Royal Wedding - Can't Wait....

[AndyP & Lenore]

....to do something... ANYTHING other than watch this on TV on Friday.:ragin:

I think I may just visit the dentist for multiple extractions.:thumbs up: Would be more fun and actually have a longer lasting result.:hand:

A. :D

[Gismo]

Thankfully i'll be in transit home and will miss it all :lol:

[Scottie]

While I wouldn't camp out to see the wedding I have sky + set up so I can watch the bits I want to when I get home. Guess I am just old fashioned and like the Royals. Wills and Kate but Harry is my fav and Queen.

[Big Gordy]

I'm off to Kinlochleven on Friday to watch the Pre65 trials bikes before the Six Day Trial kicks off next week :smilewinkgrin:

[The Dogfather]

Grateful for the day off but otherwise I have no interest in what that family does, I think we'd be better off without a monarchy.

[N16SHP]

I think we'd be better off without a monarchy.

I have to disagree with you I'm afraid. I for one don't care for the monarchy, however they generate money for this country in tourism and especially with this wedding, I cannot remember the sums of money that is reportedly being brought to this country because of the wedding, but it's fairly impressive. As I said though, I'm still not a fan of the monarchy, and wouldn't care if they were not there anymore.

[The Dogfather]

I have to disagree with you I'm afraid. I for one don't care for the monarchy, however they generate money for this country in tourism and especially with this wedding, I cannot remember the sums of money that is being brought to this country because of the wedding, but it's fairly impressive. As I said though, I'm still not a fan of the monarchy, and wouldn't care if they were not there anymore.

Does China have a Monarchy? How many people travel to see the Great Wall each year?

Is there a Scottish Royal Family? Yet, how many people visit Edinburgh Castle?

How much will be spent on policing and hosting etc. for this event compared with the incremental revenue?

There are a lot of holes in the 'tourism' argument.

[GCA3N]

Very strange when a Scot is arguing for the royal family against an Englishman. I have to say I with Neil on this one I am not a royalist but they are important and do generate massive amounts of revenue. There are unfortunately alot of hanger ons so to speak, but I have the upmost respect for the queen .

sent from my Sony Ericsson arc.

[baptie]

if it was happening out the back door I would draw the curtains!
Not interested one bit!

Its great to hear the numbers flooding down to catch a glimps of the action.

The pare lassie won't be able to blink without a camera flash hitting her!

[ianking]

Im not against it but Ive got a Honda to spend all day machine polishing so I wont be watching it.

[Big Gordy]

I heard last night that the whole shabang is going to be in the region of £10 million:thud:
Kates family are helping out to the tune of £100,000 :rolleyes:

[dellie]

I'll be spending the day travelling to Stavanger to see my husband - what a shame i will miss it!!

[The Dogfather]

but they are important and do generate massive amounts of revenue.

How? Everyone claims that, but no one and I mean no one can provide any evidence of increased tourism spend which can be directly attributed to the Royal Family.

I'm happy for people to say that they like having the Queen as the head of state, as that's their personal preference and we are after all a democracy (despite the near feudal system we live under). However, I do take exception to the tourism arguement, its a crock o' XXXX, pure and simple.

[AndyP & Lenore]

As is pretty clear from my first post, I don't much care for the Royals or this wedding. However, Paul you say no-one can provide any evidence proving how much tourism they bring into the country, using your own argument, can you prove they don't bring any money into the country. 'Cos until then I dont see how you can say the tourism argument is a crock of XXXX.

Just sayin':idunno:

A.

[N16SHP]

How? Everyone claims that, but no one and I mean no one can provide any evidence of increased tourism spend which can be directly attributed to the Royal Family.

I'm happy for people to say that they like having the Queen as the head of state, as that's their personal preference and we are after all a democracy (despite the near feudal system we live under). However, I do take exception to the tourism arguement, its a crock o' XXXX, pure and simple.

My main point Paul was not about the monarchy being the sole reason for tourism in this country, but without them we'd see less tourists in London and England, and less money for this country. The other side of my point was the amount of people who are coming to London (1.2m) is forecast, so think about how much money they will spend. It's estimated they will spend nearly £55m in this country when they are here. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that as boring and non appealing to some of us (myself included) as it is, it's still good for this country, and is bringing an extra boom in spending. You do want this country to get back on it's feet right? Or are you happy to sit back and moan like everyone else that this country is a joke? Like it or loathe it, this wedding is producing revenue for this country...fact. And if you still don't believe me, why don't you ask some of the people from around the world who are already camping out around Buckingham Palace and Westminister a day before it even starts, why they are here and what they are spending their money on.

[Burple]

I can safely say I've never been so glad to be stuck at work all day! :laugh::laugh:

At least it should be quiet ;):thumbs up::cool:

[N16SHP]

I can safely say I've never been so glad to be stuck at work all day! :laugh::laugh:

At least it should be quiet ;):thumbs up::cool:

I'm the same. Looking forward to having my feet up all day.

[Gismo]

is bringing an extra boom in spendingDare i even suggest that typical rip off Britain will increase their prices for everything as compensation for those dumb enough to buy the tat in the first place

[N16SHP]

Dare i even suggest that typical rip off Britain will increase their prices for everything as compensation for those dumb enough to buy the tat in the first place

Probably. Even driving to Uni I was thinking about it. The amount of folk I know who are planning on having BBQ's and parties just because they are off etc and seems the weather is nice, so think of the amount of money generated from the increase in alcohols sales etc. But then again any gains from extra spending will be flushed down the pan after hearing that the cost of two unnecessary aircraft carriers could rise to £6bn:thud: (apologies, slightly off topic that last part)

[The Dogfather]

As is pretty clear from my first post, I don't much care for the Royals or this wedding. However, Paul you say no-one can provide any evidence proving how much tourism they bring into the country, using your own argument, can you prove they don't bring any money into the country. 'Cos until then I dont see how you can say the tourism argument is a crock of XXXX.

Just sayin':idunno:

A.

Andy, the Monarchy costs £50m per annum, fact!

I'm saying that cutting them will save the UK enough money to fund the building of 5 major schools every year. That's my arguement, I don't need to prove the 'no extra money from tourism' my business case is the £50m saving. I probably could have worded my earlier post a little better, it was v. early in the morning though

[ELFMAN]

cutting them will save the UK enough money to fund the building of 5 major schools every year.

Wouldn't they run out of space and kids for all the schools though...?

Seriously though, I really swither about the 'Royal Vs Republic' dilemma. Sometimes I think it would be a great idea to sweep the slate/state clean and not have this nonsensical forced hierarchy of mainly chinless wonders where we're allegedly in some way 'inferior' to those who through no more than an accident of birth (and they've had a good few of those) happen to inhabit the rarified atmosphere of palace and carriage.

BUT... (and like Nellie the Elephant, it's a BIG but)

There is a part of me, being interested in the Historical context - who are we and how did we get here - that wonders what things would be/have been like without the Monarchy. Did (and does) that structure add a certain strength of character to our "United Kingdom"? Is it such an integral historical part of the British 'psyche' that removing it would diminsh the way we (and others) perceive our country and ourselves? For instance during the darkest days of WW2, the country (and I'm talking GB here) DID gain strength and hope from the Royal Family, in the 60's, without the 'stuffy' Establishment, the 'revolutionary' music and ideas would have been largely pointless, having nothing to rail against. I was 14 in 1977 when the Pistols released "God Save The Queen", I loved it - brilliant and genuinely shocking, but it would've meant nothing and Punk wouldn't have happened without the country being the way it was/is. Didn't actually change as much as we thought it would in the long run though. In the 80's, we had tremendous upheaval thanks to the selfish and dogmatic social engineering of Thatcher and her cronies. It seemed that for a time, we were heading for meltdown and Revolution - and maybe we needed one, but it didn't happen - and who knows how that would've turned out? It could be argued that the Monarchy, which could be seen as much as a 'cultural idea' as a physical entity, could be seen as a 'constant' which has provided, if nothing else, a yardstick, an air of come-whatever continuity as a background to the many tumultuous and life-changing events which our country has gone through in he last few centuries. Good thing? Bad thing....? You decide.

I do believe that Britain's Tourist Industry would suffer without the Royal Family and all the hoo-ha and rather mad pageantry which goes along with it. The vast majority of foreign tourists LOVE all that stuff - the history, the castles - whether we like it or not, it's the context in which Britain is still seen by most foreign visitors and it's why (along with the scenery and the great colourful processions of speeding MINIs) most of them initially want to come here. They'll hopefully discover there's a whole lot more on offer (and to spend money on) when they get here, but we've got to get them here first, and the overall 'accepted image' of Britain in which the Monarchy plays its part, is an important 'attraction'.

I suppose I'm neither 'Royalist' or 'Republican', a very proud Scot, but still not convinced by 'Nationalism'. Overall, despite its horrendous social faults and fiscal disasters, I'm still pretty proud of our 'United Kingdom' in all its glorious diversity, and I don't think it would be as 'interesting' or necessarily greatly improved if we were to consign the Monarchy to the nearest skip. We might actually lose a lot more than we bargained for if we did.

Late lunch break over - must go and pick the skelves out from sitting on the fence...

[stoney]

Dare i even suggest that typical rip off Britain will increase their prices for everything as compensation for those dumb enough to buy the tat in the first place

i know some London hotels have doubbled there room prices for the weekend :sad:

i will miss it all as will be sleeping cos out at work at 01:30 so wont get to bed till 05:00 at best what a shame :lol: NOT

think its a load of crud TBH wish then all the best and hope they are happy but am fed up with it beeing every where you go can not wait till its all over

[AndyP & Lenore]

Ordered myself a bunch of these (http://www.lydialeith.com/) to help tomorrow.:smilewinkgrin:

A.:D

[Scottie]

well I'm sure the politician cost us a few bob in the year what with expenses and stuff.

Am I the only one with a sence of pride in our Queen . Imagine having a Obama as head of state or Cameron what is there to respect about these guys or their country The Queen works very hard as well as carrying out important work in the areas of public and charitable service and now at the age of 85 you have to give her repect.

[Crombers]

'Paul the Dogfather' for Head of the Republic of Scotland :thumbs up:

Oh & em I'm one of the 'fortunates' that'll be working tomorrow 'phew', will be playing the Pistols to celebrate mind (pogo smiley) :hand:

[The Dogfather]

well I'm sure the politician cost us a few bob in the year what with expenses and stuff.

Am I the only one with a sence of pride in our Queen . Imagine having a Obama as head of state or Cameron what is there to respect about these guys or their country The Queen works very hard as well as carrying out important work in the areas of public and charitable service and now at the age of 85 you have to give her repect.

Fi, I have every respect for the Queen. However, for me the time for a Monarchy is over, I don't particularly want any 'head of state' other than the elected prime minister.

You can also get rid of the House of Lords, reduce the number of MPs and councillors as well whilst you're at it.

I'd make Scotland and Wales poop or get off the toilet as far as independence is concerned, there's enough feckwits in Westminister without doubling them up north and west of the border. Oh and don't get me started on MEPs, useless bunch of money grabbing £@$$%ers.

There's too many MPs, MSPs and MEPs who do bugger all and are just in it to line their pockets or are in love with their own reflection and sound of their own voice.

[weefossy]

Is there another wedding this year.......glad I'm only paying for one!!

[Sheilz]

I share my office with an English lass however for as well as we get on every other working today, tomorrow we are 'enemies'. The banter will be good if not a bit fierce however it will be interesting to see if Clarkson from my half of the office can drown out the guff in her half. Yeuch!
I don't think there is any room for monarchy in a modern society, our kind that is rather than for example of the Danish kind which is genuinely self-funded. I would prefer our society to operate as a meritocracy rather than by accident of birth. A pedant could of course argue the former is a also of the latter, however that's a different arguement. I always remember when Edward was going up to Cambridge with one C and a D in his A levels while a youngster from Aberdeen was refused a place because despite her 5As and As in her 6th year studies, was deemed socially unacceptable to be accepted to study medicine. The English royal family is a relic from medieval times and its about time it was disbanded. Anyone who seriously thinks tourists will stop visiting sites of historical interest in London has to be deluding themselves. You really only need to consider the numbers that visit the castles of Scotland to realise that is a myth cleverly deployed to justify their retention. These people are at the top of the tree of benefit recipients and have lived off the backs of ordinary working people for too long. Most of their wealth has been stolen from the general population.
while Euan identifies the sense of community in WW2 to justify the 'UK' - I'm sorry but that is being selective with historical information, picking six year out of at least 1100 years of known history to justify a viewpoint. I see nothing to be proud of in the UK or in being British. Quite the contrary in fact. 'Britain' is a synonym for theft, exploitation and oppression of other nations. I have nothing against our nearest neighbours, nothing of course apart from several hundred years of oppression, though to be fair we did a fair amount of pillaging ourselves in the northern counties, and would like to see nothing better than them gaining thier independence from Scotland. Now that would really be something to celebrate across the whole island.

[N16SHP]

I'd make Scotland and Wales poop or get off the toilet as far as independence is concerned,



This is not in reflection of the Scottish people, this is purely my opinion, but I'd support independence. We'll happily take our oil and gas industry and stop sharing it around the UK. Obviously it's not quite as simple as that, as in order to survive, we'd have to start charging for our higher education system, but considering our University's are full of 'foreign' (and I include English students in that because they also pay for their education) would it really mean much change? If countries such as Malta who's population is less than that of Edinburgh can survive, I'm sure we can too.

[Sheilz]

This is not in reflection of the Scottish people, this is purely my opinion, but I'd support independence. We'll happily take our oil and gas industry and stop sharing it around the UK. Obviously it's not quite as simple as that, as in order to survive, we'd have to start charging for our higher education system, but considering our University's are full of 'foreign' (and I include English students in that because they also pay for their education) would it really mean much change? If countries such as Malta who's population is less than that of Edinburgh can survive, I'm sure we can too.

And the rest of our industries too. I 'd make it law that any company operating in Scotland has to have some form of HQs based here to account for the wealth created by Scots or those resident in the country. Any business refusing to comply would be penalised by seizing their assets on the principle of Scottish wealth for Scottish people. I'd do the same for those who try to outsource work to the far east - Scottish jobs for Scottish people. Its about time our government had the clout to introduce some kind of protectionist policies just as other nations to do to protect themselves from international predators.
I get fair scunnered when folk bang on about the wealth in the city of London because its actually created elsewhere. As far as the so called wealth created by banking institutions, well that's not real money, that's monopoly money. When their music stops its others who have to pay the bill, ie us the taxpayers.

[ELFMAN]

while Euan identifies the sense of community in WW2 to justify the 'UK' - I'm sorry but that is being selective with historical information, picking six year out of at least 1100 years of known history to justify a viewpoint. I see nothing to be proud of in the UK or in being British. Quite the contrary in fact. 'Britain' is a synonym for theft, exploitation and oppression of other nations. I have nothing against our nearest neighbours, nothing of course apart from several hundred years of oppression

I don't think I was 'justifying the UK' Sheilz, it's not up to me to 'justify' anything, the UK will stand or fall on its own merits or faults. I was trying to show how the Monarchy, for all its inherent faults, was part of what Britain is, and that Britain would be DIFFERENT, and not necessarily BETTER if they weren't there. In this specific instance I was citing an example of something positive achieved in a bad time. I'm not as historically naive as you might assume and I'm very well aware of the 'oppression' we've suffered at the hands of our southern neighbours. I'd also argue that while there is some merit in your argument, this is a rather simplistic Nationalistic viewpoint which has peddled the image of the downtrodden Scots for years, and blames all our woes on those nasty English people. Culloden wasn't that simple either, was it? I have very dear English friends, and consider this blanket 'Anti-English' sentiment to be quite offensive, and arguably verges on racism.

Scotland is a Nation in its own right, but throughout history, we have had to pull together as a 'United Kingdom' in order to survive. You accused me of 'cherrypicking' the six years of WW2 to 'justify' the UK - well if we hadn't been united in those six vital years and events had turned out differently, you and I wouldn't have enjoyed the freedom we did when we were growing up and which we still enjoy today to have wee debates like this. I therefore consider this period to be pivotal, not just in British, but in World history.

Of course Britain has a chequered past, and I'm not making excuses for that, but remember there were a lot of Scots involved in those murky Empire-building days, our hands have blood on them too. Can you actually show me any 'guilt-free' countries who don't have anything to be ashamed of in their past?

I certainly agree that Edward's ascension to the 'Educational Valhalla' that is Cambridge on dodgy grades is totally unfair, but a reason for bringing down the Monarchy? I doubt it. I would argue that any academic institution which deemed anyone with excellent grades 'socially unacceptable to study medicine' would be somewhere I wouldn't really want to attend in the first place. You could take the argument further. What about the disadvantaged pupil who never got the chance to get good grades in the first place? Is it unfair that the student you mentioned maybe had a better chance than them? None of it is fair. You can't rail against a system that you crave to join.

You could say that I'm living in the past by not wanting to bin the Monarchy and embrace a separatist agenda for Scotland, but bitterness and antagonism rooted in 'several hundred years of oppression' gets us nowhere, so who's really living in the past? I'm no right-wing monarchist, very far from it, I don't dislike Alex Salmond, he's probably the best of an admittedly bad bunch, I just don't see him as the new Messiah and I don't think its particularly healthy for Scotland to continue to see itself as a shackled nation hamstrung by an unfair system. With Devolution and the Scottish Parliament coupled to a strong belief in what Scotland is capable of TODAY, surely meaningful gains have been made and much more can still be achived without having full 'Independence' from the United Kingdom? The 'everything would be great if we were on our own' argument is just mince pie (or chips and curry sauce) in the sky.

[Sheilz]

I don't think I was 'justifying the UK' Sheilz, it's not up to me to 'justify' anything, the UK will stand or fall on its own merits or faults. I was trying to show how the Monarchy, for all its inherent faults, was part of what Britain is, and that Britain would be DIFFERENT, and not necessarily BETTER if they weren't there. In this specific instance I was citing an example of something positive achieved in a bad time. I'm not as historically naive as you might assume and I'm very well aware of the 'oppression' we've suffered at the hands of our southern neighbours. I'd also argue that while there is some merit in your argument, this is a rather simplistic Nationalistic viewpoint which has peddled the image of the downtrodden Scots for years, and blames all our woes on those nasty English people. Culloden wasn't that simple either, was it? I have very dear English friends, and consider this blanket 'Anti-English' sentiment to be quite offensive, and arguably verges on racism.

Scotland is a Nation in its own right, but throughout history, we have had to pull together as a 'United Kingdom' in order to survive. You accused me of 'cherrypicking' the six years of WW2 to 'justify' the UK - well if we hadn't been united in those six vital years and events had turned out differently, you and I wouldn't have enjoyed the freedom we did when we were growing up and which we still enjoy today to have wee debates like this. I therefore consider this period to be pivotal, not just in British, but in World history.

Of course Britain has a chequered past, and I'm not making excuses for that, but remember there were a lot of Scots involved in those murky Empire-building days, our hands have blood on them too. Can you actually show me any 'guilt-free' countries who don't have anything to be ashamed of in their past?

I certainly agree that Edward's ascension to the 'Educational Valhalla' that is Cambridge on dodgy grades is totally unfair, but a reason for bringing down the Monarchy? I doubt it. I would argue that any academic institution which deemed anyone with excellent grades 'socially unacceptable to study medicine' would be somewhere I wouldn't really want to attend in the first place. You could take the argument further. What about the disadvantaged pupil who never got the chance to get good grades in the first place? Is it unfair that the student you mentioned maybe had a better chance than them? None of it is fair. You can't rail against a system that you crave to join.

You could say that I'm living in the past by not wanting to bin the Monarchy and embrace a separatist agenda for Scotland, but bitterness and antagonism rooted in 'several hundred years of oppression' gets us nowhere, so who's really living in the past? I'm no right-wing monarchist, very far from it, I don't dislike Alex Salmond, he's probably the best of an admittedly bad bunch, I just don't see him as the new Messiah and I don't think its particularly healthy for Scotland to continue to see itself as a shackled nation hamstrung by an unfair system. With Devolution and the Scottish Parliament coupled to a strong belief in what Scotland is capable of TODAY, surely meaningful gains have been made and much more can still be achived without having full 'Independence' from the United Kingdom? The 'everything would be great if we were on our own' argument is just mince pie (or chips and curry sauce) in the sky.


I hope you are not suggesting that what I wrote was racist, it most certainly was not. I am not anti-English I am anti-British establishment.

[Sheilz]

You miss one very important point on which the whole independence thing is based on. The Scottish economy is run to suit the needs of the south of England, the wealth created in Scotland is soaked up by the south of England after which the south of England complains most bitterly about subsidising Scotland.

And really I do not think that many countires have exploited other nations to the extent that Britain has done in order to create its empire. And its still at it, meddling in other folks business in the pursuit of black gold - Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia.

[Scottie]

well Kate looked stunning today as did her sister. Total in control and she done herself proud. Didn't like what the queen had on though but @ 85 she kinda looked cute. Both boys William and Harry were smart and the fly over was agreat touch.

Two kisses was a bit of a bonus. A special day that was for sure......... two royals that actually love each other and it was obvious for all to see and I wish them all the very best as I am sure we all do.

[ELFMAN]

I hope you are not suggesting that what I wrote was racist, it most certainly was not. I am not anti-English I am anti-British establishment.


"I have nothing against our nearest neighbours, nothing of course apart from several hundred years of oppression"

Sorry, that seemed like a pretty 'Anti-English' statement to me. Who do you consider are your 'oppressors' in 'The British Establishment'? Would these be same ones who are 'exaggerating' the extent of the Recession to fulfil their devious political agenda?

"I do not think that many countires have exploited other nations to the extent that Britain has done in order to create its empire. And its still at it, meddling in other folks business in the pursuit of black gold - Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia."

I wasn't saying that the follies of Empire (I hasten to point out it's an Empire we don't actually have any more because we got our arses kicked out of the vast majority of it, and rightly so) were a positive aspect of our past, and as you know, I was/am opposed to the whole Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya fiasco, involvement in which lessons from history should have prevented, but invasion and exploitation by powerful nations has been repeated from pre-Roman times onwards - guilty parties include France, Spain, Germany, USSR, USA, the Vikings, the Mongols, McDonalds... the list goes on, it doesn't absolve Britain, we're among the worst culprits, but certainly not unique in the extent of our wrongdoing.

"The Scottish economy is run to suit the needs of the south of England, the wealth created in Scotland is soaked up by the south of England after which the south of England complains most bitterly about subsidising Scotland."

So nothing from the 'Scottish Economy' goes to Scotland then? We're just being bled dry for the benefit of the Home Counties. Surely you couldn't argue that Scotland hasn't benefitted economically from the Oil and Gas industries? Aberdeen certainly did. And where did the Royal Bank get the massive bail-out from? A lucky bag? As in all your arguments, there is an element of truth, but making sweeping anti-English (again...) statements like that is just employing hackneyed rhetoric in the place of reasoned debate.

[Mini Ecosse]

well Kate looked stunning today as did her sister. Total in control and she done herself proud. Both boys William and Harry were smart and the fly over was agreat touch.

Two kisses was a bit of a bonus. A special day that was for sure......... two royals that actually love each other and it was obvious for all to see and I wish them all the very best as I am sure we all do.

Confess to watching the highlights on the news and I agree with Fi's comments :thumbs up::thumbs up:

[Gismo]

Confess to watching the highlights on the newsGot all the "important" bits in a 5 min run down, would have saved any "normal" person from being glued to the box all day :Whistle:

[GCA3N]

Well I watched a fair bit and thought it was excellent. I wish them all the best they're going to need it.

[Mon the fish]

Too nice a day to be inside. Went out for a hoon instead

[stoney]

2652

[ELFMAN]

Just wanted to let Sheilz know that I voted SNP last night.... Twice! So hopefully she'll not slap me as hard the next time she sees me!

I think that they're doing a decent job within the present system (ensuring Scotland has a strong voice within the United Kingdom and being very aware of the importance of the Scottish dimension) without full Independence. As I said in my previous statement: "With Devolution and the Scottish Parliament coupled to a strong belief in what Scotland is capable of TODAY, surely meaningful gains have been made and much more can still be acheived without having full 'Independence' from the United Kingdom?".

'New' Labour, in blind pursuit of its leaders' Middle Class power-craving values and the ill-conceived 'War on Terror', has lost connection with most of the beliefs on which the party was founded. As for the the Lib Dems, a party which I supported for a while, as they seemed to be more Left-Wing (in a good way) than Labour, Corporal Clegg has marched them up the garden path - and straight into a stagnant pond. They didn't just shoot themselves in the foot by jumping into bed with the Tories, they blew their legs clean off (which should stop the marching...). Oh, and I'd rather eat live wasps topped with sewage than vote Conservative.

I think the SNP fought the most positive campaign, fronted by Mr. Salmond, who himself was streets ahead of his opponents in both personality and policies/presentation. But I must emphasise that, like me, many people who voted SNP are proud Scots, but not necessarily supporters of separation from the UK. My feeling is that the inevitable (but probably not imminent) Independence Referendum will result in a negative outcome for the SNP. The next couple of years will be interesting to see how a majority SNP Government handles the pressures of the current economic situation's unavoidable repercussions. They seem to have the values, they now have the power, let's hope they use it wisely.