Diluted Dante wrote:

Elmlea wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

Because I want them to.

Why do you want them to? I'm not being awkward, you can have reasons ranging from lengthy political ones based on years of study, to just "I want to go to Scotland without a passport."  But why?

I don't see Scotland and England as separate countries. Technically we are yes, but the only thing we should do alone is football teams.

They aren't. They used to be. They could be again.

That's funny as by virtually all definitions of "country" it's incorrect.

Mod74 wrote:

I'm not sure why you think "We'll tell you later" is a perfectly adequate response to the request for information but I'd be very careful about accusing others of lacking intelligence if you do think that's an adequate response. Try to remember the referendum question does not say "Would you like us to debate this?" Yes/No

It's been explained to you time and time again, Mod, and not just by me. It is not possible to have people vote on what, exactly, will be the result of an independent Scotland.  What will happen, though, is that people will discuss possibilities.  I know perfectly well what the referendum question is, and I'm exasperated once again by your propensity for plastering what you think someone has said over what they have actually said.  How an independent Scotland is structured can only be established post referendum.  Meanwhile, we're being asked if we'd like to be making those decisions for ourselves, or having them monitored for us by people who don't live here.

WorKid wrote:

By what definition of country is Wales a country?

Chambers wrote:

1. A region
2. A state
3. A nation
4. Rural districts as distinct from town
5. The land of one's birth or citizenship
6. The district hunted by a pack of foxhounds
7. The rock surrounding a mineral lode (also counˈtry-rock)
8. Country music

So, 1, 2, 3 and 5.

You can't have a country made up of countries. Is Texas a country?

Wikipedia wrote:

A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography.

That one, too.

Mod74 wrote:

That's a rather emotional response isn't it? 99.99999% of Britain doesn't live in Westminster. The "us" idea is an emotional attachment to a nationalist idea(l). You're a region on an island. Erecting artificial borders and emphasising difference is a particularly nasty and outdated way of thinking.

Way to take an established metaphor and take it literally to score a cheap point.  Given that the general political beliefs of the residents of Scotland and England are so consistently different, and economic policies are generally held to benefit one group or the other, there's nothing artificial about the border.  I am firmly of the opinion that smaller autonomous bodies are a better use of resources and provide a better experience for those they serve or live under their umbrella than larger bodies with centralised processes.  That extends to national politics.  That's not emotion.  Remaining a part of a union because it 'feels right' or because you don't think there's a difference between the people, that's emotion.

I'd point out as well that for decades Scottish (and Welsh) MPs have been able to vote on policies that only affect English residents. Something the more tolerant English have been able to live with without demanding the break up of the union.

English uni tuition fees wouldn't have passed without Scottish MPs voting on it.

adkm1979 wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

That's a rather emotional response isn't it? 99.99999% of Britain doesn't live in Westminster. The "us" idea is an emotional attachment to a nationalist idea(l). You're a region on an island. Erecting artificial borders and emphasising difference is a particularly nasty and outdated way of thinking.

Way to take an established metaphor and take it literally to score a cheap point.  Given that the general political beliefs of the residents of Scotland and England are so consistently different, and economic policies are generally held to benefit one group or the other, there's nothing artificial about the border.  I am firmly of the opinion that smaller autonomous bodies are a better use of resources and provide a better experience for those they serve or live under their umbrella than larger bodies with centralised processes.  That extends to national politics.  That's not emotion.  Remaining a part of a union because it 'feels right' or because you don't think there's a difference between the people, that's emotion.

You think the 5 million in Scotland are more of a special case than anywhere else in the British Isles? Policies from Westminster are just as disconnected from your daily life if you live on a council estate a few miles East of Westminster never mind the outer Hebrides.

63m puts Britain at around number 23 in the list of countries governed by a single body. Doesn't seem particularly outlandish. Especially considering the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. 5m would put Scotland down near the 115th and roughly the same amount as Wisconsin.

It's ridiculous to claim that 5m can't be included in the rest of the UK. What makes the difference?

A quick glance suggests Scotland is 98% white compared to 85% white in England. Is that the difference? You need a Government for white people?

Foundation hospitals was another bill that passed for that reason. The West Lothian question. 

The main influence they have is deciding elections. Michael Howard would have been PM in 2008 (edit:2005) if not for the Scots. Labour would move to the right without Scotland so they affect the balance of the whole thing at the moment. You could make that case for a lot of regions of the UK as well but only one of them is talking about leaving.

And whale hunting.

WorKid wrote:

And whale hunting.

Whales are nice, foxes are dicks.

No, but there's nothing the Federal Government can do if Wisconsin decides at state level to up its sales tax to 30% and use the resultant pot of cash to pay for prescriptions and free college places.

You think the 5 million in Scotland are more of a special case than anywhere else in the British Isles?

Not more of a special case, but since it is a separate country, independence makes more sense.

Policies from Westminster are just as disconnected from your daily life if you live on a council estate a few miles East of Westminster never mind the outer Hebrides.

Nonsense.  There are maybe still policies that seem disconnected but they are generated by parties supported by the majority of people, or the greatest number.  Not so in Scotland.

63m puts Britain at around number 23 in the list of countries governed by a single body. Doesn't seem particularly outlandish. Especially considering the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. 5m would put Scotland down near the 115th and roughly the same amount as Wisconsin. It's ridiculous to claim that 5m can't be included in the rest of the UK.

I couldn't care less if independence made Scotland the smallest country in the world by a factor of ten, if it makes sense to be independent.  Nobody is claiming Scotland can't be included in the rest of the UK, it has been for some time.  A sizeable number of Scots would rather it wasn't, that's all.

What makes the difference? A quick glance suggests Scotland is 98% white compared to 85% white in England. Is that the difference? You need a Government for white people?

That doesn't even warrant a response, you utter fool.