just read the whole thing, and i thought this could have been a great debate but everyone it seems took umbridge from the off.
people are allowed to be ignorant of basic facts - discuss them and then on.
i have little more than sod all knowledge of how the union works and how the economy is divided and who bankrolls who.
i did assume that the oil was a major conributing factor though.
With nothing but distant memories of anectdotal evidence, i was seriously under the impression that the union was nothing more than a farce, and that each wanted its independance - although unlikley totally.
am not sure why we can't discuss this, it would certainly enlighten me. I for one feel v. blessed that there are lots of astute mumsnetters who are patient with me and able to explain things.
sometimes the occasional person gets wanky - but there is always the nice ones too.
shame that, could have been a good debate
My unkowledgable standpoint.
if the rest of the union want independance let them - but do they? i dunno - but if they do - let them.
the university thing is appaulling. it shouldn't be free in scotland and have to pay here - thats outragous.
not sure what the channel tunnel thing is about and what that relates to if i am honest.
i am under the impression that non english unionites have a history of major pissed offness and want independance - where the hell do i get this idea?
my mother was a hippie, i never buy newspapers except the guardian.
i dont have a telly.... so why do i have this impression?
i dunno
so dya not want independance then?