thorbotnic

I have a friend who was born in Leeds, lived since age 3 in Paisley. No vote? My point is that the franchise was restricted by nationality in the referendum last year, and will be in this one.

Like I said above, citizenship has always determined who can vote in UK polls. UK, EU and / or Commonwealth. Not residence. There was no Scottish citizenship so how would you determine a Scots-only franchise?

Citizenship, not birth, determines your right to a vote. In any election or referendum. Residents of Scotland who didn't have UK, EU or Commonwealth citizenship couldn't vote in the referendum.

I think it was in the manifesto in the first place as something they could 'give up' in coalition negotiations, not something the Tory leadership actually wanted. Now their hens have come home to roost. But that's what happens when you're a Tory and will promise anything to hold on to power.

Not quite - the BQ won 44 out of 75 seats in the next federal election. But that was 2 years later.

Still better than one party government... If only through politicking, its harder for either of the illiberal main parties to behave as elected dictators. Any NOC scenario is better than one-party rule.

I'll be voting for them. Best chance of guaranteeing another hung parliament... Last thing I want is one party having a majority at Westminster. Also the closest thing to a pro-EU, pro-immigration party we have here, other than the greens.

My great grandad was there, on a hospital ship. Apparently it was the heat and lack of supplies that make it that much worse. It seems to get forgotten that 5x as many British soldiers as ANZAC died there, to be honest.

I think that merely being decimated would be far beyond the lib dems wildest dreams, Donny!

UK citizens aren't considered foreigners in Ireland, either. We can stand and vote in Dail elections but not presidential elections. UK citizens would not have been accorded the same rights in iScotland, though iScots would have in the rUK (like all commonwealth citizens).

There's only two adjectives in the second half of that sentence. People don't need to listen to me - I make no claims regarding exactly what happened that day or who the real culprits are. However, by adding nothing to this 'debate', I add exactly the same as you and Scotty. For all the links you both post, and all the claims to have a uniquely well-informed perspective, you're both arguing from positions of ignorance. Its not important whether people listen to me or not - but it's definitely important that they don't listen to you.

This entire thread is like watching a group of men arguing about precisely how fantastic the emperor's new clothes are.

Good man.

Pathetic.

Although interestingly both Australians / NZers and Americans / Canadians do have derogatory words for the English. As do the French, of course.

Only if Scotland votes differently from rUK...

I honestly don't know how you can be bothered wanderer, hat doffed.

We are all McTaz...

Aww . But be careful or they'll discover our Zionist cabal...

Of course Russia taking Crimea didn't spring out of nowhere. But regardless of the historical context, they chose to pull the trigger. They committed an act of aggression, which is only justifiable under international law in certain circumstances - none of which was present. I'm not sure why I'm being attacked for pointing this out, or being accused of trolling. Of the other examples you mentioned: Iraq - unjustifiable. Afghanistan - justifiable. Sanctioned by UNSC. Libya - no invasion. Bombing not justifiable. Hypocrisy is not an argument for or against the correctness of an action or statement, as I'm sure you're aware.

I was countering the statement that them bolstering their armed forces was insanity - given the threat they face, it makes perfect sense. Can they honestly trust Russia at all?

Fascistic as an adjective is different from fascist as an adjective. Same as Marxist or Marxian.Are you suggesting that the desire to control their neighbours' politics plays no part in Russian aggression? Put your (quite legit) criticism of the US to one side for a moment and think about it. They've invaded another sovereign state! In Europe, in 2015! And while you're not trolling I do think you're too fixated on 'going against the grain' in your arguments.

Yes, a small independent sovereign state should just accept the threat of its neighbouring bully - after all, its within Russia's sphere of influence. They should've been satisfied with just remaining a Soviet province.

I believe I said fascistic, in description of their megalomania - not a description of the state itself

All this has come about because Russia thinks it has the right to control the politics of other sovereign states.