The purpose of the BROADCAST regulator derives, historically, from the limited number of channels available on TV, so it was argued that there was a public interest in controlling who put what on the air. The internet is surely more like the press, where there are no such limitations, so there is no justification for regulation. That the broadcast regulator is trying to butt into internet activities does seem like mission creep - always popular with the regulators as generating more jobs for their people, and with politicians who gain some leverage over the media. NOT good for freedom of speech however...

Expropriation is the theft of a company by the state with no compensation - or as a result of a court order in connection with something else. Nationalisation is the state taking ownership but paying the owners a fair price for the assets. There is obviously a spectrum here; many Asian owned businesses in East Africa in the 60s and 70s were 'nationalised', but the price was paid in government bonds in an non-convertible currency that promptly inflated to zero value.

In the Western context, the process of nationalisation is essentially the same as compulsory purchase of land with a similar expectation of fair value paid. To do otherwise does constitute the state stealing the asset, and would probably constitute a post facto law; this, of course is why we have constitutions...

In extremis. Of course you are right that laws change all the time, but at some level the constitutional principle has some significance. Certainly whole scale expropriation without compensation of things owned by corporations would be illegitimate. The issue is where to draw the line; the challenge is to resist being totally dogmatic in both directions!

Because people have the right, under law, to create corporations and benefit from them, they inherit much the same right to act in the interest of those people as those people have. [Yes, this has probably been over-extended in the Supreme Court case that lets them do political donations to their hearts' content]. However the core idea in the organisation of a society is that laws lock in rights and expectations; if I set up an organisation with certain rights, then I have to right to expect to see those right protected.

Specifically if I invest money in a corporation with certain rights, I have the right to expect to see those rights not tampered with. What you are proposed is to overthrow that principle - technically this constitutes a breach of the constraint on the Congress not to pass a 'post facto' law - see section 9 of the US constitution, Whilst you may regret this situation, to assert that the situation can be reversed is not legitimate.

It may be argued to have a moral duty to pay them, but 'owe' implies a legal obligation. The reality is that corporate lobbyists have created some loop holes that the corporations are legally using to avoid paying what they don't have to pay. However unless you forgo ALL the tax claw backs you are eligible for, it is questionable if you have a right to criticise Google.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Doesn't mainly focus on a fence - though that would be necessary - but on depriving Scots without rUK citizenship of the rights of rUK citizens to live and work in the rUK.

And yes, I have no doubt that Scotland will be excluded from the EU for a period unless it rolls over and plays dead on a lot of issues, the Euro, abandoning Maggie's rebate and any control on Spanish fishing boats being some of them.

The new Doctor Who is causing Americans problems because of his Scottish accent...

Look at a map. The roads north out of England only exist to provide transport to and from Scotland. The question is whether the English will bother to maintain them once there's no union; we get relatively little benefit from them, since Scotland is a relatively small market for us. For Scotland it's a big issue. It's therefore entirely reasonable for us to look for a contribution from Scotland for the maintenance of those roads, whether as a toll or explicitly.

"There are and will continue to be plenty of banks in Scotland."

In order for banks to lend, they must have deposits. Given the risk of holding money north of the border, a 'Yes' vote will generate a stampede of cash south on Friday. There may be banks, but they won't have any money to lend

"There is and will continue to be freedom of movement".

Really? If Scotland has left the EU, then it will be necessary to impose border controls

"There is and will continue to be access to European markets."

Only if you get to renegotiate membership of the EU. Good luck with that until you've agreed to pay your share of the UK's debts, and then only if you are nice to the Spanish

"Scotland has and will continue to use The Pound, and there is nothing the UK government will be able to do to stop them."

Sterlingisation will result in substantially higher interest rates for all bank loans as the risk of holding money in a country without a lender of last resort is significant.

"Prices are will remain competitive; arbitrage and competitive pressures will prevent large price rises."

This, at least, is accurate because you admit there will be price rises. If you are very lucky there won't be a toll on the M6 north of Carlise and the A1 north of Berwick, but it would certainly be rational for us to impose one to pay for the cost of maintaining roads to enable good to travel to and from Scotland.

"Russia will NOT invade Scotland... FFS! Why do I have to comment on this kind of purile shit?"

Given Putin's ambition and Scotland's oil, an attempt seems like an entertaining prospect. Not a visible invasion at first of course; Scottish socialists would start rioting as a result of the economic chaos following Scotland's ejection from the EU and then invite Russian peacekeepers to restore order. A referendum would be organised for Scotland to join the Russian Federation.

Of course that's not likely - but the idea that Scotland should become freeloaders like many other European countries, dependent on Uncle Sam to protect them from a bear that is demonstrably on the prowl is disappointing.

Naw - there was a bill before Parliament that disappeared when war started, but no vote, unless you can provide me with evidence to the contrary

"If the remaining UK screws over Scotland out of regret for allowing independence, then it would hurt the UK just as much as it would Scotland." Certainly not. Scotland is a small country whose screwing over would barely effect rUK, but who could bring the Scots to total chaos in days. We merely want to ensure that they pay their debts; they are the ones who raised the prospect of using that as a threat - we need to ensure that they don't even think about it.

1) Statement of fact: Norway is not in the EU 2) Scotland will not be independent on 19th September, it will have voted to seek independence. It will have no control of its taxation, until that is agreed. It would be logical for the rUK government to inform Alex Salmond on 19th that at an imminent date the cash from UK wide taxation will cease to be paid to the Scottish government that keeps it going until it agrees to accept its debt. 1st January 2015 or the start of the new fiscal year spring to mind. 3) Until full independence, all state power will remain in the hands of the UK government

In an ideal world, human beings could be motivated by appeals to great ideals. Some people are: I have to admire the 'red martyrs' of communism who accept death for their beliefs with no hope of resurrection, unlike the 'black martyrs' of the Church. However in reality most people will rapidly drift back to being selfish. Therefore the prospect of eternal reward and punishment provide an external goad that, within the religious worldview, is a reality that will encourage people to stay on the strait and narrow. Of course it may not be true - but if it is, it is a reality for the believers.

Atheism offers no such goad. It has to construct a vision for the future, and depend on politicians to evangelise for it. This has not gone well...