Scottish Independence.

Beg to differ. They will be under pressure from the other nations to let a willing and valuable new European partner enter the fray. And they must also remember their duty to their own citizen's resident in Scotland who want to be part of the EU.

And yet again the London media in their safe little upper middle class bubbles completely fail to understand just what is going on up here. 

For example, failing to recognise that it is the Scottish Parliament that actually has the power over the franchise for a future referendum, not Westminster. So we can and will include the 16 and 17 year olds plus our resident EU nationals.

It's amazing how the London media also keep claiming that the minority SNP administration won't get an independence referendum bill through the Scottish parliament. That is utter bollocks which shows how ignorant these Times, Mail, Torygraph, Guardian types. Why is it bollocks ? The Green Party is committed to another independence referendum and their MSP's hold the balance of power at Holyrood.

And playing up the desperate "we fought together and died together at the Somme and Normandy" really isn't cutting it with younger voters who are beyond such pathetic emotional blackmail. Or the bizarre appeals from Labour (of all parties) politicians praising England and Scotland building the British Empire together as some kind of amazing, beautiful, charitable endeavour. 

I won't lie to you and claim to have answers at hand. Economics is not something I am clued up on, so I won't try and bullsh*t someone about a subject I don't know much about. 

However in the interest of fairness I would like to refer you to the pro-independence case for Scotland's economy at http://www.businessforscotland.com/ which is the only economic and financial news source offering an alternative to the Telegraph, Times, Mail, Guardian etc who are all avowedly opposed to Scotland being independent. 

From my personal experience especially with young voters, independence is attractive because it's about the exciting, inspiring prospect of ordinary Scots people building a re-born country, forging our own path ahead, turning the old rotten conventions on their head. Many people simply fail to recognise this point and how powerful it has been.

 

We started the last referendum with only about 20% of Scots being pro-independence and faced a three year long hurricane of hostility from both broadcast and print media. 

Every dirty personal trick was used to smear us and denigrate our cause and yet we still got to 45% of the voters in spite of that. 

Yes Scotland did incredible considering also that they had to work with a hell of a lot less money than did Better Together who had oil barons, arms dealers and city financiers bankrolling them.

It was also thanks to one of the most incredible and absolutely inspiring, positive and uplifting grassroots campaign on the streets and doorsteps of Scotland - the likes of which has arguably not been seen in British politics since the 1945 election. 

It's game fecking on next time.

The ethereal arguments related to Scottish Independence are compelling, and are sufficiently compelling to make a strong case for independence. But I'm still not seeing the compelling arguments that Scotland can stand on it's own feet, economically speaking after the cord is cut from Westminster. Many of the misty eyed points which suggest Independence is the way to go are enough to convince many people, and is arguable that they should, and that short-medium term policy and political outcomes should not impede the goal of an independent Scotland, but I think my point really boils down to my belief that there are not argument to combat the short-medium term aspects, and I feel that is where the difficulty will come into play.

I would not trade Irish independence for anything, but that's not to say that we have not had our problems as an independent nation. These are problems which would undoubtedly get an airing if we were discussing the legacy of Fianna Fail, or the Catholic Church in Ireland.

In reality, that is irrelevant. It is known and understood that a PM may exit office during the lifetime of the Government, and it is legitimate for the governing party to elect a new leader, and by extension a new PM. And lets be realistic, if she was to run today she would extend the margin of victory by a country mile.

The fact that she was elected by the Conservative Party, and not by the British public doesn't interfere with her mandate as PM. Hence, it is not a particularly relevant fact in the context of this debate. But as you've so graciously bowed out, I suspect you have let me have the last word. Thanks!