It's interesting that the voting age in Scotland was lowered to 16 for this referendum. That is something to consider. I would imagine it was done for political motives to influence the vote. I mean how many 16 year-olds know what they are doing at that age? I was thinking of William Wallace too. Modern democracy again shows itself to be a great failure. There are those who are fit to rule and those who are not. Only so many have been the former; most have been the latter. Leadership has to still be developed, but it is a gift from God that He gives only to so many, for all authority derives from Him and Him alone. It does not at all come from the people, and the fallibility of the Scottish people in this referendum shows that. That is not to say that the U.K.'s government is not fallible. It is very much indeed being as, you say Matthew, the "devil's left arm". Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not sure what difference independence would have made in the great scheme of things. It's unlikely that Scotland would have enacted its own laws which would be better than ours. I can't see an independent Scotland banning abortion or same sex "marriage", for example. So the vote probably wouldn't have made much difference either way, IMHO, FWIW.

Let us face the truth, MONEY controls the world.

If anybody wanted proof that the money-men run things on earth now, this referendum is proof of that. When the polls showed the yes vote was ahead the people of Scotland were told they would lose the support of sterling and various monetary benefits. This was enough to change the vote to a no.

As regards the under 16s, well it was the opinion that more of these 'inexperienced' voters would vote for a new Scotland without considering the fiscal consequences.
Many of them would have seen BRAVEHEART and voted for Mel Gibson.

This is true, the propaganda of the international fifth column forced the vote its own way.  Firstly they wanted to keep their hands in the billions in oil now found in Scotland. It simply would not do to allow it to benefit primarily the Scots.
And secondly, they in no way can brook ANY expression of a cohesive National spirit.

Nationalism anywhere is the greatest threat to them, wherein it exposes the alien parasite among the people, who are then not as readily controlled.

The Scots will remain subverted to the multi-culturally  "enriched" British Union and will continue to imbibe in its perverse тαℓмυdic institutions.

They have surrendered their natural identity and the heritage of their forefathers once again, to remain as compliant servants.

Ah, one of the time-honored traditions of democracy:  When your side wins, "the people have spoken."  When your side loses, "the people are stupid."

Seriously though, does anyone really think if Scotland had become independent there would have been any substantial change for the better?  An independent Scotland would have joined the EU and NATO, so it wouldn't really be independent, and they likely would continue to have an open border with England to the south.  Moreover, they either would have joined the Euro and been controlled monetarily from Brussels and Berlin, or they would have kept the Pound and continued to be controlled monetarily from London.  Sure, some tax money would get moved around a bit, oil revenues would go to place X instead of Y, and some titles would change, but that's pretty much it.  An independent Scotland would have remained a modern, secular, apostate democracy.  The SNP (which is nothing more than the Labour Party wrapped up with Scottish Nationalism) would have controlled the government for the foreseeable future, and taken things ever-more leftwards.

Rigged.

Quote from: Matthew

They had a chance to be independent of the devil's left arm (the right arm being the United States), and they turned it down.

William Wallace must be turning over in his grave.

All the Scottish people had to do was VOTE and they could have had their own country!

Just goes to show you how widespread stupidity is, as well as how powerful the media and propaganda are.

I was going to post the same thing!  Useless sods, the lot of them.  I say the next referendum should be by the English people on whether to keep the wankers in the union or kick them out to go sponge off of Germany.

Edited to add:  I was a bit surprised, I thought the vote would have been much closer than 55/45

As if voting is a true reflection of the electoral body in Scotland - they always manage to rig it while letting everyone think the people actually have a choice.

Let us face the truth, MONEY controls the world.

If anybody wanted proof that the money-men run things on earth now, this referendum is proof of that. When the polls showed the yes vote was ahead the people of Scotland were told they would lose the support of sterling and various monetary benefits. This was enough to change the vote to a no.

As regards the under 16s, well it was the opinion that more of these 'inexperienced' voters would vote for a new Scotland without considering the fiscal consequences.
Many of them would have seen BRAVEHEART and voted for Mel Gibson.

I like this answer better. I am sure that if money was not involved then the Scotts would want their independence. To be honest, they should have their independence. Every country should have sovereignty. Probably even Israel. That way we have a place to send all the Jєωs.

So, Scotland for the Scotts.

Israel for the Jєωs.

Europe for Europeans.

etc. etc. etc.

I am part scotch by the way. I am not stupid. My grandfather was part scottish and a freemason. I kinda think my dad could be a freemason too. I also think my great uncle, on my mother's side, is a freemason.

But I honestly don't have anything to do with that stuff. And I oppose One World Government.

I met a freemason once who was opposed to the concept of having a One World Government. So I don't think all freemasons necessarily do.