coldel

...wont rise to that!

...and where would you put the VX220 VXR

On my first driving test way back in the 90s, I was stuck trying to enter a one way system come roundabout and muttered in my frustration 'no one is using indicators how can I get out'...when I did get out I then exited the otherside without using my indicators! Needless to say I failed and the instructor made a point of highlighting that incident, stuck with me, I always indicate! Lesson learned!

...and I thought dissenters will be disemboweled in front of a baying crowd whilst shouting 'WESTMINSTER!!!'

Yoof unemployment problem temporarily solved

Ooh that's deep mate, but not something I would base a constitution on. That's it, I'm going to write one based on Common Weal principles actually and stick it on a website

Whats the odds that five years after independence we will have shouts from the hills of Scotland being run by 'Edinburgh Politics' and that they are in their own little bubble with the cheapest council tax in the areas around parliament... (assuming its run from Edinburgh of course before anyone jumps in - and it is a tongue in cheek joke so details are not that necessary, bit like the Yes vote manifesto actually...)

..."instantly" - I suddenly had visions of the people in the north of England waking up the day after the vote to see a huge wall being slung up on the horizon

For me it's about people voting Yes for all the wrong reasons. It just seems that there are lots of questions put to the people who will be taking Scotland into independence that they simply wont address. You can talk your way around it in a lead up to a vote, but come match time, you cant simply skip around it, do you trust the people in charge to come up with the practical responses? The Common Weal, I appreciate its a vision and it sounds 'nice' but you asked people to read it and I had a quick look but found it to be two things, impractical and contrary to human nature (unfortunately humans are greedy) in addition to it again being written as a very biased propaganda piece. For instance the first principle is listed as: A Common Weal Approach Assume that mutual and shared working towards mutual and shared goals will produce the best society and the best economy The London Orthodoxy Approach Assume that competition and conflict will allow the strongest to rise and that they alone should shape society and the economy Which could easily be written as: A Common Weal Approach Mutual and shared goals limit innovation and aspiration, no one should sees any chance of becoming anything greater than what is dictated to them by the ruling party who deem all you succeed in is given to those who do not The London Orthodoxy Approach Competition inspires people to greater things, to innovate to succeed, to drive their competitors to work harder to counter their success and drive international investment through the providence of a healthy competitive environment I appreciate there are hardly any objective texts on political approaches, but this is pretty far from being a plausible one, well from my laymans view it is, be good to see an economists view on it.

Buy a Nismo rad cap and bingo your car is Nismo and therefore allowed the badge

Did you write a good advert with all the necessaries in the first place

Upon reading more on this, I am almost convinced that Scotland will vote yes, but for all the wrong reasons. G Man, some top posts on this thread and to be honest I suspect most of it over most of our heads (including mine) but I have to say that link you posted it a bit of a shocker. I can see the idealism in it, but the way it is written is pretty poor and very biased and unfortunately what most people are relying on to decide how to vote. As with most things, its easier to criticise something real and support something theoretical than vice versa.

http://news.sky.com/story/1190869/new-london-black-cab-nissan-ditches-diesel

Disenfranchised?

Haha I didnt mean it like that mate Sorry, yes quoted by Graham

That is the point a lot of people on here are making (including the majority of us unknowing English-persons ) that its plain to see that on two levels you have the public voting Yes because they get all excited about beating their chests and shouting 'we are Scotland death to the English' and reading nonsense like that shown in the link Graham shared - and secondly that the people who will lead the first critical steps into a new era appear to be totally inadequate for the job of actually running a country. Had a very brief look at the 'Common Weal' without reading too far (am at work!) it is still a biased document although not as obvious as the trash propaganda that is being turned out - its not an objective document showing the strengths and weaknesses of each approach of governance - dare I say it the common weal sounds almost like a communist approach to government? Flame suit zipped up and at the ready...

I think the long term idea of an independent Scotland, which is up and running and things ticking over nicely is probably very appealing and why shouldn't it be to your average patriotic Scot. All the propaganda you see pretty much just straight to that i.e. 'our gas is worth x amount that means tomorrow we can give all your kids fifty quid a day' - it just seems to miss out the length and pain of transition and the risk involved.

I had a quick read as well, staggered that this is being peddled in a political arena. Even though all political parties bend the truth its a lot more difficult to get to the numbers behind it, this is just stuff that is made up, it is absurd in the extreme. But sad that some peoples research will involve reading this and taking it as read.

Ooooh darling - nooo - you would trust a Government (or any political party) to present figures impartially? Would also be particularly wary of claiming we have seen increased poverty / deprivation as a direct result of Westminster - certainly in terms of Social Policy this is a direct result of SNP refusing to ring fence funding and simply handing it to Local Authorities under general department purse - which is meant to ensure it goes where the locality need is highest - what it means in practice though is that the most prominent (loudest) Heads of Service get the biggest purse and divide it amongst their best buddies Has no one watched 'The thick of it'

What scares me more is that I know just as many 26, 36 and 46+ year olds as 16 year olds who vote based on what they read in tabloids. Unfortunately it is the way of the world that we have a few groups of voters that are too young, too patriotic, too easily influenced by trash media and simply too stubborn to listen to other ideas. But that's democracy for you.

Generally it is good natured banter, sometimes it gets much more than that. I still remember a bunch of English guys I was with on safari in Kenya years back, we found a shack with a TV to watch England vs Greece. There were a couple of Scots in there as well and they cheered loudly when Greece scored and we laughed along wryly, when we equalised a Scottish girl who was in our travelling group said we shouldn't cheer because the guys behind us wanted to hit us for it. Of course the roof went off when Beckham smashed in that equalizer, they never attacked us but we got all the evil stares you can imagine. But it got to that point, that we could not cheer our own country scoring a goal in football? That's not banter, that's bordering on racism driven violence. In other words, utter bell ends. Its not our fault we're tougher than you southerners Having seen photos of you on here Neil, I reckon you are tougher than all us southerners! But these guys certainly weren't, just some scrawny racists and were properly getting the hump and mouthing off and come the moment they bottled it Seriously, if Scotland wants to 'give it a go' because everyone reads some trashy papers and believes all the hype, then go for it. But it's not simply a case of just wandering back in if it doesn't work out. If it doesn't work out it is much tougher times ahead, for a long time, I wonder if the voting public are fully aware of what they really are voting for?

Generally it is good natured banter, sometimes it gets much more than that. I still remember a bunch of English guys I was with on safari in Kenya years back, we found a shack with a TV to watch England vs Greece. There were a couple of Scots in there as well and they cheered loudly when Greece scored and we laughed along wryly, when we equalised a Scottish girl who was in our travelling group said we shouldn't cheer because the guys behind us wanted to hit us for it. Of course the roof went off when Beckham smashed in that equalizer, they never attacked us but we got all the evil stares you can imagine. But it got to that point, that we could not cheer our own country scoring a goal in football? That's not banter, that's bordering on racism driven violence. In other words, utter bell ends.

Had a beer with a guy from Scotland who recently moved down to London, talked about this for a while, he is a qualified lawyer and now in a very good job in a global industry so not an idiot and can think objectively. He finds the vote utterly frustrating as there are just the usual splintered groups who beat chests and show Braveheart on replay on the TV at headquarters. Also the whole anti-English thing, even though there is plenty of more recent history of Germans bombing Glasgow and Argentines killing Scots they still cheer these countries on in football matches vs England because of what the English and Scottish got up to hundreds of years back. Although he still admitted finding himself doing it as well when back up with his old mates!

Yep exactly that, you dont want a shampoo laying down some poor substitute wax element as you wash it.

Given all that preaching, I was sat there with a Bailey's on ice as I typed it