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.

Hah. I had two more tires and then read up on whether it's even possible. Apparently playing as Scotland become much harder after the last patch as it's slightly broken naval deployment (which means England are less inclined to commit properly tot he 100 years war). 

Also we're about to witness the birth of a new (sort of) nation (maybe)! That's interesting!

My major concern is a more immediate one; my second concern stems from (as far as I'm concerned) unverified sources.

First point: whichever way the vote goes (aside from an overwhelming "no"), there will most likely be immediate market response which is most likely going to cause UK equities to drop - especially those with Scottish interests of course, along with the pound. Establishing a new currency would quite possibly bring a whole new uncertain world of pain as well, but that's another subject. If the outcome is "yes", this market reaction may well be more pronounced, though a reaction is almost guaranteed regardless of the outcome - and it already began a while ago.. While the theoretical process of an "yes" outcome involves careful consideration/negotiation over some length of time to decide how the split all goes ahead, I believe that the markets may react in such a way that this simply wouldn't happen, and it would instead be a much more rushed process; I also don't see that many reasons why the BoE and the rUK would provide generous terms during any negotiations, even more so if external factors are pressuring these to finalise quicker.

Second point: from here, mostly. I don't really see what Salmond's actual, thought out plan post-"yes" is, and I am starting to believe that the quest for independence is more of a political selling point, a knee-jerk reaction rather than a negotiated decrease in Westminster influence (which is already happening) which would possibly grant Scotland most of what it wants with far fewer risks.

What happened in Ferguson, MO was an emotional reaction and incredibly irrational at that. That's what happens when people are reactive in a situation. I am not talking about the shooting itself. I'll have to reserve judgement on that until I know the full story on what happened. Apparently there is a newer video that may show better Brown's actions with the police officer.

If the shooting was based upon departmental policy specifically profiling blacks (would the officer have told white kids to get on the sidewalk?) then it starts as a political issue. There is a strong possibility that this is the case. I suppose we could reduce everything to a political issue if we really wanted to, but emotion tends to be an overriding factor in many cases and can fuel political decisions. Another difference between liberals and conservatives actually - liberals tend to be more emotionally driven here whereas consertives tend to be more logical. Rush Limbaugh and other media pundits are not the best examples of conservatives, rather extremists. He is a bloviating buffoon in many cases.

I am actually appalled on Citizenship Day in America that this story of Scottish independence is relegated to the back pages of the news. I would think in a country that in 2011 designated April 6th as Tartan Day we would make a bigger news item of it, particularly since our own Declaration of Independence was based in part upon the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320. But America does tend to be self-absorbed. I can't ever recall being taught anything about Scotland in regards to our Declaration whilst in school; sad.

There's a lot most Americans don't know about the Scots. Contributions by Watt, Fleming, Baird, and Bell quite dramatically influenced America. I also never heard this from Churchill:
 

I have to agree with you the process is/was fascinating. On one hand we have guys who want to ensure that they continue in their pursuit of wealth unfettered by the English monarchy. That was the main thrust of the quest for independence, nothing more. They were monied, propertied whites of priviledge yet they were not without ideals. Those ideals included freedom for all men, but the definition of who was to be free or maybe more correctly considered men was not quite clear at the outset. There were those for whom this idependence thing was not so important as to be acquiescent to giving up their slaves (property), upon whose labours their profits depended. Quite a sticky wicket at that time and basically they kicked the can down the road on that one and we know how that went.

Unfortunately, in our own educational system I do not recall getting into the depth of the American Revolution as much as would have been done over there. Your knowledge (or education) is far superior to ours in the terms of history and geography. I don't think it is just because I was lazy and inattentive; I was to a good measure but I recall the main thrust of the American Revolution to be Lexington and Concord, Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Stamp Tax, Tea Tax, Mean, Old King George, Redcoats (evil) Quartering of Soldiers, and Sugar Tax. Bastards! Of course I am leaving a few things out such as Bunker Hill and Saratoga. But the reasons why all these things happened are the important part of why they happened at all. Surely by the time is was in school through the later 60s throughout the 70s we were no longer justifying our actions; what would be the point? We were nearly to 200 years by that point. Or was I really that inattentive...

The lesson I think is that we need a return to patriotism in our politics here and stop the party bickering and get things done. But it seems these people we have in Congrefs (heheh) today are nothing more than an extension of the moneyed, propertied white situation of the past, maybe even more so today because they do not seem to exhibit the ideals of our Forefathers. They are more in tune with getting money for themselves, staying in power and obtaining pork barrel legislation for their states and constituents, more in tune with deals than ideals. Case in point: Look at any Congressman today and see what he was worth when he was voted in and the incredible increase in wealth since. What did Nancy Pelosi have before? Eric Cantor (now on Wall street)? John Kerry? All of these folks and many more have been accused of insider trading. Ever hear of the STOCK Act? Read about it and know this:

 

and

 

Now you know partly why most members of Congress are millionaires and the D and the R doesn't matter, each is as bad as the other.