Of course I did in the trivial sense that I choose to first put my left or my right leg into my trousers when I get dressed. But I did not make a conscious choice between different paths in life. It was not like, “if I choose this path and work hard then I will end up with a lot of money but if I choose this path it will be easy going and less money”.
Indeed; your path in life was largely shaped by the society around you.
That cultural bias is reflected in all these posts.
To give a daft example, if you get stranded on an island with 1000 women and every one of them wants children, and the johnny machine is broken, then it’s no good me telling you that you having kids was a lifestyle choice 
But it was…
@Jason
Of course not … but like the UK!
;-)
MedEwok wrote:
Silvaire
Your posts seem especially glaring in this respect because they can be rewritten as money = quality of life. I am fairly certain that is not what you meant to say.
What I meant to say was what I did say: that a modern, diverse society is best served by a strong association of earned income to social advancement. And of course disassociation of class and culture from social advancement. That is not the same as saying money = quality of life, because social advancement is not the only key to happiness. On the other hand money unarguably makes your life better, particularly if you haven’t always had it, and therefore appreciate having it. More money = ability to do more.
LeSving wrote:
Not even the “EU model”, where the UK has been one of the main architects, works well in the UK I wonder what works well in the UK, a dwindling empire at the verge of extinction. It seems exceptionally difficult for the UK (or should I say England/London) to find it’s place in the modern world.
LeSving. I warm to the cut of your jib…………..
My country, Scotland, as you are all aware, had a marvellous opportunity to cut away from the failing empire. We, narrowly, rejected it. That was a shame. Great duplicity was used by a Westminster Government, who rather than openly, freely, and genuinely discuss the pros and cons of the concept, fed fear, lies, and untruths, on a frightened population. 50% swallowed the fear. That was a vote for the future, not the now, past, or near future. It was an opportunity to allow the young generation to shape the country they wanted. A lot was looked into with the Scandinavian model. It will come, after today, maybe sooner than we thought, but food banks , child poverty, deprivation, blurred future, is not the way a country should run. The ONLY way to reverse this, is to look at narrowing the gap between haves, and have nots. It is complicated, but paying a decent wage, for a days work, with employee support, would be a start. That then allows finance into the system, which in turn, allows growth. Small but steady. But, hey. UK is a busted flush with no money, we call it AUSTERITY..
BeechBaby wrote:
My country, Scotland, as you are all aware, had a marvellous opportunity to cut away from the failing empire. We, narrowly, rejected it. That was a shame. Great duplicity was used by a Westminster Government, who rather than openly, freely, and genuinely discuss the pros and cons of the concept
Without taking sides I couldnt resist comment. What you say is true, but equally, would you not accept the otherside told just about as many “lies”?
I find it odd that a people who might reject being part of the UK, embrace being part of Europe. Leaving aside the politics isnt the objective similiar? Those who support the coming together of countries to form a “union” would argue the benefits. Of course those benefits many not follow for various reasons, but are the potential benefits of Westminster so very different from the potential benefits of Brussels?
Many would also agree that your charter is a fair charter and it would follow that a Conservative Government is not wed to those values. However, Conservatives comme and go. I also find it interesting that people would reject unions because of a temporary politcal persuasion with which they might not agree, whereas the union in itself is at least no where near as temporary and was conceived as a union that would stand the test of time and the coming and going of political parties.
I just dont know as a principle at what point every group of people as soon as they find themselves out of line with the collective should reasonably go there own way? People living on the I of W might reasonably vote by a small majority Conservative, whereas the rest of the country, Labour. Does the popoluation of the I of W say – “we are not putting up with this, lets oust Westminster and have our own parliament”.
Of course, I take things to extremes, but do we gradually break down into the smallest self governing entities we can envisage or do we attempt to preserve “unions” for the collective good, in the knowledge that there will be times we agree with the collective politics and times we dont?
On the basis of your post, if we had a Labour or Liberal Government in Westminster would you still wish to leave the union?
Fuji_Abound wrote:
On the basis of your post, if we had a Labour or Liberal Government in Westminster would you still wish to leave the union?
Of course. I am a RW Tory at heart I am a Thatcher baby. As I have grown older, and more cynical 
, I have come to truly believe that the unfairness, the swing to the 1% richest, is frankly, unsustainable. Forgive me, but the southern bubble, the London hinterland, you guys, whilst you have other crosses to bear, have really no idea about life in Glasgow, Edinburgh, North of t’ Border. A bit like Osbourne and his Northern Powerhouse codswallop.
I am crucially aware of the difficulties of a small country breaking away, but we are regarded, and have been of decades, as an irritating county by Westminster. A playground for wealthy Southerners, tied housing, landowners blah blah….
The argument however, is immense, and difficult, but Scots need to believe, to let go, and forge a new society.
Beech Baby is it not the case that Scotland has for a very long time been supported financially by the UK to a much larger extent per head of population than has the rest of the UK? Is it also not the case that you have more MPs (not SMPs) per head of population than the rest of the UK?
Please do try and go your own way by standing ENTIRELY on your own 2 feet and see what happens. How much for example does Faslane put into the Scottish economy and what would replace this should we withdraw (or indeed if Mr Corbyn should win today and cancel Trident)? You cannot live on whisky alone. There are numerous other examples that seem to be glossed over conveniently by many who wish to not accept majority votes.
I am not Scottish or even British but I have actually never really seen such a comprehensive political debate as I saw over the Scottish referendum. Sure each side lied but overall it was an intelligent and well done debate.
There was a vote, one side lost. I am astonished they can’t just accept that. Same as Brexit. I disagreed with leaving but the vote was taken and I have to accept it.
JasonC wrote:
There was a vote, one side lost
Without going over old ground, and getting into a minefield debate, the side that won, did so on falsehoods. Fact.
Fenland_Flyer wrote:
There are numerous other examples that seem to be glossed over conveniently by many who wish to not accept majority votes.
See above.
Fenland_Flyer wrote:
supported financially by the UK to a much larger extent per head of population than has the rest of the UK? Is it also not the case that you have more MPs (not SMPs) per head of population than the rest of the UK?
Another falsehood brought up by the ‘’Better Together’’, campaigners.
Anyway, it is all over. No point in debating. We lost.
Lets await Brexit, lets see where we all end up, and then, as Nicola states, let the people have a look, and decide. Democracy in action.
FWIW, Corbyn played a blinder in my view. Tomorrow morning should be interesting
JasonC – I agree. I have also given this much thought. As long as the campaign was fair (which it was) these decisions arent ones to be taken on a frequent basis. I am almost persuaded by Sturgeon’s argument about the fundmentals of BREXIT so substantially altering the landscape that a rerun is justified but not quite, perhaps more because it would seem than even if the decision were reversed it would only be by a small percentage. I might feel differently if there was such a significant ground swell of support that you could expect a landslide vote in favour of Scotland leaving the Union. Even the SMPs dont beleive this is the case.
BeechBaby wrote:
The argument however, is immense, and difficult, but Scots need to believe, to let go, and forge a new society.
which was in a roundabout way my point. They are immense, and taking a decision at a moment in time when, at best, there might be a marginal vote in favour of leaving the Union hardly seems democratic, given that the landscape might be very differnet in a few years time.
