Lets put all arguments about the Europe, NATO, Process, and whatever else out of the way for a moment.
Lets instead focus on a very simple question.
Do you personally Believe in the principle of Independence?
or even turn the words around.
Do you personally Believe in Independence as a principle?
And If not? Why not?
I ask this question..because for all the bluster, all the misdirection, all the arguments over this or that..
It is this question that It’s all about.
There are only two possible answers to that question. Yes or NO
Don’t Know is not an answer.
Answer that question honestly..and you have your answer.
Then its just a question of finding a way to apply it, and making it work.
The Choice is Yours
So I ask again
Do YOU Personally Believe in the principle of Independence? YES or NO
Auld Acquaintance 
Yes.. (but you knew that already I think!)
Just checking?? lol
POINTS TO PONDER . . . .
Scotland has a surplus of energy – coal, gas, oil.hydro, wind and wave power are widely available and yet because London controls our revenues and taxes, our pensioners still die of hypothermia every year.
Over a million of us marched against attacking and invading Iraq but the government in London ignored all of us and now many more Scottish soldiers will die in a needless and illegal war.
Billions of pounds spent on WMD and nuclear subs will not heal the sick, or educate our children, or create jobs, or build houses. But Westminster controls our taxes and revenues and tells us when, what and where we can spend them.
VOTE YES ! And let us decide our own future.
There are only two possible answers to that question. Yes or NO. Don’t Know is not an answer. ” is simply not true. It is just as honest and honourable to be agnostic about the principle of national independence for Scotland as it is to be agnostic about religion or agnostic about atheism.
The old legal maxim “qui tacet consentire videtur” (he who is silent is understood as agreeing) doesn’t mean that a Scottish voter who doesn’t vote is taken to agree with either YES or NO, but that he or she is understood to agree with the outcome whatever that outcome may be. I hope very much for an extremely high turn-out in 2014, but you can’t frog-march people to vote, or censure them if they don’t.”
Thanks for this Dai.
Your comment allows me to clear any misapprehension on the meaning of my article,and also to further expand on it.
There is logistically no more than two answers to that question…YES or NO
If anyone chooses not to answer the question, that is entirely up to them.
If they choose to wait before answering the question..that to is also up to them.. But no answer is no answer..whichever way you choose to dress it…
I am not asking the question specifically about Scottish Independence either… I am asking a very simple question… So anyone can surely answer it??
Those who choose to be agnostic,may do so if they wish… But it is still no answer.
The reason I say Don’t know is not an answer..Is because it’s not. Not for any other reason.
If I had wanted to make the question specifically about Scottish Independence..I would have said Scottish Independence.
If I was exhorting people that were unsure to make their minds up, I would have further qualified the very simple statement of fact.
whatever implications anyone makes, is in their own heads.
And Indeed, the simplicity of the question,allows any who care to answer it, the opportunity to reflect on what Independence means to them personally, and Indeed what that basic principle stands for.
Only once they have thought about that very basic concept, can they answer the question.
They can either agree with it, or not. The choice is theirs.
Having made that choice, either for or against.
They should be able to then apply it.
The principle may then be expanded, to include any form of Independence at all.
Whether that be for personal independence, or in the case of the referendum on Scottish Independence in 2014, they know exactly what the principle is that they are deciding on.
So at that point, the question then becomes expanded.
I would have thought on the basis of personal Independence very few would choose not be Independent. But one never knows, perhaps some for folks would chose to not be Independent?
In the case of Scottish Independence, the question goes beyond in princple, goes beyond personally, and applies itself to a country, Scotland in this case.
BUt as in the the question of whether or not you believe in the principle of Indepndence, the question remains the same when practically applied. The answer to it, can only be YES or NO.
I would argue that if you agree with the basic principle, then it follows that one must also agree with its application. If you do not agree with the application, then you cannot agree with the principle.
However to make the principle work, you must find out how to apply it.
And that indeed is the challenge the people of Scotland will have, should we choose to accept it.
I’ll get back to you in 2014.
Fair enough:)
YES, I can’t understand how any Scot could not embrace independence when so many peoples across the world have and are still giving the ultimate sacrifice for their independence.
A question I have asked of every nay sayer I come across and to date every single one of them has answered in the positive. Bearing in mind that this is without being able to explain why it can apply to everyone and every nation except Scotland.
Its a question I would like to see put to every member of every panel of every televised debate between now and autumn 2014. I think the answers would prove most enlightening to the viewers and I’d personally pay good money to see the likes of Lamont, Sarwar, Rennie and Davidson squirm their way through that one.
Something I would like to see myself! 🙂
Perhaps….and it is just a perhaps…many do not know what Independence really means?
And that is why I have stripped the question down to its bare essentials..
It would also a help a lot, If proper debate could be had….But that debate is being denied. Not by those who wish Independence, because we debate it all the time.But by those who are intent on denying the debate.
Labour in particular are bad for demanding debate, but will do anything but debate it. Oh they will throw all sorts of pointless, inaccurate statements around, but never actually debate.
The laugh of today was they called for a debate in Westminster, on the subject of Scotland and Europe.. But incredibly..even with them all ready to go…The person who was leading the debate didn’t turn up in time for it!
She made the excuse that she had a printer malfunction, while her staff had meanwhile saying that she wasn’t there, because she was unwell!
So the whole debate was cancelled… Amazing stuff.
I would guess that an evidence based debate would have been the order of the day. Now since we are all aware of what part of that evidence may be since doc HC643 came to light, the debate may have proved somewhat embarrassing. They’d also be forced to admit to the accuracy of the SGs consistent statements on the EU stance. I suspect this debate may be on indefinite hold or perhaps the debate leader’s illness may prove to be extended? 🙂
No man worth his blood lets another nation rule his native land
Woohoo Obama wins!…………… oh wait now, worth celebrating or not? Definitely worth celebrating Romney’s defeat. 🙂
Not that I can see much difference between either party..Much like its getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between labour and the Torys in this country.. But I guess as a figurehead, Obama seems the more stable and sane of the two.
Pretty much my feeling on the matter AA. We’ve had our share of negative soundbites from the Whitehouse over the past four years under the Democrat’s administration. The thought of Romney though, in any foreign crisis situation…………… enough to give you nightmares.