Scotland to become independent in March 2016 if referendum passes

[RuamRudy]

A typical response from the independence lobby when they don't like the answers to the questions they have asked.

Sorry, but I cannot see where you have answered the question. However I am a reasonable man and willing to be proven wrong. Can you please humour me this one time and point out where you specifically addressed my question of why, if not to lobby against independence, was Cameron in Scotland?

Go on - show me just how wrong I am. I also suggested that you were unable to do so - so prove me wrong there too. Two strikes in one post! Go on!

[transam]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me..........How can a country with a rather small working population go it on their own..?

I mean, keep up the military thing, overseas aid AND the free stuff King Salmond promises. I can't see it.

Please don't come back with the oil thingy. That has a life span....

[StreetCowboy]

How much revenue will the BBC lose when Scottish people no longer have to pay the TV license

I assume if Scotland becomes independent the BBC will be split up, if Scotland wants a none commercial broadcaster then Scotland will have to find the money someway or end up looking at blank screens.

Just another example of how we will all be worse off if the UK is broken apart

SC

[RuamRudy]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me..........How can a country with a rather small working population go it on their own..?

I mean, keep up the military thing, overseas aid AND the free stuff King Salmond promises. I can't see it.

Please don't come back with the oil thingy. That has a life span....

Well, Scotland has a population of 5.3 million people, just a little more than Norway (but I won't mention the oil). We are around 300,000 people short of both Denmark's and Finland's tallies, and about 800,000 more than both Ireland and New Zealand.

Why is Scotland not capable of doing what these countries do, that is, manage their own affairs?

[RuamRudy]

How much revenue will the BBC lose when Scottish people no longer have to pay the TV license

I assume if Scotland becomes independent the BBC will be split up, if Scotland wants a none commercial broadcaster then Scotland will have to find the money someway or end up looking at blank screens.

Just another example of how we will all be worse off if the UK is broken apart

SC

So we keep the union so we can guarantee Eastenders? There are many good reasons to go our own way - and that would definitely be added to the list!

[transam]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me..........How can a country with a rather small working population go it on their own..?

I mean, keep up the military thing, overseas aid AND the free stuff King Salmond promises. I can't see it.

Please don't come back with the oil thingy. That has a life span....

Well, Scotland has a population of 5.3 million people, just a little more than Norway (but I won't mention the oil). We are around 300,000 people short of both Denmark's and Finland's tallies, and about 800,000 more than both Ireland and New Zealand.

Why is Scotland not capable of doing what these countries do, that is, manage their own affairs?

One isn't in the EU AND I believe the countries you mention have horrendous TAX implications to their citizens............

[7by7]

A typical response from the independence lobby when they don't like the answers to the questions they have asked.

Sorry, but I cannot see where you have answered the question. However I am a reasonable man and willing to be proven wrong. Can you please humour me this one time and point out where you specifically addressed my question of why, if not to lobby against independence, was Cameron in Scotland?

Go on - show me just how wrong I am. I also suggested that you were unable to do so - so prove me wrong there too. Two strikes in one post! Go on!

As the man from Wigan once said to me, I am not going to do your research for you.

I have posted many times Cameron's position in the debate; that as an individual he can express his opinion, but as prime Minister he cannot be a spokesperson for the No campaign and so cannot appear in a TV debate such as that demanded by Salmond.

He himself has said that it is not up to the Yes campaign to demand who the No campaign puts up as their spokesperson in any TV debate.

You, yourself, have said that it is not Salmond who should be debating on TV anyway, but Jenkins. Can't have it both ways; the debate, as you say, should be between the leaders of the two campaigns. Not whoever the Yes campaign decide to speak for both sides!

I have also stated that as Prime Minister of the UK, he has the right, nay duty, to regularly visit all parts of the UK. That you don't like it is your problem.

It seems that the independence lobby, certainly that on this forum, have a big problem with anyone who disagrees with them and puts the case for maintaining the union.

One has to wonder why they don't want the Scottish people to hear the antis as well as the pros.

Even when they do acknowledge the disadvantages of independence; they don't come up with reasoned arguments. They simply accuse the No campaign of scaremongering, bullying etc.

In addition, we now have these ridiculous, unfounded accusations of media bias.

It is obvious that they know they are going to lose and are already getting in their excuses!

[7by7]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me..........How can a country with a rather small working population go it on their own..?

I mean, keep up the military thing, overseas aid AND the free stuff King Salmond promises. I can't see it.

Please don't come back with the oil thingy. That has a life span....

Well, Scotland has a population of 5.3 million people, just a little more than Norway (but I won't mention the oil). We are around 300,000 people short of both Denmark's and Finland's tallies, and about 800,000 more than both Ireland and New Zealand.

Why is Scotland not capable of doing what these countries do, that is, manage their own affairs?

But the independence lobby don't want to manage their own affairs in the area that really matters; finance.

They want monetary union with the UK; which means bowing to the UK on all issues of fiscal policy.

Of course, when this is pointed out to them their only response is accusations of scaremongering, bullying etc.

[RuamRudy]

Well, Scotland has a population of 5.3 million people, just a little more than Norway (but I won't mention the oil). We are around 300,000 people short of both Denmark's and Finland's tallies, and about 800,000 more than both Ireland and New Zealand.

Why is Scotland not capable of doing what these countries do, that is, manage their own affairs?

One isn't in the EU AND I believe the countries you mention have horrendous TAX implications to their citizens............

What does being in the EU have to do with it, other than to prove that there are successful small countries both within and out of the EU?

Now far be it from me to call you lazy, but the facts are there if you were so inclined to actually seek them out. And here they are, according to Wikipedia:

Country / Corp Tax / Income tax low / Income tax high / VAT

New Zealand / 28 / 10.5 / 33 / 15

Ireland / 25 / 0 / 41 / 11

Norway / 28 / 0 / 48 / 25

Denmark / 25 / 0 / 52 / 25

Finland / 20 / 6.5 / 51 / 24

And for comparison

UK / 24 / 0 / 45 / 20

So what does that tell you? Not so much really, other than they are all much of a muchness. Horrendous - which ones?

[RuamRudy]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me..........How can a country with a rather small working population go it on their own..?

I mean, keep up the military thing, overseas aid AND the free stuff King Salmond promises. I can't see it.

Please don't come back with the oil thingy. That has a life span....

Well, Scotland has a population of 5.3 million people, just a little more than Norway (but I won't mention the oil). We are around 300,000 people short of both Denmark's and Finland's tallies, and about 800,000 more than both Ireland and New Zealand.

Why is Scotland not capable of doing what these countries do, that is, manage their own affairs?

But the independence lobby don't want to manage their own affairs in the area that really matters; finance.

They want monetary union with the UK; which means bowing to the UK on all issues of fiscal policy.

Of course, when this is pointed out to them their only response is accusations of scaremongering, bullying etc.

Have you not got the message? Project Fear was proven to be counter productive - that is why Gordon is coming in to add some of his special charisma to the shambles that is Better Together, and here you go and spoil it all with your unreasonable levels of bile and bitterness.

Why can you not understand that Scottish Independence is not a rejection of you personally. I am sure you are a nice guy. I am sure that, post the vote, I would still consider you a nice guy. Why do you place so much time and effort trying to pull down something great that your next door neighbour is trying to build?

[7by7]

There was no project fear; merely the union lobby putting their case and showing the many disadvantages Scotland would suffer if it left the union.

Project fear only existed in the minds of the independence lobby; as they had no response to the disadvantages of Scottish independence. No response when many of their claims of the promised land they would lead the Scottish people to were debunked.

I have said many times, but you must have missed it as you seem to have missed many of my posts, that whilst I believe the UK is greater than the sum of it's parts and therefore am a unionist, I am also a democrat.

This is a decision for the Scottish people to make. If the Scottish people do vote for independence, whilst I feel they will have made a big mistake they will have cause to regret later, I will wish them well.

Why you think I would see a yes vote as a personal rejection is beyond me.

[RuamRudy]

There was no project fear; merely the union lobby putting their case and showing the many disadvantages Scotland would suffer if it left the union.

Project fear only existed in the minds of the independence lobby; as they had no response to the disadvantages of Scottish independence. No response when many of their claims of the promised land they would lead the Scottish people to were debunked.

I have said many times, but you must have missed it as you seem to have missed many of my posts, that whilst I believe the UK is greater than the sum of it's parts and therefore am a unionist, I am also a democrat.

This is a decision for the Scottish people to make. If the Scottish people do vote for independence, whilst I feel they will have made a big mistake they will have cause to regret later, I will wish them well.

Why you think I would see a yes vote as a personal rejection is beyond me.

I thought I detected a slight but increasing tinge of vitriol in your posts, but maybe I am just an overly sensitive type.

Thank you for your concern; it is appreciated, of course, but I think unnecessary.

Unfortunately we are living in an era where the dirtiest sort of politics prevails, regardless of the hue of the party. The upshot of this is that he who plays by gentlemanly rules loses, and therefore I don't believe that either side can claim the moral high ground to any great extent.

This morning, a Scottish colleague told me that he will be voting no because he hates Salmond. When I tried to explain that Salmond was not going to be crowned king for life, he dismissed me with a scornful look. He then told me that the only reason Scottish students got free education was because of English subsidies. I explained how this was wrong, but he refused to believe my explanation. He didn't dream up this nonsense - it was carefully and cleverly suggested to him so that, now, he actually believes that we are incapable of being independent.

The Scotland I want is strong and self-assured, not foolhardy but not timid and beaten down by its own self doubt. By being that positive nation, we would be a better neighbour to England - and a strong partner for the future.

[7by7]

The question of tax subsidies to Scotland from England has been done to death earlier in this topic, so I don't see the point of going down that road again.

However, you seem to be dismissing your colleague's opinion because he has fallen for the No argument. May I suggest that you support independence for the same reason; you have fallen for the Yes argument.

In reality, though, both of you have made a decision based upon the information you have received and what parts of that you have chosen to believe or dismiss. That his opinion differs from yours does not make him the gullible fool you seem to be implying he is.

You say that you want Scotland to be a strong partner to England (and presumably Northern Ireland and Wales; the UK is not, as I'm sure you know, just England and Scotland).

Surely, the best and strongest way to maintain and build on that partnership is to keep the union?

Edited May 17, 2014 by 7by7

[nontabury]

Ruam Rudy

In the event of a Yes vote, do you think that Scotland will become hard left as envisaged by Jim Sillers or right of centre along the path of Alex Salmonds, I ask this because from reading reports from both sides, it seems that they are politically opposites.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[StreetCowboy]

The question of tax subsidies to Scotland from England has been done to death earlier in this topic, so I don't see the point of going down that road again.

However, you seem to be dismissing your colleague's opinion because he has fallen for the No argument. May I suggest that you support independence for the same reason; you have fallen for the Yes argument.

In reality, though, both of you have made a decision based upon the information you have received and what parts of that you have chosen to believe or dismiss. That his opinion differs from yours does not make him the gullible fool you seem to be implying he is.

You say that you want Scotland to be a strong partner to England (and presumably Northern Ireland and Wales; the UK is not, as I'm sure you know, just England and Scotland).

Surely, the best and strongest way to maintain and build on that partnership is to keep the union?

A lot of Scots believe that under an independent Scottish government, corruption and privilege will disappear, and we will live in a meritocratic Utopia in a peaceful world of plenty. Personally, I don't share that touching faith, and I cynically expect to see it cruelly betrayed n the years after 2016. When my car is broken, I lift the bonnet and try and fix it, I don't break it up and expect it to work better.

SC

[RuamRudy]

The question of tax subsidies to Scotland from England has been done to death earlier in this topic, so I don't see the point of going down that road again.

However, you seem to be dismissing your colleague's opinion because he has fallen for the No argument. May I suggest that you support independence for the same reason; you have fallen for the Yes argument.

In reality, though, both of you have made a decision based upon the information you have received and what parts of that you have chosen to believe or dismiss. That his opinion differs from yours does not make him the gullible fool you seem to be implying he is.

You say that you want Scotland to be a strong partner to England (and presumably Northern Ireland and Wales; the UK is not, as I'm sure you know, just England and Scotland).

Surely, the best and strongest way to maintain and build on that partnership is to keep the union?

You are right - the myth that Scotland is a subsidy junkie has been debunked ad nauseum.

I would never suggest that he was a fool for believing lies, especially when they have been sown so subtly over a very long time. But we were not discussing philosophical matters. We were discussing facts that can be (and have been) settled numerous times in the past. However, like any nation, most Scots read the headlines and promptly skip to the back pages. The headlines stick and the real facts remain unknown to the wider public.

Your next point makes you seem churlish, and lowers the tone of the whole debate.

And your final point - well, a sizeable number of people feel that Scotland gets a raw deal in the partnership, and that Scottish interests are not represented by Westminster. By withdrawing from that partnership and standing tall as a good neighbour, we feel we would better equipped to put in place the changes our country badly needs.

[RuamRudy]

Ruam Rudy

In the event of a Yes vote, do you think that Scotland will become hard left as envisaged by Jim Sillers or right of centre along the path of Alex Salmonds, I ask this because from reading reports from both sides, it seems that they are politically opposites.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I can just about remember the 1979 referendum and an SNP slogan around that time - Vote for us and we will resign. My expectation is that, upon achieving independence, the SNP in its current form will dissolve and the current members will join or form parties closer to their political convictions.

Like most small countries Scotland would, I expect, end up with a sort of rainbow coalition that would provide a more balanced, and probably less extreme form of government.

[RuamRudy]

The question of tax subsidies to Scotland from England has been done to death earlier in this topic, so I don't see the point of going down that road again.

However, you seem to be dismissing your colleague's opinion because he has fallen for the No argument. May I suggest that you support independence for the same reason; you have fallen for the Yes argument.

In reality, though, both of you have made a decision based upon the information you have received and what parts of that you have chosen to believe or dismiss. That his opinion differs from yours does not make him the gullible fool you seem to be implying he is.

You say that you want Scotland to be a strong partner to England (and presumably Northern Ireland and Wales; the UK is not, as I'm sure you know, just England and Scotland).

Surely, the best and strongest way to maintain and build on that partnership is to keep the union?

A lot of Scots believe that under an independent Scottish government, corruption and privilege will disappear, and we will live in a meritocratic Utopia in a peaceful world of plenty. Personally, I don't share that touching faith, and I cynically expect to see it cruelly betrayed n the years after 2016. When my car is broken, I lift the bonnet and try and fix it, I don't break it up and expect it to work better.

SC

I honestly have seen nothing to suggest that misapprehension was held by anyone. Where do you get this feeling from?

I do believe that the current Westminster government is broken. I am not saying that it is irreparable, but the system is so skewed away from the working man and in the favour of the rich that I do not see an means to correcting things through political channels. Short of revolution in the French or Russian sense of the word, nothing will make a difference to how the UK is governed. Tory, Labour, Lib Dem or UKIP - none of them can be trusted.

Here is an opportunity to break away from that and put in place a government that is not inherently self serving. Of course there are potential pitfalls and challenges, but face facts - your car is never going to be fixed. It is time to scrap it and get a new one.

So you see, from my perspective, this is nothing to do with England and the English. It is just that we are so sick and nauseated by Westminster that, seeing no way to change it, we simply do not want to be part of it any more.

[wigantojapan]

As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.

However, when in 1968 I was able to examine the so-called "books" for the first time, I was shocked to find that the position was exactly the opposite and that Scotland contributed much more to the UK economy than its other partners. This was, of course, before the oil boom.

I realised that the Treasury would wish to keep this a secret, as it might feed nationalistic tendencies north of the border, which at that time were very weak. I took the decision to keep an eye on the situation to see how long it would take for the true facts to emerge, which I felt would only be a short time. However, the Treasury and the Establishment did an excellent job, aided and abetted by the media, to keep the myth about Scotland alive.

Its not for Scotlands benefit that the wish of the no campaign to remain in the UK but for the benefit of the UK only..

.http://scotlandowntwofeet.blogspot.com/2013/07/can-independent-scotland-stand-on-its.html.

Unfortunately the English born ,seldom in Scotland posters here after a life time of been lied to seem to be unable to grasp even the simplest understanding of why the Scots should go it alone and fall back on the financial side,,,which again and again has proven that Scotland props up England and the UK.

look and learn

[wigantojapan]

Like millions of other people, (John Smith) knew that loving your country and at the same time wanting to be part of something bigger does not make you any less Scottish…

That’s right, Prime Minister, and that’s what I think about Scotland in the EU.

However, you have neatly sidestepped the one thing that defines us as a country – and every other country in the world. It’s called independence. Sovereignty. Self-determination. Home rule.

http://derekbateman.co.uk/2014/05/15/tough-love/

[wigantojapan]

of course Cameron has no vote and of course he is not involved in the debate

Embassy cables reveal 34 nations pressured by UK to oppose Scottish independencehttp://yes2014.net/2014/04/27/34-nations-pressured-by-foreign-office-to-oppose-scottish-independence/

[RuamRudy]

of course Cameron has no vote and of course he is not involved in the debate Embassy cables reveal 34 nations pressured by UK to oppose Scottish independencehttp://yes2014.net/2014/04/27/34-nations-pressured-by-foreign-office-to-oppose-scottish-independence/

Anyone who thinks that the referendum is being fought on an even playing field is deluded.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[StreetCowboy]

of course Cameron has no vote and of course he is not involved in the debate Embassy cables reveal 34 nations pressured by UK to oppose Scottish independencehttp://yes2014.net/2014/04/27/34-nations-pressured-by-foreign-office-to-oppose-scottish-independence/

Anyone who thinks that the referendum is being fought on an even playing field is deluded.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I think we are well-known for our sense of injustice and disadvantage. Personally, when it comes to reinforcing stereotypes, I prefer to drink heavily

[RuamRudy]

of course Cameron has no vote and of course he is not involved in the debate Embassy cables reveal 34 nations pressured by UK to oppose Scottish independencehttp://yes2014.net/2014/04/27/34-nations-pressured-by-foreign-office-to-oppose-scottish-independence/

Anyone who thinks that the referendum is being fought on an even playing field is deluded.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I think we are well-known for our sense of injustice and disadvantage. Personally, when it comes to reinforcing stereotypes, I prefer to drink heavily

I think that we are well known for our aspiring towards justice and equality. Maybe I am wrong, but I prefer my fantasy world to yours.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[StreetCowboy]

of course Cameron has no vote and of course he is not involved in the debate Embassy cables reveal 34 nations pressured by UK to oppose Scottish independencehttp://yes2014.net/2014/04/27/34-nations-pressured-by-foreign-office-to-oppose-scottish-independence/

Anyone who thinks that the referendum is being fought on an even playing field is deluded.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I think we are well-known for our sense of injustice and disadvantage. Personally, when it comes to reinforcing stereotypes, I prefer to drink heavily

I think that we are well known for our aspiring towards justice and equality. Maybe I am wrong, but I prefer my fantasy world to yours.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Unfortunately, you are trying to live out your fantasies in the real world...

[RuamRudy]

Anyone who thinks that the referendum is being fought on an even playing field is deluded.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I think we are well-known for our sense of injustice and disadvantage. Personally, when it comes to reinforcing stereotypes, I prefer to drink heavily

I think that we are well known for our aspiring towards justice and equality. Maybe I am wrong, but I prefer my fantasy world to yours.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Unfortunately, you are trying to live out your fantasies in the real world...

As I said in my post to you yesterday, the current reality is a failed system that is deliberately and uncompromisingly skewed to benefit the elites at the expense of the rest of the UK. Whilst it is unfortunate for the majority of the rest of the UK, Scotland has an opportunity to cut itself loose from this powerful parasite and create an administration that works for the benefit of all. So yes, I have a fantasy of a better country in my head. Except, it is something that could be readily achievable, and it is within our grasp.

Sent from my SM-P600 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[7by7]

You (7by7) are right - the myth that Scotland is a subsidy junkie has been debunked ad nauseum.

That is not what I said; and you know it! I thought you were above such childish twisting of words.

I would never suggest that he was a fool for believing lies, especially when they have been sown so subtly over a very long time. But we were not discussing philosophical matters. We were discussing facts that can be (and have been) settled numerous times in the past. However, like any nation, most Scots read the headlines and promptly skip to the back pages. The headlines stick and the real facts remain unknown to the wider public.

Facts; yes. But facts which have been presented in a manner to prove the argument of the side presenting them.

You can produce figures to show that Scotland subsidises England; just as easily as I can produce figures to show the opposite.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Your next point makes you seem churlish, and lowers the tone of the whole debate.

How so? You have dismissed his opinion. He reached that opinion based upon information he has received; exactly as you have done. Why is his opinion any less valid than yours?

And your final point - well, a sizeable number of people feel that Scotland gets a raw deal in the partnership, and that Scottish interests are not represented by Westminster. By withdrawing from that partnership and standing tall as a good neighbour, we feel we would better equipped to put in place the changes our country badly needs.

Fine, if you feel you have had a raw deal (despite the massive subsidies to bail out Scottish banks, despite the closure of naval dockyards in England to give the work to Scottish yards, etc., etc.; see much earlier in this topic) that is your opinion.

But don't give us this twaddle about wanting a divorce but still wanting to be partners in everything that matters.

It's the old SNP line of "We want all the advantages of independence; but none of the disadvantages. We want to make our own decisions, but want the remainder of the UK to be there to bail us out when it all comes falling down."

[7by7]

As a civil servant in London, and being part of the establishment, I always accepted the general view that an independent Scotland would not be able to survive on its own without financial help from the London Exchequer.................http://scotlandowntwofeet.blogspot.com/2013/07/can-independent-scotland-stand-on-its.html.

You've posted this before; more than once if memory serves.

Each time it has been debunked.

Repeating propaganda which has previously been debunked does not somehow make it valid this time!

[7by7]

Like millions of other people, (John Smith) knew that loving your country and at the same time wanting to be part of something bigger does not make you any less Scottish…

That’s right, Prime Minister, and that’s what I think about Scotland in the EU.

However, you have neatly sidestepped the one thing that defines us as a country – and every other country in the world. It’s called independence. Sovereignty. Self-determination. Home rule.

http://derekbateman.co.uk/2014/05/15/tough-love/

The author seems to be saying that being part of the EU means Scotland wont lose any independence. Shome mishtake, shurely, as Private Eye would say!

From later on in that article

As your own legal advice explains, the British view of Scotland is that it was merged into greater England/Britain 300 years ago and in terms of international law, it literally does not exist. If I said that of England – that there is no England to belong to, it was taken over by Britain and has no separate legal identity of its own, would you agree?

Yes, I would agree; as would any one with the slightest understanding of international law etc.

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are not separate nations. We are all part of one nation; the United Kingdom.

There is no such thing as an English passport, Wales is not a member of the United Nations, Northern Ireland has no embassies abroad, Scotland is not a member of the EU.

We may be recognised, for some reason, as separate countries by the ICC, IRB, FIFA, the Commonwealth Games and some other sporting bodies; but that's it.

I am proud to be English. I'll be flying my cross of St. George come the world cup later this year. I sing Jerusalem with the best of them.

But that is an emotional tie, ethnic if you like.

As far as every other country is concerned, I am a national of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; British for short.

A nation greater than the sum of it's parts. A nation which would be diminished if any of it's constituents were to leave; but the leaving constituent, in this case Scotland, has, I believe for reasons stated ad nauseam, more to lose were it to leave than the remainder of the UK has.

[7by7]

of course Cameron has no vote and of course he is not involved in the debate

Embassy cables reveal 34 nations pressured by UK to oppose Scottish independencehttp://yes2014.net/2014/04/27/34-nations-pressured-by-foreign-office-to-oppose-scottish-independence/

Yet again; digging up reports from several months ago; no idea why.

Neither Yes Scotland nor their source, the Herald, have produced any of these alleged cables.

All the links in the Herald articles merely take one to yet another Herald allegation.

No evidence at all; merely allegations.

Can you not find current news and articles to entertain us with?

Edited May 18, 2014 by 7by7