Bollocks. Until thatcher, the scots voted in their droves for a Conservative party so if they've been the victim of decades of misrule, it's as much Scottish voters' fault as the rest of the uk. And centuries? Because, of course, the working class/women/minorities in England have had the vote for centuries and absolutely condemned Scotland to poverty.

I don't believe for a minute that Scotland has suffered any more than vast tracts of Northern England, wales, the midlands, etc. separating out Scotland for special consideration is a nonsense. Fuck it, let's just have a revolution.

I didn't suggest that the misrule of Scotland was the Tories fault, it happens regardless of which party is in power because Westminster cares about London then the South East then other major cities then the north then Scotland then everywhere else. Scotland is a distinct cultural an political entity which votes distinctly differently from England and Wales, as that distinct entity, never gets the government it votes for nor the attention or concern it deserves. Similar arguments can be made for the rest of the UK but I really don't get why the prospect of Scotland choosing for itself to try to make its own lot better bothers you so much.

I think that what bothers me has been the whole tone of it all. Salmond and his lot come over as a bunch of twats who's whole argument seems to be based on "fuck you English bastards, we're off with the pound and all the oil and you can't stop us. And then we'll live in a socialist paradise" (which they won't because salmond et al are still politicians). The no lot are just as fucktarded and have only managed to come up with "well, if you go then DISASTER awaits".

Cameron should've agreed to allow a proper debate on devolving powers that the whole country could have benefitted from.

As an aside, I don't buy the argument re london and the south east. There are big parts of the area where there's a ridiculous amount of depravation and poverty. The investment is the city of London outwards to where the rich live so west London, Surrey, the m4 corridor. Kent is still just outside the bit that people move to on account of it being to the south east. So places like dartford are split, one half of the town is all council estates and unemployment. Bits of rural kent are admittedly lovely but then the same is true anywhere else in the uk. Generally, Britain today makes the rich richer wherever they live.

Really? So all those MPs from outside London and the SE flagrantly give up on representing their constituents as soon as they enter the hallowed portals of Westminster? Rotten scoundrels, the lot of them! :@

No, they're just fighting an uphill battle.

Yes, I can see that, what with being massively outnumbered by the MPs from the SE

I'm going to try and find a list of where MPs are actually from and where they represent.

I'm sure you know MPs are often placed in seats they have never had any relation to.

Because we all know that MPs have loads of power and are allowed to vote based on their own views and interests and not just how the party whips tell them.

At least you have MPs that do just that and do defeat government bills from time to time. The drones in Canada never do - they aren't even allowed to speak their own words. They're given scripts written by political staffers in the PM's office. People in the UK have no idea how much people in Canada (who bother to follow politics) envy Westminster compared to the shit that happens in Ottawa.

 T_T


I BLAME THE QUEEN!

Please could you present the data as a colour-coded map?

I still need to read both of these fully but there's some colour-coded maps here:

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1049
http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1230

The first one seems to suggest that Scottish and NI constituencies are better represented by 'local' MPs than England. I would've thought they'd have a greater interest in representing their constituents.

Chart One: Proportion of MPs born within the region they represent

Think the poll closes tomorrow, so if anyone hasn't voted that wants to now is the time

So are the English stupid for fighting those wars, or is it just the war that is stupid, as in nonsensical? What about France and Spain? Is stupid (nonsensical) only objectionable when paired with women, or can it be used in the same vein either way? Just curious. I recall watching Are You Being Served? years ago and Captain Peacock said to Mrs. Peacock, "I did it for you, you stupid cow!" Mrs. Peacock was not offended, nor was anyone else.

Anyway, cousin thought that the vote would be close but that the independence vote would not pass. We don't get much on that I am afraid, so I was looking here to see what the feeling might be, He gave me some interesting history on Scotland which I would have had no way of knowing. We wouldn't get that kind of history here except in specialised courses of study. I found it remarkable that as young as sixteen will be eligible to vote.

It is an interesting process I plan to follow more over the next day. I am wondering what will happen if Yes Scotland does not prevail; are the natives truly restless? Will it result in any backlash? Hopefully there will be no actions such as the irrational behaviour that followed the shooting in Ferguson, MO., but of course theirs is a political process.

Is there enough support for an independent Scotland? The ramifications are certainly many.

Quote:  You'd have been handy over here in say, 1765.

You're crossing the streams now.

I never objected to you calling those women stupid, I objected to you singling them out.

Those wars are stupid in the context of the game (and historically, really) because they're futile, neither side can win nor really gain anything of any particular worth. They're stupid because while England is busy banging its head against the continent for a coupla hundred years I can sneak down and steal all their land.
 
Not sure what you mean by 'theirs is a political process'. It's all politics.

There may be some backlash, a spot of rioting here and there (whichever way the vote goes) but it'll be limited and die down pretty fast. No is more likely for sure, but the vote really could go either way depending on which side turns out.

​Likely if No wins, there'll be another referendum in another 10 years or so.
 

American independence fascinates me. One of the interesting things about it is that it was an entirely undemocratic process - the majority of the people in the Thirteen Colonies were anti-independence (narrowly) and the issue was largely pushed through (by force, of course) by an educated liberal elite.

You had some of the smartest people in the world at that time and you had a system which enabled them to put their heads together to imagine a better future. There's a lesson there.

 

Honestly, that's more interesting than real life right now. Please continue.