How very embarrassing to be associated with such a fine outstanding country, one that respects and adheres to the human rights of its inhabitants.

Now don't get me started on North Korea :O:

I found this piece of particular interest:

Oh really :hmmm:

Perhaps TarJak should forward his post on to Salmond...eggs in one basket etc. etc.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...58&postcount=1

You haven't had to deal with hardline American Republican's then, especially the TEA Party crowd.

I have and it's an eye opener - the worst of them make the Tories look like communists! :o They very much feel that Europe spends too much on welfare when that money should be spent on defence, amongst others.

What I've also discovered, both from that source but also military analysis sites is that the US DoD really, really dislikes the idea of mini-states with "bonsai" militaries freeloading in NATO. If you can't pull your weight in the Alliance, you shouldn't be in it. Hence there's considerable frustration and resentment that most of the EU countries have slashed their defence budgets since the 90's, further increasing the perceived burden on the US. If, worst case scenario the rUK had to abandon it's nuclear deterrent (which isn't exactly an independent one anyway) because they couldn't find a suitable base in rUK waters, for whatever reason, that would, as I wrote earlier leave the US as sole nuclear armed NATO power. America wouldn't like being lumbered with that - it would increase the feeling that the Euros were freeloading at the US's expense. Lastly, French nukes aren't currently at NATO's disposal.

The US may not block Scotland joining NATO, but they will (and do, apparently) have grave reservations about both Scotland's no-nuclear weapons-on-Scottish-soil stance and the smallness of it's proposed armed forces. The former is at odds with US strategic interests - look what happened to New Zealand when it prohibited nuclear armed and propelled vessels entering it's waters. Salmond isn't proposing that, but he will have to accept something nuclear in the vicinity. Like the base at Faslane staying where it is for far longer then he's commited himself politically. US support for Scottish membership of NATO may entail accepting the continued existence of Faslane and it's support infrastructure, similar to the US base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Also if a TEA Party type gets in to the White House (Sarah Palin nearly made it to Vice-President) it's possible that support for NATO from such an administration would be very much conditional on Europe pulling it's weight. That could mean forcing countries to spend the required by treaty 2% GDP on defence. Failure to do so could also result in them pulling the plug on the Alliance and leaving Europe to the wolves. Some do think like that.

Can Scotland afford to have 2% military spending, on top of everything else? Where would you get the manpower for a large armed force from a population of 5 million? The Scandinavian countries and Israel all use the national service/conscription then reservist model. Conscription would be just a tad unpopular with the younger generation here and can't see the SNP adopting it except under severe duress.

That's why I wrote earlier that NATO membership wouldn't be good idea for an independent Scotland. It's not helped by the SNP not giving any real, proper indication as to how advanced and developed their geopolitical thinking is. I don't think they've given it much thought.

This is all worst case scenario, but imagining possible unintended consequences is a very good thing to do.

Mike.:hmmm:

States like Spain and Belgium, even Italy, will give an independent Scotland a hell if it tries to get into the EU, these states, like all states, consider the people living in given regions to be their property and thus will not allow Flanders, Venice or Katalonia falling away. Cooperating with scotland would mean a precedence and invitation that these governments at all costs will avoid.

And the Scots? On voti8ng day they will vote not by heart but the money they count in their wallets. I would encourage a Yay, but I expect to see a Nay as the final outcome. A close result, nevertheless a Nay.

Cameron has pormised concessions in recent days. These are demands by the Scots that during negotiating the referendum Cameron has strictly opposed and strictly refused to ever accept. If the Scots vote Nay, he will try to weasel out of the concessions he just promised, no doubt. And he will probably be successful.

To no longer being attached to an economy that has the paper money sector as its biggest "economic" :) factor, has its charms when considering the very likely scenario of the paper money sooner or later blowing up. They should go without Pound or Euro. But having voted Nay in the referendum, and possibly even getting betrayed for the concessions Cameron promised, possibly Scots will regret that they did not voted Yay while they had a chance. After this close race now, Westminster will dance with all devils in hell to make sure there will never be a referendum allowed again.

Imagine a world with no states and politicians, where neighbouring counties and small local regions directly and freely cooperate on things of shared interest, infrastructure for example, and where trading stuff also gets directly negotiated between neighbouring small communities, without any political gangsters in a distant city interfering.

The profanity of shortsighted monetarian interest will not allow this chance to be tried.

And even if the Scots would vote Yes - they tehn would be confronted with the poltical parasites ruling their new nation with the same to be expected symptoms of degeneration and abuse setting in sooner or later. Probably sooner, since the Scots do not plan to abandon the paper money system alltogether.

In principle, nothing has changed since the medieval. people still get owned and possessed by a caste of dominating "elites". People still beleive that one group of people can give freedom to another group of people, or could withhold that freedom.

And when people allow getting owned and believe the above - do they even deserve freedom?

Simple answer: No.

When all is said and done that is exactly what it all boils down to...voting with head or heart.

My own personal opinion is that the result will be a close NO vote.

I doubt that would make any difference.

A close "No" vote (my expectation, too) would at any rate give the SNP a big stick with which to threaten Westminster in the future when things aren't going their way.

A roughly 50/50 split is no basis for making any nationality decisions. Civil wars have started with less of a close call.

Interesting thread, should've had a poll to see international opinion.

Two short clips

The first, Bonnie Greer gives her view on impartiality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYv6...ature=youtu.be

The second is a must watch:D
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=794377223917152

:rotfl2:

I notice there is no fixed day for an outcome announcement.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/sco...ndum-countdown

It's ok Jim, I hear they've brought in the experts from the 2000 Florida election to help. :yep:

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/...ting-Chads.jpg

:har:

Out of the two campaigns the "No" campaign clearly is using more fear threats and blackmail. Typical of big money throwing its weight about joining the silk tongue BS politician scum.

Clearly this is the only way politician's get their jollies, sad.....:nope:

I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down!

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/102...745/hbhap3.jpg