You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The risk losing your business and life savings can make people a little irrational. Not an excuse, but may'be an explanation.
Possibly and it is an interesting question [ I confess i had never even thought about it] as to what business can and cannot do in an election [ neutrality IMHO is the best option] IMHO it is ultra vires of the fiduciary relationship to allow them to "influence" employees. They have no say here it is a matter of conscience and way outside the employer employee relationship.
I suppose it may be ok if there were strict rules to say how you think you might be affected and let folk decide.
On mobile costs I wonder if the phone companies will charge international roaming when crossing the border ?
Given that the EU is about to abolish them within it's borders, I'd doubt it.
Why does it have to be through wages? There are other ways to increase productivity
Indeed there are - amazing that under devolved power little has been done about it? Still the DO will magic these improvements overnight, his little venture into this topic lasted about 48 hours which is not bad for him.
Longer term, he will be implementing plenty of Tory policies - starting with inducing companies into Scotland with policies such a tax brakes. Do you think he has a picture of Mrs T on his mirror?
All the productivity gap really shows is that Scottish businesses aren't well served being part of the Union.
Oh dear....!
I do like the USDAW letter. "Please do not leave it to others to decide what's best for you, PS, vote NO"
a wee bit salmold esque in tone
😆
IMHO it is ultra vires of the fiduciary relationship to allow them to "influence" employees
I thought people on both sides were complaining about the other side's lack of clarity. Is it really a bad thing for companies to provide information on the likely effects of the vote going a particular way? (FWIW I agree with your "salmond esque" comment - could have been done so much better, but then that's corporations - and Westminster style politicians - for you).
Not much comment on the union letter? Is that because unions routinely "advise" their members on voting?
"Please do not leave it to others to decide what's best for you, PS, vote NO"
There's no actual contradiction in that statement, NW - especially given that your precis of the second part isn't quite accurate.
Given that the EU is about to abolish them within it's borders, I'd doubt it.
I don't think EU law applies outside the EU (you can read that whichever way you like 😉 )
Not much comment on the union letter? Is that because unions routinely "advise" their members on voting?
All the time.
They should be helping folk plan for their pensions and the fact that no state is going to be able to adequately provide for people in their old age - oh, except McUtopia
YS supporters misquoting clear evidence (the union stuff) again.....
I don't think EU law applies outside the EU (you can read that whichever way you like )
Ah well, if the English want to be charged extra for making calls every time they come mountain biking up here they know what to do 😉
The tweeting of that company letter does remind me of a thought that occured to me. As much as the Yes campaign has been driven by social media - and has dominated the social media - I suspect there is a large proportion of social media users keeping quiet on this (a few have mentioned that on this thread). A large proportion who aren't hardcore Yes supporters. It's all very well retweeting stuff like that around all your mates who are voting yes anyway, but I have to wonder amongst all the happy back slapping from the Yes social media users whether in the same way that people are made more inclined to vote Yes by the corporations telling them to vote No there aren't some people who see this and decide to vote No. I mean there might just be some people who read that tweet and think "actually McAlpine are right".
Ah well, if the English want to be charged extra for making calls every time they come mountain biking up here they know what to do
I wonder what the impact will be for mountain biking, will iS keep funding the forestry commission in the same way? As I should imagine money is going to be tight for quite a while, so if they can save cash or sell assets they will
The irony of Salmond attacking the BBC for the Treausry "leak" is that they were scooped by ITV, they were merely following the story without crediting the true source - which is a pretty common complaint about the BBC by other media outlets.
@mefty is that right ? That's quite funny really give AS's anti-establishment rhetoric, twas the ITV all along.
Not much comment on the union letter? Is that because unions routinely "advise" their members on voting?
Apologies on that I thought I did comment.
I would leave a union that advised me which way to vote on this issue as I consider it to be a cross party matter of conscience.
In general they do advise, sort of. For example they can say who they are supporting and why in say a Labour election.
To some degree joining a union is optional [ and political] so I guess you expect it. Personally i just dont read that stuff.
Is it really a bad thing for companies to provide information on the likely effects of the vote going a particular way?
Probably but it is worthy of debate. I think they need to set the tone very careful or else it is just political rhetoric mixed with DOOM and an implicit or explicit threat. Fundamentally it is also none of their business how i vote so I am not fully comfortable with it. if it does happen it needs rules - I can always drag the state and red tape into it - there you go both of unhappy with it perfect solution:wink:
They[unions] should be helping folk plan for their pensions and the fact that no state is going to be able to adequately provide for people in their old age - oh, except McUtop
You really think this is the role of a union? You really think this would get them elected? I think most union types would argue they need to campaign [ locally , nationally and politically] to get the state pension guaranteed for all rather than promote a thatcherite agenda of looking after yourself whilst suggesting the state pension will end.
That last claim is also unlikely to be true - its has been triple locked in a recession even when many pensioners are pretty well off compared to say the unemployed or the disabled.
The Forestry Commission has a "mixed" record when it comes to mountain biking just google Carron Valley Development Group to see the negative side of things.
The DOs allegation re a so-called RBS leak (actually bluffing to shut Robinson up) have been refuted clearly. It was his usual trick. Note how quickly he started to stutter and stumble as he had walked into an area that he clearly didn't really understand. The bluster suddenly went as did the credibility.
At least blair carried off BS with an air of authority for all his sins. Same smug grins though.
For a public company, they are really obliged to comment on the implications for them of a decision so there should be no complaint about them doing so. For a private company, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the company to outline the implications of a decision so that employees are aware of the impact on their jobs as long as there is no threat of sanction if anyone doesn't toe the party line.Probably but it is worthy of debate. I think they need to set the tone very careful or else it is just political rhetoric mixed with DOOM and an implicit or explicit threat. Fundamentally it is also none of their business how i vote so I am not fully comfortable with it.
We made no comment to staff formally and there's been no real request to know what the company position is.
Anyone from the Yes side care to distance themselves from Mr Sillars?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29181989 ]No, not intimidating in the slightest...[/url]
@Big we are all posting our personal views here, [b]credibility is not a factor[/b].
Not for you, obviously
However, as for me, well, I'm off. 2 weeks of watching shinty, riding on steam trains, ferry trips to the islands and wildlife watching. The Highlands, Orkney and Islay. Possibly even a flight in a microlight and definitely a scuba dive in Scapa Flow. Och jings, I'll need tae get kilt on for all this Scottishness.
Do have fun
Yes I linked to they itv tweet on page 310 of this thread when it broke, no mention on BBC websites at the time.
Still not happy as WTF has it got to do with them how their employees vote?
There is no obligation to do this at all hence why your company did not
as i said they can perhaps state some facts about what it may mean for the business but they have to be done as facts and not as a political point.
You also have to remember some people know nothing about politics. They cannot tell you anything about any of the political parties or what they stand for and being told what to do by an authority figure who tells them what to do all the time may be rather persuasive. when this message is a CAPS LOCK VOTE YES AND LOOSE YOUR JOB it is even more concerning.I do not see how it can occur without regulation tbh.
In general I think anyone can comment on election but when corporations start telling employees what to vote it just does not sit well with me. It is none of their business and it is not a T & C that they give me political and /or voting advice. Furthermore it is done as to what is best for them not what is best for me so it is barely even advice.
an interesting issue though as to what they can and cannot say
The letter above is poor though and they could have said the same thing in a much better way.
I'm afraid there is if you're a listed company. I can't be bothered looking it up for you, but the obligations to consider and inform shareholders on risks to the business are quite strong.There is no obligation to do this
we are discussing employees not shareholders* and they were doing more than inform about what it might mean.
* you are correct they have to say but I dont know the exact legal duty either- THM may know this
Sorry: currency
Is there anything to stop iS declaring sterling as currency and borrowing reserves in the open market to hold in reserve? I don't think that requires Ruk permission does it?
Next: BoE can't really deny sterling liquidity to any Scottish bank prepared to put up the collateral without putting at risk sterlings external value? Dunno? Maybe?
So Scotland couldn't print or devalue, but those things come with cost, so that in of itself would lend a certain rigour to any regulation that iS imposes. (See Russia, Venezuela Nigeria)
Brain dump, sorry. It's all a distraction from who gets the oil though 😉
@BigBut - have fun, it sounds like you need the time to unwind 😉
@JY an employer seems within their rights to explain the impact of the vote on their businesses and I would imagine the employees would be interested to know that. I suppose you could argue the note should stop before suggesting which way to vote.
@oldbloke - blimey he's totally barking mad !! Nationalise BP and the banks to face a day of reckoning 😯 Well you cannot nationalise companies if you are in the EU and Mr Sillars will find there are no banks in Scotland and then he'll be ****ed.
[i]This referendum is about power, and when we get a 'Yes' majority we will use that power for a day of reckoning with BP and the banks.
"The heads of these companies are rich men, in cahoots with a rich English Tory Prime Minister, to keep Scotland's poor poorer through lies and distortions. The power they have now to subvert our democracy will come to an end with a 'Yes'.
"BP, in an independent Scotland, will need to learn the meaning of nationalisation, in part or in whole, as it has in other countries who have not been as soft as we have been forced to be.
"As for the bankers: your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over."
Mr Sillars added: "What kind of people do these companies think we are? They will find out."[/i]
Also as a small ish country devaluation is a limited response ( no real alternatives to imports anyway, and oil priced in dollars )
See, all about the oil....
Well you cannot nationalise companies if you are in the EU
Possibly Mr Sillars knows something that AS is in denial about? 🙂
So basically, it's degenerated into a bollocks-fest.
Great win for democracy.. ok...
[i]So basically, it's degenerated into a bollocks-fest.[/i]
Did you really think it wouldn't? 😀
I did see an earlier comment about the English NOT behaving in a petty way to the post Yes vote......well personally i believe the English have a massive capacity to be petty and will cut off Scotland at the knees. (seriously)
As for Scots heading south to get a job, forget it!
Knees? barely even started!
September 19th:
😈
we are discussing employees not shareholders* and they were doing more than inform about what it might mean.
If you go back to the old notion about no taxation without representation then given the levels of tax paid by businesses who can't vote, there's an engagement deficit if they are to remain silent.
Corporate Social Responsibility and increasing employee engagement has been developing for ages with the expectation that employees should be informed of major issues affecting the company for which they work.
Looking at it from those two points of view it is reasonable for a company to communicate its point of view.
"As for the bankers: your casino days, rescued by socialisation of your liabilities while you waltz off with the profits, will be over."
..... and yet it was Salmond who offered Fred Goodwin "any assistance my office can provide" during the disastrous take over of ABN - and we all know where that lead
The SNP can't wash the smell off it's hands from the banking crisis, they encouraged the reckless activities just as much as others did.
oldbloke - MemberIf you go back to the old notion about no taxation without representation then given the levels of tax paid by businesses who can't vote, there's an engagement deficit if they are to remain silent.
Corporations are people too
Out of the 30 odd people at work. We have three Yes voters. 2 of them are Yes because they just think that Scotland should be a Nation again, local democracy etc. But don't think anything will change particularly if Yes happens. One is English, but wants to set up a People's Republic of Socialist Scotland and therefore sees Independence as a way to gerrymander a left wing government.
It was interesting listening to them discussing the point today to realize there are going to be some very surprised/disappointed people on the Yes side if Yes goes through.
Go Jimbo Go!
There is still this Jurassic undercurrent of nonsense bubbling away under the surface!
I was still at school the last time I read something like that.
I did see an earlier comment about the English NOT behaving in a petty way to the post Yes vote......well personally i believe the English have a massive capacity to be petty and will cut off Scotland at the knees. (seriously)
It is not about being petty it is about getting the best deal possible for the people of the rUK. In my opinion that means no currency union and if iScotland don't take any debt then withholding a similar amount of assets. It would also mean all warships being built in the UK. From day one of independence anyone from Scotland should no longer be allowed to use a UK passport or be considered a UK citizen regardless of how long they have lived in the rUK.
Oldbloke Sillars comments about a day of reckoning seem intemperate and not something I subscribe to. Perhaps you would like to consider Ian Davidsons comments about bayoneting the wounded, or the No campaigns decision to call their strategy for the last week of the campaign "Shock and Awe" or do you think those phrases are "not intimidating in the slightest"
Indeed, separate legal persons. Who pay tax and don't have representation. So they issue press releases and employee memos. How terrible.Corporations are people too
gordimhor - Ian Davidson is a nutter and has been since before any independence debate, but I don't find the comment intimidating with context added. Sillars, on the other hand, is a former leader of the SNP who is describing a set of actions an SNP government might take and are so clearly stated they don't have the get out of being a metaphorical clumsiness.
[i]Ian Davidson MP, who is Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, told RIA Novosti he was not advocating the literally bayonetting of pro-independence supporters following a No-vote, but added his comments were “in the context of the conflict being over and there would be the cleaning up to be done.”[/i]
This has the potential to get outstandingly petty and vitriolic whichever way the vote goes.
Can we have a referendum on independence from bigotry, bile and spite?
I can certainly see some people boycotting Scottish goods/services if Scotland attempts to renege on her portion of the debt. Many (like myself) will already be giving serious thought to reducing their financial exposure to Scottish banks and planning to remove their funds etc. Whilst that is in the most part pragmatic, as we simply do not know how iScotland's monetary and financial systems will work there will also be an element of not wanting the Scots to have our money.
The Yes supporters seem to dismiss the rising resentment south of the border as 'petty', well it is there, it is real and whilst it is currently low key I think many in Scotland will be surprised at the angry backlash should the negotiations become bitter - which I suspect they will.
If nothing else, this referendum has deepened divisions between Scotland and the other regions of the UK & that is to be deplored.
Not to mention the divisions it has created in Scotland. A win of only a few per cent either way does not bode well for Scotland. Much more preferable would have been a decisive yes or no vote as there may be years of turmoil ahead regardless of who wins.
Muddydwarf - I agree entirely, the consequences of the moral failure to take on their fair share of debt could be pretty high, both with reputation, financial markets, and the outcome of a backlash from their biggest trading partner rUK (I am assuming that is the case on trading partner). And to dismiss it as petty posturing for rUK to want to get the best deal will just make it worse, ok there will not be a rebuild of hadrians wall but the moral equivalent of it.
Why the SNP think that rUK will just roll over and give up everything they want if the vote goes there way is beyond me. It just feels like utter delusion to me.
an employer seems within their rights to explain the impact of the vote on their businesses and I would imagine the employees would be interested to know that
If you go back to the old notion about no taxation without representation then given the levels of tax paid by businesses who can't vote, there's an engagement deficit if they are to remain silent.
It worries me how much influence and deference some of you have towards organisations whose sole legal duty is to make money for its shareholders.
How many people work for a company that GAS about them?
All of us would be sacked th emoment they cannot make money form our labour. the could not GAS about us and now you want them to advise us
Indeed, separate legal persons. Who pay tax and don't have representation. So they issue press releases and employee memos. How terrible.
LOL I can only imagine the average companies response if employees started writing letters to them telling them about their social responsibility and what they ought to do re paying tax, wages and anything the company did that affected them
I dont get how anyone can be so pro business tbh.
Suggesting they do not have representation is laughable as well - you do know what demos means dont you?
It is not about being petty it is about getting the best deal possible for the people of the rUK
If iS do the same then they wont take debt so you wont share assets so they wont so yo wont etc
At some point both sides have to realsie they will nee to compromise and cooperate or they hurt themselves in a never ending tit for tat /eye for an eye.
to dismiss it as petty posturing for rUK to want to get the best deal will just make it worse, ok there will not be a rebuild of hadrians wall but the moral equivalent of it.
Why the SNP think that rUK will just roll over and give up everything they want if the vote goes there way is beyond me. It just feels like utter delusion to me.
but it is not a delusion for you to think you can just amke demands to them they will agree and roll over and say thanks for that yes rUK whatever you say.
How can you not see the scottish folk you are disagreeing with have exactly the same attitude as you but just from another country, You both need to move [ or hopefully not be involved in the negotiations]. Neither side can get what is best for them on everything and neither will just let the other side "win"
I can certainly see some people boycotting Scottish goods/services if Scotland attempts to renege on her portion of the debt.
The people with this attitude [ on both sides] are the problem
Tit for tat for tit for tat is never ending at some point you have to compromise and so do they.
You have also been amongst the most [ what ever the correct and polite word is here ] anti ?? scottish on this thread.
it wont help if both sides are this anti the other
Both get hurt by behaving like children pulling at the same toy till it breaks and neither have it to play with and then they blame each other
Junky you are right, trouble is I cannot see it working out any other way.
I have a horrible image of the negotiations looking like salmond and call me dave holding onto each end of a toy truck and shouting "mine".
Both sides are setting the scene for it to turn out like that, and sadly I can see people on both sides taking exactly the petty view as mentioned above with regards to buying patterns
Equally, I don't get how anyone can so readily dismiss the concerns of so many organisations which provide employment and generate wealth which can be taxed.I dont get how anyone can be so pro business tbh
It is like that old public vs private sector debate - neither is better, both are essential. You've made your view clear on employers several times over many threads but being one isn't the easiest thing in the world.
If staff told the company about its social responsibility, we'd be delighted. Fortunately, they do. And we support many of the initiatives they propose because if they don't believe in what the company is trying to do they're not going to do it as well. It may surprise to you learn that many companies know that great ideas come from every level within a business if you just give people the confidence to speak up.
On that we are agreed.It is like that old public vs private sector debate - neither is better, both are essential
Jim Sillars doesnt have a lot say over the SNP these days he lost any real influence when Salmond became leader in the 90s.
Junkyard - I am anti SNP/Salmond. The rhetoric coming from Salmond smacks to me of almost naked Anglophobia, when I hear him sneer 'team Westminster' I hear the words 'English bastards' and I doubt I'm the only one. My English friend who lives in Scotland tells me she views SNP supporters and the Party as "anti English in the main" her words.
Yes, the movement is far more than the SNP but they are a main driver.
I fully Support Scotland's desire & right to self determination, what I oppose strongly is this idea that we are going to let you have a Currency Union, that my investments and pension will help to backstop a competitor State and refund any Scottish failures - that is a very strange version of independence.
For the rest, I simply don't care if you go, alhough many others are angry at a small % of the population tearing their country apart.
It WILL affect the rest of us so why are you all surprised we are getting resentful?
when I hear him sneer 'team Westminster' I hear the words 'English bastards'
But that's just you. Not him.
generate wealth That phrase makes me chuckle - news speak IMHO to make it sound noble as they want to benefit others
I dont dismiss them I just think they have no say in an election.
It is like that old public vs private sector debate - neither is better, both are essential.
generally true that we need both as they bith do different things well
FWIW my concern has always been about the distribution of wealth rather than how it is "created".IME "wealth creators" dont do it to make the world a better place.
Dont doubt it as I have mates who employ folk who ask me for advice. Some employees are poor trust me as nion rep I deal with them often.You've made your view clear on employers several times over many threads but being one isn't the easiest thing in the world.
As an employee it serves no one if we hate each other as we still have to work there. Getting along is best and one where employees are happy always works best. you cannot buy loyalty nor influence.
There are good employers and bad ones IMHO good ones know voting intentions of workers/influencing them is not their business.
You know as well as I do than many companies dont actually care about their workforce beyond it being dearer to cope with illness, re training , recruiting and staff turnover. Strangely the larger the organisation and the more the profit [ multi nationals etc] the less they seem to care.
There are excellent employers out there and they dont write letters like that
Graham it could go either way but there will be some big egos to back down and they have both sides have backed themselves into a corner with their rhetoric and lines in sand
Wont be pretty
muddy all your post read to me like you dont like scotland
i doubt I am alone in that perception though i accept i may have some bias; its not as bad as your though 😉
Guess it also shows how any yes vote is going to be hard to deal with as no doubt a reasonable % of english feel as you do
FWIW no one [english]outside STW has ever mentioned it to me.
I still dont live there and i am still in england
Companies are not people. That is why companies don't actually pay tax. Tax comes out of the pockets of employees (wages), customers (prices) or shareholders (dividends). Brackets relate to the opportunity costs of tax
The most unfortunate things about the vote is that there will be no clear mandate but significant animosity. There will be no smooth negotiations. pandora's box has been well and truly opened. So unnecessary.
The 2015 election could well be defined by who stands up to the Scots the most. CMD has little to lose. EM on the other hand has a lot. Very easy to paint this as a failure of labour to mobilise its resources properly and CMD (if he survives) will play that card tor all it's worth.
Its hard for me to dislike Scotland, I haven't met every Scot yet.
You may not have heard it - perhaps (hopefully) people are polite, but I hear it often. The anger, the resentment and the desire that "they just bugger off and have done with it". Ive personally had some small dealings with SNP/SnG unpleasantness at the Bannockburn event and I know personally that some (many?) of that ilk are unpleasantly anti English. Having it spat in your face for two days tends to leave an impression.
I'm English. Lived in Scotland for 25 years. Almost never heard anti-Englishness. Some banter, yes. Genuine hatred nope.
The SNP has no connection with Siol nan Gaidheal, membership of SnG is proscribed within the SNP
For those who subscribe, the Martin Wolfe article in FT is well written (and I don't normally agree with him)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67017a0a-390d-11e4-9526-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3CCEZv67a
Funny to watch the DO lambasting retailers now - a few months after the Tesco tax debacle. How very dare they suggest that costs may go up! What do they know? They only run the bloody businesses, pal.
Piss businesses off alex and what do you expect. The CBI claims that 90% of its members are against you - just where are all these wonderful tax flows going to come from??
Isn't the cost of living more expensive in Ireland, because it's a small country and needs to import a lot? Wouldn't Scotland be similar?
If the SNP are now saying they will nationalise BP, would they also nationalise the banks in Scotland? Could I find that even though RBS might have moved itself to London, that enough of its Scottish assets get nationalised to cause complete chaos?
i.e. should I close my NatWest account and move it to a bank that lives somewhere safer?
oldnpastit - MemberIf the SNP are now saying they will nationalise BP,
They are not. Sillars was an SNP MP and deputy leader, 20 odd years ago. Basically, one dude throws a strop, entire national press jump on it as if it's representative of the Yes campaign. For some reason.
@ Molgrips, depends which measure you use but it seems to be broadly similiar. Consumer prices are 2.44% higher on average apparently but costs of housing, utilities, petrol etc are lower. Remember that includes differences in taxation too though, Irish alcohol duties seem to be higher. And average salaries are slightly higher too.
From the horse's mouth, Tesco took issue with a Better Together leaflet claiming to prove an increase in retailer prices
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29087393
Nationalise the banks and BP, well statements like that are dangerous and daft. Can't comment on the banks but claiming to want to nationalise a large multinational (presumably only the north sea component) is drivel but elsewhere has done it. Now these countries who have cannot get people to invest there due to the instability so are once again trying to tempt western multinationals back but nobody is interested except for one or two (NIOC) operators whose track record is very very poor.
Best headline I've seen lately
The SNP has no plans to nationalise BP.
Muddydwarf, you haven't a bloody clue. There is no broad sense of hatred toward England, except a few songs at Scotland games ( and vice versa!) those days are over. I have a love of our neighbours to the south, the same way I feel about the French, it's just that I don't want them deciding our politics.
It's about self governance, not hatred.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/12/scotland-vote-braveheart-nationalism-democracy-independence ]Quite liked the balance in this article. A more reasoned approach.[/url]
Then there's this one 🙂
[img] 
?oh=53403242a98014bcab983a1121d53c63&oe=54A0F1A5&__gda__=1418753812_af36f2afbe6636d7c4958f5e5db4882d[/img]
Muddydwarf, you haven't a bloody clue. There is no broad sense of hatred toward England, except a few songs at Scotland games ( and vice versa!) those days are over. I have a love of our neighbours to the south, the same way I feel about the French, it's just that I don't want them deciding our politics.It's about self governance, not hatred.
self governance? leaving the EU?
The French probably have more influence over laws in Scotland than the Westminister parliament does
Epic. That headline doesn't have the word 'bollocks' in it though
The rhetoric coming from Salmond smacks to me of almost naked Anglophobia, when I hear him sneer 'team Westminster' I hear the words 'English bastards' and I doubt I'm the only one.
you're loopy.
The French probably have more influence over laws in Scotland than the Westminister parliament does
Go on then, enlighten me.
And boris is heading back to Westminster, even more of a reason to get out.
@ epicyclo the last paragraph of that article catches the moment for me
The pleasure of witnessing this democracy in action is tempered by a nagging question: why is it not like this all the time? It is not, as the Scots have proved, because people are apathetic. It is because they don’t have, in day-to-day politics, a sense that they can control things. What really matters now is whether after the referendum, Scots return, like the rest of us, to a state of frustrated powerlessness, or can sustain the democratic energy that has been unleashed. If that’s to happen, neither a mini-Westminster in Edinburgh nor a lightly modified Britain will be much use. If the referendum is to be the start of something big, it must also be, for international democracy, the start of something new.
If anyone wants to listen to a sensible, reasoned debate on the independance issue, shedding quite a few myths and lies, then suggest you listen to this. Very interesting and certainly puts most of the common arguments in perspective.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gch09 ]Aberdeen debate[/url]
Go on then, enlighten me.
once you discount the devolved area's most other legislation has a EU origin
France has a disproportionate number of EU civil servants compared to other nationalities eg English who actually write the EU legislation that the EP passes
France also has 74 MEP's compared to England's 60
At the risk of sounding negative. I am not sure that the referendum debate isn't to politics what the Olymics are to rowing/sailing. It is one off thing which catches people's attention.
Looking like Boris will be next PM....whatever Scotland votes for.
.Douglas Adams .... What an astute bloke he was.
I see The Guardian has come out No. Interesting, as a lot of the tone of its coverage has been sympathetic to Yes & I would have thought the left leaning agenda that Yes has tried to claim for itself would have led to the paper being at least neutral.
Jesus ****ing wept
Boris or Ed
😆 at the google auto fill for Ed Milliband being Milliband bacon sandwich
Ignore that. Move along.