The natives are getting restless

From: Serg (NUKKLEAR)17 Sep 2014 10:07
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 69 of 189
Honestly, that's more interesting than real life right now. Please continue.
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)17 Sep 2014 10:10
To: Serg (NUKKLEAR) 70 of 189
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!
From: Serg (NUKKLEAR)17 Sep 2014 10:28
To: ALL71 of 189
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.
From: fixrman17 Sep 2014 12:00
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 72 of 189
Quote: 
Not sure what you mean by 'theirs is a political process'. It's all politics.

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:
 

Quote: 
"Of all the small nations on earth, perhaps only the ancient Greeks surpass the Scots in their contribution to mankind."
From: fixrman17 Sep 2014 12:53
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 73 of 189
Quote: 
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.

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:

 

Quote: 
Overall the STOCK Act has garnered positive support from both houses of congress. STOCK will effectively put an end to congressional insider trading. However, guarded optimism has been expressed by politicians such as Eric Weissmann. Weissman, a candidate for Congress in Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, recently claimed that STOCK was long overdue and that "The passage of the STOCK Act by both the House and Senate is a good first step in deterring these abusive practices, but doesn’t go far enough to protect the American people from members of Congress who chose to act with self-interest over public good"

and

 

Quote: 
The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S.716. This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, The Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress.[11] The reasoning for this change was to prevent criminals from gaining access to the financial data and using it against affected persons. This bill was introduced by Senator Harry Reid on April 11, 2013. It was considered by the Senate and passed by unanimous consent. In the house, S.716 received only 14 seconds before being passed by unanimous consent.

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.

From: koswix17 Sep 2014 13:53
To: koswix 74 of 189
So the Nos have it by 58% to 42%.

Wonder if that's what we'll see at the ballot box tomorrow/Friday.
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)17 Sep 2014 13:56
To: koswix 75 of 189
It was certainly a very exciting debate (except the bit about US politics)
From: fixrman17 Sep 2014 14:16
To: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD) 76 of 189
Too bad you feel that way because it is global. What many countries do today most certainly will affect others. If you don't believe me, watch the financial markets tomorrow.
From: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)17 Sep 2014 16:30
To: fixrman 77 of 189
Oh I do believe you. But it's hard to get excited, at least in a positive way, about something you have no influence over. And I'm antipathetic, if not downright cynical, about politics and politicians.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)17 Sep 2014 17:24
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 78 of 189
We still do. Did you forget that I live there?

If Scotland votes yes can you and I become roomies and move there?
From: fixrman17 Sep 2014 21:05
To: 99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD) 79 of 189
I do suspect things are easier that way.
Message 41190.80 was deleted
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)18 Sep 2014 10:16
To: Al JunioR (53NORTH) 81 of 189
No, the Tories are an inherently unionist party.
From: fixrman18 Sep 2014 11:29
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 82 of 189
Is there a good news outlet over there where I can check in on this from time to time? I'd like to monitor the election from time to time today. This is way more interesting to me than we are able to get reporting on over here.

I think Teh predicted correctly the outcome but I think in the end it will be a very close result, probably within just a few percentage points.
From: ANT_THOMAS18 Sep 2014 11:35
To: fixrman 83 of 189
I imagine - http://www.bbc.com/news/scotland/ - will have all you need.

Results are getting announced from about 4AM UK time onwards I think.
From: Monsoir (PILOTDAN)18 Sep 2014 11:50
To: ANT_THOMAS 84 of 189
I'm very much considering getting up early to watch it unfold.
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)18 Sep 2014 12:06
To: fixrman 85 of 189
There's currently absolutely fuck all happening (in terms of news) because they're not doing exit polls and campaigning has ended. I've been listening to BBC Radio Scotland for the past fortnight to keep up with stuff but today they're just talking about beards and golf :(

But yeah, what Ant says.

Edit: Polls are open from 7am-10pm (BST), then counting starts and there'll be a results show until they get a result or the breakfast news takes over.

I've been trying to adjust my sleep pattern so I can watch it right through but I got up far too early today.
EDITED: 18 Sep 2014 12:11 by X3N0PH0N
From: JonCooper18 Sep 2014 14:31
To: Serg (NUKKLEAR) 86 of 189
I don't think Salmond has an actual, thought out plan post-"yes"
I think his whole plan was a very slim majority "no" vote then on to DevoMax
From: Jo (JELLS)18 Sep 2014 14:45
To: fixrman 87 of 189
You can livestream BBC Radio online (at least here in Canada, so I would imagine in the US too). BBC Radio 5 will have live coverage starting at 10:00 p.m. UK time (so 5 pm Eastern in North America).

Also, if you have BBC World News as part of your cable TV package, they're covering it live starting at 10:00 p.m. UK time.
From: koswix18 Sep 2014 17:15
To: JonCooper 88 of 189
Other than the 650 page white paper? Did you read it? (I didn't, there's better things to do with my time!)

A source that I cannot reveal says that the exit poll is currently at 53% no, so it makes no difference anyway.

:-(