Posted on 09/16/2014 4:53:47 AM PDT by Fenhalls555
One of the most successful aspects of the Yes campaign has been its ability to hide the economic, social and historical consequences of a vote for independence.
The choice for the people of Scotland has been framed by Scottish National Party (SNP) leader Alex Salmond as an opportunity to take revenge on an out of touch Westminster elite, a narrative which for several reasons has struck of chord with a significant portion of Scottish voters.
The centrepiece of the Yes campaign’s message is a three and a half minute video from Kirsty, who we are told will be born just in time to live in two different futures, one within the United Kingdom and one without.
The key question repeated throughout the video is: “Will I grow up in a Scotland where...?” followed by a string of doomsday scenarios where people have to pay for tuition fees, and weapons of mass destruction are tolerated.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecommentator.com ...
ISIS?
“Scottish independence could be a boon for England economically, once everything settles.”
And yet England is fighting this economic blessing tooth and nail. I don’t believe it.
Vote yes.
Simply providing a little background about the political orientation of The Commentator.
No argument with that. I hope they vote yes. I’ll be glad to see the back of Scotland.
Excellent points.
England is not fighting. The English political class is fighting. Scotland is a freeloading socialist millstone around English necks.
Why aren’t the English allowed to vote to EXPEL Scotland from Great Britain?
LOL
“Scotland is a freeloading socialist millstone around English necks.”
You are correct, without the pejorative. Under the current scenario, Scotland has a net benefit from the UK. Theoretically then, England will benefit... but there any “separation surplus” will be sucked into the black hole of domestic welfare.
Regardless, the best thing for Scotland is to stand on their own two feet - fully responsible for their destiny and choices.
UK is four separate countries united as a result of a concept of aristocratic entitlement. The concept of monarchy as a ruling system is long past.
I will also be happy without the influence of Scottish culture.
a child must crawl before it can walk.
Time for Scotland to learn economics 101. It will never be viable as long as it is dependent.
What a bizarre notion. Do you actually believe this?
they are socialist because they have not run out of other people’s money.
Many English people are asking the very same question.
ROFL.
Ah, looking over your other posts I see what you are saying. Sorry to have questioned your intentions.
I have little tolerance for all this intolerance of the Jews :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
The Difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain and England Explained
UK means United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The video is short and explains the history.
Four “co-equal” countries united as UK.
As I am English and was studying constitutional law in all likelihood before you were even a twinkle in your father’s eye, I think I’ll pass. And if the alternative to a constitutional monarch are individuals like Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton and Obama, I think we’d be far better off sticking with what we have.
The man lost a brilliant career because of his defence of Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.