next »

[Bevc]

Oh, that might be a lower age than you think

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/108449-scottish-life-expectancy-worst-in-uk-as-nhs-under-pressure-to-be-efficient/

There are people from all walks of life that really shouldn't be given the vote for one reason or another

Though I must say that I thought it was a change in UK constitution for 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote in Scotland but I could be wrong

[Bevc]

But not old enough to buy alcohol I don't don't think you should be allowed to sign up to fight for your country that young and 16 does seem young to be married (I was 20 and my gran was married at 18 and widowed by 19).

I would also expect some other things of 16 year olds, like common sense, but you don't always get that either (though that's not age restrictive).

Actually, it's very interesting what you can and can't do, that's age related

http://www.youngscot.org/info/200-what-can-you-do-at-what-age

[lgriev10]

I hope we can all continue to discuss this without rancour.

Your friend's comment is an interesting one, and one I wouldn't disagree with.  My reservation though is that Scotland would need a firm hand at the helm, at least for 20/30 years, if it became independent because, inevitably, there would be teething problems.  Alex Salmond is a politician many people, myself included, have great admiration for, but when he retires/dies, who is going to take over?  Certainly nobody I can think of at the present time, and Salmond would be a hard act to follow anyway.  Scotland could, in effect, end up in a state of chaos.  On the other hand you could ask, when will things improve at Westminster?  Certainly not in the foreseeable future.  Tories apart, the present Labour party doesn't inspire confidence and neither do the LibDems (I'll be surprised if the Coalition government survives until 2016).

Also what would happen to the other political parties at Holyrood since the terms Tory, Labour and LibDem would cease to have any relevance?  New parties would have to be created since opposition is an essential part of government, otherwise you end up with a dictatorship.

Salmond is a stand out leader, so contemplating the future without him is difficult, especially as his love of curries, isn't doing anything for his long term health outcomes!  He has got a strong group at the head of the party, but like you say nobody with his certain 'je ne sais quio, mais non?'  Hopefully he will prove inspirational to people coming through now and in the future into Scottish politics. 

The rest of the Scottish parties are a joke, due to weak personnel allied to disastrous  British parties.  The Rennie Clegg combination, anyone?  (There has got to be a Ren and Stimpy joke in there somewhere.) 

Lamont and Milliband?  She has only just gone and attacked the SNP on its social inclusion and equality programme.     Labours' vision in Scotland?  Having outlined her plans to means test 'everything' to quote - 'no deals will be off the table' ie prescriptions, free travel for over 60's, tuition fees, BECAUSE the people of Scotland are living in a 'something for nothing culture!' I certainly now have a vision of Scottish Labour.  It is one where Johann Lamont stands at the head of some all powerful, inadequate and unenlightened Labour committee, weighing and arbitrating over the lives of a long queue of Scottish people (who don't come from Lanarkshire.) in front of some, elaborate, costly and convoluted scales of justice, they've set up outside Glasgow city chambers. I am not mentioning Milliband, because I had forgotten about him.  It is that bad.

Finally Davidson and Cameron.  The South East based conservatives are, quite rightly, seen as the enemy by most of Scotland and huge chunks of England. The priviledged few, looking after the concerns of their own people, that's how it seems increasingly when you look what they are doing to the NHS and education down South.  Sadly or not, they don't seem to have the time to do anything but patronise Scotland by interfering in its' concerns.  Telling us they care, while putting us down, painfully near rebuking us, for having the temerity to imagine we could survive without being in a political union with them, that's a hard act to pull off, which, frankly, I don't think they do.  Funnily enough Davidson came from nowhere politically.  She wasn't even a member of the party 2 years before got in and snatched the leadership of the party,  (some say unfairly, there was alot of acrimony at the time) from a guy who was fighting on the ticket that to succeed again in Scotland, they needed their own independent Scottish Conservative party, which funnily enough, I think is true,  Go figure.

So really it is not just Cameron that is playing into Salmond and the SNP's hands. 

[Bevc]

I'm guessing that the terminally ill shouldn't be allowed to vote either then?  Together with those suffering cancer, chd and strokes.  Their life expectancy may not let them see the results either?

[Bevc]

Correct and that was my point. A line had to be drawn somewhere to start.  but I also think that giving 16/17 year olds might not be the best idea either though I read somewhere that they have been polling 14/15 year olds and that a low percentage were for independence.

[Aileen]

So now it's official -

Scottish independence: Cameron and Salmond strike referendum deal  [BBC News, 15 Oct]

A deal setting out terms for a Scottish independence referendum (known as the Edinburgh Agreement) has been signed by Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond.

The agreement, struck in Edinburgh, has paved the way for a vote in autumn 2014, with a single Yes/No question on Scotland leaving the UK.

It will also allow 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the ballot.

------------

Speaking after the deal was signed at the headquarters of the Scottish government, St Andrew's House, the prime minister told BBC News: "This is the right decision for Scotland, but it's also right for the United Kingdom that there is going to be one, simple, straightforward question about whether Scotland wants to stay in the United Kingdom or separate itself from the United Kingdom, and that referendum has to be held before the end of 2014.

"I always wanted to show respect to the people of Scotland - they voted for a party that wanted to have a referendum, I've made that referendum possible and made sure that it is decisive, it is legal and it is fair."

Mr Cameron added: "Now we've dealt with the process, we should get on with the real arguments, and I passionately believe Scotland will be better off in the United Kingdom but also, crucially, the United Kingdom will be better off with Scotland.

Addressing the media following the signing, Mr Salmond said the Edinburgh Agreement paved the way for the most important political decision Scotland had made in several hundred years.

He added: "It is in that sense a historic day for Scotland and I think a major step forward in Scotland's home rule journey.

"The Edinburgh Agreement means that we will have a referendum in two years' time which will be built and made in the Scottish Parliament on behalf of the Scottish people. I think that is a substantial and important step forward." .....

"Do I believe that independence will win this campaign? Yes I do. And I believe we will win it by setting out a positive vision for a better future for our country, both economically and, crucially, also socially.

"It is that vision of a prosperous and compassionate society, a confident society moving forward in Scotland, which will carry the day.

"You win elections as you win referendums - by winning the arguments. That two-year process will be one in which we will put forward that positive vision which will carry the Scottish people with us."

Full story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638



As there will be no Devo-Max option, it seems to me Cameron has played right into Salmond's hands.  By doing a clever U-turn and agreeing to a straightforward Yes or No vote, Salmond is clearly banking on Devo-Max advocaters like me having to decide (assuming we actually vote) which way we're going to jump - either for total change or for the status quo - and that that jump will favour the Yes decision.  We have two years in which to be convinced that independence is indeed the right way forward.  That may seem a long time but two years really is a relatively short period in which to get all the answers required in order for the electorate to make a fully-informed decision as to either way.

[tennis_girl]

Good luck putting your country through more financial ruin!

[Elly]

Good luck putting your country through more financial ruin!

So that'll be a statement from someone who doesn't even live here -  The theory is almost always different from the practical.