May I rephrase that, Al? “Some of us…perhaps a bit more than half, maybe less than half….”

By ‘we’, I was referring to the Nationalists. Don’t forget that the Scottish people overwhelmingly voted in the SNP, knowing full well their independence agenda.

Nor should you be, which is why I am a wholehearted supporter of the ‘Yes’ campaign. I’d hate to live in a country where elected MPs from another country voted on decisions in my country that didn’t affect them in the slightest.
Moggy

I’m warming to you Moggie – I had no idea just how altruistic and empathetic you really are…

But Welsh is their language, and probably the closest remnant to ancient Celtic in Europe – well worth preserving.
The trouble with Scottish Gaelic is that it’s a relatively recent import from Ireland – and about as relevant to modern Scotland as Braemar Castle, which, incidentally, will make an excellent hotel and golf course once the current deadbeat occupants are kicked out…

Here’s something quite relevant for Al and others possessed of the cult of Salmondmania:

Three planks of independent sovereignty could well be a national justice system, a national currency and a national language. They are more than the sum of their parts when evaluating national independence.
Well, we’ve had our own justice system for some time, and I’m sure Scottish currency will be sorted out in time.

Two out of three maybe not much of a problem but, what about language? The majority who voted No won’t want to continue with the hated lingo of the loathed Sassenachs, that’ll be clinching evidence of their continuing serfdom. So what’s the alternative?

The dying Gaelic of the Highland dwellers or, the English of the Scottish metropolitan elite and the Borders folk? Hmm! That could be a bit of a problem. I can’t see the Nats coninuing, without question, to meekly submit to the status quo.
The original language of Scotland was Pictish, and nobody knows what it sounded like, or how it was written, as there are very few records. Scottish Gaelic is just a basterdised version of Irish Gaelic, which spread over into the south west and the Highlands around 1000 years ago.
Even if Scottish Gaelic had become the norm, it was outlawed after our defeat at Culloden Moor, so are we supposed to make a language up?

Alternatives ? Norwegian? Got a certain monarchial familiarity. I think that logically it will have to be the lingua franca of that most unlikeliest of allies – the French. Merde alors ! Zut alors! Cheese eating and haggis scoffing, it has a certain poetic image. One thing is for sure, it would certainly help the credibility of their EU application.

I don’t follow your ‘quite relevant’ shining logic and obvious wit – so why did the Americans, the non-French Canadians and Australians keep their language English?

Sorry to hear all that Jim – I hope things get sorted out to your satisfaction soon.

Granted – but at least there is science behind it!

http://bettertogether.net/
It interests me that none of leadership nor membership of the “no” group shares the nationalistic aspirations shown by Al here and others elsewhere. Certainly none of my friends do and most have always regarded the nationalists as extreme and unrepresentative.
As far as the ‘No’ leadership goes, I suspect that like most politicians they would rather be a small fish in a big pond, than a big fish in a small pond. The main difference between the nationalists and the ‘NOs’ is that we nationalists consider ourselves Scottish, not British.

However they may well prove to be representative of the majority view. Whichever way the vote goes it will be close and that is not going to be good for Scotland as nearly half will be unhappy with the result.

Ordinary Scottish people have already seen huge benefits from having the SNP in power, from no tuition fees for Scottish students, no prescription fees, and bridge tolls abolished to name just a few, done within the confines of the purse being controlled by Westminster. Real benefits which simply wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
I’m convinced that once things have settled down after independence, even the ‘No’ voters will come round.
Think of Eire, who separated from the UK relatively recently, so are quite a good comparison. I’m sure they were better off under Westminster rule, but even after decades of poverty, worsened by the recent financial crash, do you thing anyone thought “I wish we were still governed by London!”?.

I believe the majority of nationalists are fighting for an idea without giving any thought to or knowledge of the implications. Westminster is anathema and Holyrood is salvation. They know nothing more than that. They can’t do because it’s never been done before.

As I say I don’t care what they so but I equally doubt we will see an independent Scotland in the next 5 years assuming a yes vote.

“Westminster is anathema and Holyrood is salvation. They know nothing more than that. They can’t do because it’s never been done before.”

That’s a very blinkered and frankly insulting stance. It has been done before – there have been many nations who have separated from their more dominant neighbours. None have ever asked to be taken back.
Of course any change of this magnitude brings up lots of unknown factors, which nobody can forecast, and the process may take some time – but what is, say, even 20 years in the lifetime of a nation?
I dare say the same uncertainties and fears were voiced when the Union was set up over 300 years ago – but it was a fait accompli, as ordinary Scots had no say in the idea or outcome.

It’s not guesswork, but the most likely outcome of numerous computer runs using the most current initial data, just like any forecast models – whether it’s the weather, stocks and shares, earthquakes, war games, or ice cream sales.

For example, most computer runs may track a particular depression to run through the English Channel, but instead it actually tracks along the southern counties. So what? That’s only, say, 50 miles out, but it may mean the difference between those counties getting high winds or none, heavy prolonged rain or just a few spots, overcast or clear.

Even when humans advanced enough to travel to the moon, it was always that thin little layer of the Earth’s atmosphere which gave the biggest problems…

Never heard of the ‘Butterfly Effect’? The Met Office computers run on known physical laws – an initial set of numbers (temperature, wind, pressure etc) is carried forward by computer ‘runs’ for a given amount of time using Newton’s formulas. Unfortunately, that’s where the effect comes in – if you change, say, the initial temperature by just the tiniest percentage, repeating the formulas over and over again amplifies that small change, and results in a totally different outcome from the first. That’s why short-range forecasts are usually very accurate.

A publicised long-range forecast is simply the ‘best fit’ from hundreds of different possible outcomes – and is often completely wrong, and I suspect there will always these uncertainties. Even with today’s most powerful computers, the atmosphere can only be modelled with a resolution measured in kilometres, while the real atmosphere works on a molecular, if not quantum level.

Don’t fool yourselves though – the UK Met Office is the best in the world at what it does. Just ask the Americans, who have asked for British military forecasters to provide their forecasts from D-Day through the Gulf War to Afghanistan.

It might be a national pastime to ridicule the Met Office, but it’s really just a sign of pure ignorance. Only one entity knows exactly what’s going to happen, and even he doesn’t exist…