h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This may be one of the few political proposals where "follow the money" may not lead to somewhere useful.

However, the people who want this most are almost certainly the ones who have most to gain. Somebody once said that in societal shake-ups those near the top have the most chance of ending up right at the top and those at the bottom end up being compacted just that little bit more tightly.

That was in respect of the Australian referendum to become a republic an it was conducted in a similar tone (shrill) to the Scots referendum. It failed and relatively little bad stuff came to pass. Next time it is run (and it will run again), I feel the debate will be slightly more mature and the result will be different.

Location and resources don't change and the tired oil will see us through argument is not good enough.

No one knows how long it will last estimates vary from 50 to 15 years the people to trust say 15 the yes campaign say 50.

The price of oil is set to fall electric cars will come and so demand will fall, the gulf states are diversifying to cover the possibility of falling revenues.

2 massive new on shore oil fields have been discovered, this could indicate a glut of oil, within 10 years.

So how dose Scotland make that a profitable economic state with a longterm future.

The Japanese, with few natural resources and a ruined economy after World War II, rose to prominence on the strength of their work ethic, social cohesion and adaptability. I would expect the Scots to use most of the same qualities whether the oil lasts or not.

<>

If you're talking about.... in fact, never mind, there simply aren't 2 fields in the world that will stabilise oil production in 10 years, never mind prices. IF electric vehicles do take over, and I hope they do, then distributed storage will be required to take advantage of it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/27/ubs-investors-renewables-revolution

With that kind of revolution, our quite frankly silly wind, wave and tidal resources may be of some use.

Anyway, this kind of debate is old hat. Even the No campaign don't say we're too poor, they say we'll *get* poor. Keep up man!

Mr 603, as an aside, do you think a lefty independent Scotland would be more helpful to the North of England than one which just provides some lefty-ish MPs?

That is the point made some time ago an independant Scotland may not be viable the Scots are maybe deing mislead and a slide into recession and worse is a real danger.

An independent Scotland would of course be viable. What you might mean is that it might be poorer? Personally, I think that's wrong. If we were such a basket case of poverty why would the Tories want to hang on to us? Doesn't really follow, that one.

Anyway, this is kinda like going back 18 months.

I'm a No voter but there's no question that an independent Scotland is viable.

The phrase was might not be viable after oil, where is the money coming from long term

Cloth would be cut accordingly I imagine.

Which rules out the socialists of course

there's no question that an independent Scotland is viable.



BS just stop. really..

Well now, seems to me that Aesop had something to say on this.

Look up his 'bundle of Sticks'

I'm betting that Scotland will do fine regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

On NATO, Scotland is still part of the UK and does currently host a number of combined operations extending beyond merely the links to the UK.

"I think you are being rather harsh on 16 and 17 year olds"

I just feel they lack the life experience to consider issues like job security, economic stability, intrest rates and a whole host of other issues they would consider boring that will effect as they get older and get more responsibilies like raising, feeding and clothing a family, paying taxes and energy bills etc.

"...if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.'"

By definition being conservative (with a small c) means being hostilre to change, I do not think that hoping for and working for a better world is brainless. Obviously as you get older and understand more about human nature you become more wary of grandious promises and understand the risk of sudden changes, but that is no excuse for cynisism, just an understanding that positive change comes slowly and with a lot of work. Otherwise you are in danger of becoming the sort of world weary cynical conservative who denied change was possible in apartied South Africa or sticks their head in the sand to deny the threat of climate change.

life experience changes so much once they reach 18 of course.... no 16 or 17 year olds have to look after families eather their own children or siblings or parents as young carers... at 16 and 17 no-one has ever seen a bill or a bank balance they have never budgeted there own funds to save for something later....

oh wait you were making a generalisation I see...

Obiviously there is no magic line between childhood and adulthood. There are also a minority of children much younger than 16 who have to care for relatives, are you suggesting giving the vote to 12 year olds?

Eighteen year olds are classed as adults in the eyes of the law and have all the obligations and rights of adults - 16 year olds are classed as children and have the same protection as children under the law.

except that they can legally get married and have children of their own...

Plus they're also probably working towards qualifications for jobs that (if they exist) they will be doing for the foreseeable future - there is no reason they shouldn't have a vote.

Also, they are arguably the ones who will be most affected by it.

I've heard it said that creativity declines with age. If youthful creativity and mature wisdom could be persuaded to work together, think what a combination that would be! At least I think it would do more good than youthful ignorance and mature cynicism.