To think its ok to tell voters that businesses will move south if its a yes?

[Loopylala7]

If these businesses do intend to shift south of the border if its a yes, shouldn't the voters know this is a possible outcome? Why is it considered unfair for this information to be out? Can somebody please explain? Am I being a bit dense?

Scotland have benefited from the Union at least as much as they were 'beaten into submission' by it.

Merchants building their fabulous houses in Glasgow on cash-crop money could attest to that. And West Indian slaves.

Oh my life. Scotland beaten into submission? What do they teach in history at school? How has anyone been beaten into submission in the last 100 years?

You've read different history books to me DD.

I studied history and economic history for my first degree. I must have slept through some of the lectures (highly likely actually)

Wasn't Alex Salmond brilliant last night on Dimbleby and wasn't Gordon Brown just awful

No. Gordon Brown was measured and knowledgeable. Much as I hoped this would be Salmond's chance to put some flesh on the bones of all the vague promises of jam tomorrow, he didn't take it, and came across as petulant and evasive. Again.

Daughter, is there any chance of your answering the valid points made concerning the Act of Union rather than threatening to report people?

Many peoples historically exposed female babies on hillsides to die but I wouldn't refuse to shake the hand of a modern Athenian or Roman on those grounds.

History does indeed move on and dwelling in parts of the past is in some instances what has got us into this fine mess. I would have thought and hoped that a modern Scot would have been able to move away from such things.

Does Scottish being beaten into submission refer to the Jacobites? If you took England out of the equation is it really likely that Scotland would now have a catholic monarchy with a blemish free history? What about all the scots who were doing quite nicely out of the union? What about Scottish Presbyterians?

With a subscription to ancestry.com and a little digging anybody can find an oppressed ancestor. It would be more relevant if people were using your ancestry to oppress you now.

I recall hearing of my great uncle who while serving on a committee with the then Duke of Sutherland got tore into him about the Sutherland's behaviour during the Clearances which was appalling and affected my own family very badly indeed.

I'm sure that it made Great Uncle feel a lot better and the incident was described admiringly by senior members of my family but other than making my own detailed notes of it for their future reference I was pleased that none of the family youngsters seemed to be emotionally involved in something that happened in the 19th century because I had seen my own family dwell on the past to the exclusion of moving on. (I'm not saying that they shouldn't have remembered it hence my notes but there was an obsession generally about former hurts that impeded development among older family members.)

I don't want to see any more youngsters in my own family obsessing about the past as they have enough challenges to face when we are not here with for example environmental issues ahead of them. I do not see the SNP being truly positive about this sort of thing. They're actually surprisingly negative in their outlook with a sort of hunkering down view of life.

And Chelsy if I have another personal attack from you I shall have to report it.

Come now, I didn't report you for making up some offensive story that I followed my husband around due to him losing his job due to vote rigging, nor did I receive an apology. Nor have I reported you or "Weatherall" for yet another personal attack, this time accompanied by a threat, on me.

So why would you wish to censor me for pointing out that I don't do anything of the kind? Is this something (censorship of opposing views) you would be keen to see in an independent Scotland?

Please stop misrepresenting Scottish history. To anyone looking in from outside Scotland, this is of course a very warped and inaccurate view of Scottish history, and it is not taught in Scottish schools, except perhaps to pupils who aren't paying attention.

I was pleased that none of the family youngsters seemed to be emotionally involved in something that happened in the 19th century because I had seen my own family dwell on the past to the exclusion of moving on

I don't think it's that they are dwelling on the past, they want to move on but were pushed into this 'union' against their will. The Scottish referendum is the result of centuries of struggle for people to do exactly that - to move on.

Voting for an independent Scotland is voting for progress, change and a new direction for Scotland away from the ties that bind them to what is effectively English rule.

It is interesting how people interpret it in different ways, but if you listen to Alex Salmond's interview with Dimbleby yesterday it is quite clear that this is about moving forward and being able to dust away the past. He is a progressive thinker, he's not hunkering down in any way.

Here it is

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04k1d54/scotland-decides-the-dimbleby-interviews

"centuries of struggle". What struggling have you had to do?

"centuries of struggle". What struggling have you had to do?

Carrying home a wide screen tv? White or red wine with dinner?

Theres certainly some unusual, off the wall, deluded stuff out there.

In the interests of factual accuracy, Scotland was joined to England willingly in the Union of the Crowns and thereafter became part of one of the most successful nations on earth. The only part of Scotland that was forced to become part of this was Shetland, as it had previously been given as a wedding gift to the Scottish King by Norway on marriage. Shetland's petition for a separate Referendum on independence in the event of a Yes vote has been ignored by Holyrood.

DaughterDilemma

How could he possibly move forward with half of the country not supporting him and of the remainder a quarter probably supporting him only because they were given the wrong facts, no facts or platitudes?

I've just read "Twelve Years a Slave". Oh I feeeeel your pain.

Where can we read about all these oppressed Scots who did not want James VI to take on the English throne when he inherited it? And did not then, a hundred of so years later, want to stabilise the Scottish economy their own government had wrecked with the South Sea Bubble, by means of the Union?

I have spent quite a bit of time at the Culloden battlefield museum and noted just how many Scots, also, later in the C18th, fought on the side of the Hanoverians, against the Old and Young Pretender.

Young Pretender at Culloden, obviously, not Old!

Maybe check the Amnesty website. Or did National Geographic do a piece on the struggling lost tribes of Caledonia?

There were some dreadful thing done to Scots in the past Abra1d although it would also be fair to point out the dreadful things which were done to some of the English Irish and Welsh let alone other peoples.

The point surely is though that that is the past? The separatists use the past or allow it to be used as an emotive tool to attempt to whip up passions and that seems to me to be negative and reactionary. We are not in the past but yet they avoid dealing with the present and the future.

Exactly, and it should be pointed out that at the time those dreadful things happened, Britain was not a democracy. Only a small percentage of the population could vote. There was no national TV news, no internet, only slow dissemination of news by newspaper. And as a large proportion of the English population couldn't read, I'm flummoxed if I know how the majority of the population were supposed to be held accountable for all these things.

nicename I've just read "Twelve Years a Slave". Oh I feeeeel your pain.

Theres a very good reason why so many Jamaican athletes at the Commonwealth Games have Scottish surnames...

Veronica Campbell-Brown, Kerron Stewart, Schillonie Calvert, Warren Weir, Anneisha Maclaughlin, Raymond MacDonald, Stefanie McPherson, Francine McRory, Janieve Russell, Jason Morgan,

Centuries of oppression has left its mark!

I even think that if America can have a black president, with continued union one day we could see a Scottish chancellor or prime minister! Oh hang on...

It is seriously worrying that the Yes campaign's supporters are seriously promoting this myth of Scots oppression. As a Scot myself, I know full well that it's just not true, and it really is quite offensive to my fellow countrymen and women to assume that they will actually fall for that.

Out on a "no" stall today. Nice atmosphere from both sides which was refreshing.

Only a couple of unpleasant remarks from the other side.

Odd reasons for some people to vote yes. "Salmond is a socialist" I heard more than once. A couple also raving on about the oppressed Scots which I also find very frustrating...