we do here.

How simplistic. Let me ask one question;

Who in Scotland agreed (or was even asked) if we would pay towards the London Olympics whilst receiving no UK money for the Commonwealth Games?

The central principles of the Barnett formula are being warped by successive governments in regards to what is classed as UK expenditure and there is absolutely nothing that Scotland can do about it with the current representational system.

[BerwickMad]

Wonderful sentiment, but unrealistic.

Unfortunately the world is and will be for some time divided into nation states. Ours for the moment being the UK. Now unless you would be happy for these islands to be ruled by someone from anywhere in the world, (say Germany or Argentina for example,) you are in small part, a nationalist.

Perhaps a "British" nationalist.

I also hate certain types of nationalism.

I have no problem with nationalism that is inclusive of all in a nation despite their background, is based on the principle of self determination and is not expansive or seeking to dominate others. Very much the Scottish example.

I hate nationalism that is overbearing, expansive and seeks to deny other persons the right to determine their own destiny.

It is not the fact that peoples and nations are different that causes problems. There is always going to be differences.

The issue comes when nations cannot accept that other people are different. They seek to dominate . That is the true evil side of nationalism.

I don't think you're grasping this. It isn't anything similar to being ruled by somewhere else. We all have an equal say. IF, I thought that my best interests would be served by a European nation state, then I would be happy to vote for that. If i thought by best interests were to be part of a Berwick nation state of 15'000 people, then I would vote for that. It isn't about nationality for me. I don't consider it as important as a nationalist. I don't agree with grouping millions of people as one and trying to divide them from the rest along national lines

[Confidemus]

There is no definition of country.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/country

noun (plural countries)1A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory:

HTH

Correct. It's like being proud of having blue eyes.

Have you ever posted anything that's not completely and utterly idiotic? You make H_B seem rational.

[BerwickMad]

How simplistic. Let me ask one question;

Who in Scotland agreed (or was even asked) if we would pay towards the London Olympics whilst receiving no UK money for the Commonwealth Games?

The central principles of the Barnett formula are being warped by successive governments in regards to what is classed as UK expenditure and there is absolutely nothing that Scotland can do about it with the current representational system.

Why is a farmer from Duns going to care if London or Glasgow received public money anymore than a farmer in Hexham?

[Virtual Insanity]

I feel the price we would pay for slightly more representative democracy isn't worth it. I'd vote Yes if I was confident there wouldn't be negative consequences, or if I believed the negative consequences were negated by the positive ones. However I feel we would be risking a lot for not much of a return. Having a more representative democracy for the part of the country I live in I think would be a good thing, but it's fairly low down in the list if things that matter to me.

Confidemus: I believe Scotland is a country, I'm not sure why I think that matters though.

Are you confident that the negative consequences of a Yes vote are likely to be worse than the negative consequences of a No vote?

[BerwickMad]

Builder from Glasgow.

Electrician from Leeds.

Farmer from Brechin.

Fisherman from Whitby.

Banker from Edinburgh.

Solicitor from London.

Mechanic from Cardiff.

Unemployed person in Bangor.

Chief executive in Inverness.

These are the kinds of people who make up the country. If I was desperate to divide these people up into groups, then I wouldn't be starting with nationality.

[strichener]

Why is a farmer from Duns going to care if London or Glasgow received public money anymore than a farmer in Hexham?

And with that you have just shown your complete ignorance of public finance in Scotland.

And funny you should mention farmers. Perhaps the Duns farmer is more interested in how the Hexham farmer receives more per hectare from the CAP payments than he does. But well done for the own goal.

Edited August 20, 2014 by strichener

[Blaven]

France being governed by Germany is nothing like this situation. A person in Scotland has as much say as a person anywhere else in the UK.

If France and Germany were one nation state, but the government happened to be based in Berlin for example, that would be something similar I suppose, assuming individuals across both countries had an equal say, like we do here.

Got past the first line then formulated what you wanted to say and just went with it, did we?

[BerwickMad]

And with that you have just shown your complete ignorance of public finance in Scotland.

And funny you should mention farmers. Perhaps the Duns farmer is more interested in how the Hexham farmer receives more per hectare from the CAP payments than he does. But well done for the own goal.

It's not an own goal atall. The point still stands. Why would that concern someone from Duns any more than someone from Hexham?

[BerwickMad]

Got past the first line then formulated what you wanted to say and just went with it, did we?

Why even bring up a totally unrelated scenario of one European country being ruled by another. That isn't the situation here. The rest has already been covered.

[Thumper]

Check the fucking British Nationalists trying to claim they're actually proudly state-blind

[strichener]

It's not an own goal atall. The point still stands. Why would that concern someone from Duns any more than someone from Hexham?

The amount of public money available to the respective Scottish bodies was reduced by the UK governments decision and had a direct consequence on money available in Scotland. It had no effect on the money available in England (regardless of where it was spent).

[Blaven]

Why even bring up a totally unrelated scenario of one European country being ruled by another. That isn't the situation here. The rest has already been covered.

Try saying this " Self governance ". Go on. Let the words slip off your tongue.

[the jambo-rocker]

I feel the price we would pay for slightly more representative democracy isn't worth it. I'd vote Yes if I was confident there wouldn't be negative consequences, or if I believed the negative consequences were negated by the positive ones. However I feel we would be risking a lot for not much of a return. Having a more representative democracy for the part of the country I live in I think would be a good thing, but it's fairly low down in the list if things that matter to me.

I guess the difference between our opinions is that I believe more representative democracy should always be worth it, but I don't think that is what this is about. We are actually represented from a democratic standpoint in terms of proportion to population but, the democratic issue here is that we do not that we collectively agree on the same issues anymore and it is an issue that has been arguably simmering over the surface for some time. Not only that, I believe there should be more accountability in general. Too often do MPs and MSPs get away with misleading and lying(yes I include both sides) and I simply do not see this changing at all under the system that we have.

So what are your higher priorities?