Anybody who wants secession is just bad at economics.
Maybe. But I read that Congress has a lower approval rating than cockroaches. I doubt economics is the only thing they're thinking about. Much like the Scottish case, this 25% is being driven by disdain with Washington politics. And remember, when Salmond got started support for independence was only about 20-25% in Scotland too (maybe a bit higher, I forgot, but it definitely wasn't 50%). So watch out!
Young Wolfgang accepts your challenge.
This reminds me the well known Americanism, "reality has a liberal bias".
I followed the BBC's coverage quite carefully and did not see any bias. What I did see is a lot of ardent highly emotional yes supporters interpret the stream of stories about the campaign as being against yes and therefore the authors must be biased. So let's take a look at your link about this "academic study" that claims to scientifically assess the bias of the BBC:
The study found that, overall, there was a greater total number of ‘No statements’ compared to Yes; a tendency for expert advice against independence to be more common; a tendency for reports to begin and end with statements favouring the No campaign; and a very strong pattern of associating the Yes campaign arguments and evidence with the personal wishes of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Taken together, the coverage was considered to be more favourable for the No campaign.
Well fuck me. The evidence of this bias is that "expert advice against independence was more common"? Seriously? Did this guy even think before writing this so-called academic study? Here's another explanation: maybe expert opinion was against independence because it didn't make much sense?
What about "associating the Yes campaign arguments and evidence with the personal wishes of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond"? The entire independence campaign can be summed up as the personal wish of Alex Salmond. He devoted his entire career to Scottish independence. He led the party that called for it. It has been his project since day one. No surprise that disentangling the arguments and evidence from his personal wishes is so hard, especially because the yes campaign was so lacking in detail and substance.
Last reason to see the BBC as biased, "a greater total number of ‘No statements’ compared to Yes". Well, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The entire yes campaign can be summed up as repeating over and over that everything will be better post-yes because Salmond says so and anyone who disagrees is a scaremonger. That was the entire argument for independence. If you're a journalist there's only so many times you can publish this viewpoint as a story before it stops being news. The arguments against independence on the other hand were complex and multi-faceted. There was the currency union issue of course, but also the question of how the EU would react, whether there'd be border controls, how assets would be split up, whether the oil projections were really accurate and then the steady stream of people either with expertise or in highly placed positions coming out against yes. There was lots to write about, new stories every day.
Given that state of affairs, I don't see how the media could possibly have published more articles that were pro-yes than pro-no simply because the yes side had nothing to say.
Also, the over-65's have the shortest time stake in this. plus have had the trappings of gold plated pensions that the generation behind them cannot look forward to. It's a disgusting state of affairs and as a Scot I am embarrassed for my country.
I'm embarrassed for your country too, partly because of absurd arguments like the ones you just deployed - essentially saying that old people can't use the internet and therefore must be stupid and uninformed. Perhaps you should take the next logical step and argue for their disenfranchisement too.
Why would they renege, other than in some fantasy you've invented? Westminster has already set out the timeline for the new Scotland Bill to be written and presented to Parliament.
What makes you think Parliament will go along with the Prime Minister's promises?
This cat and mouse game will go on indefinitely.
True, but if the police have you, and you refuse to unlock the phone (and Apple says they cannot), I suspect they can get your fingerprint pretty easily.
I believe this is correct.
It would be better than the Beta version I bet.
You mean they will not let a manufacturer open a car lot in their state? Or is it that they will not allow yhem to act as one without a physical presence the state can regulate?
This seems a lot like Uber and Lift were people want every business regulated then are shocked to find they are subject to regulation if they act like a business or that their favorite business is regulated too.
Link to Original Source
No person is "evil". Calling extremists evil is a lazy manipulation designed to stop you thinking about their motivations and grievances. I think we've had quite enough of that.
ISIS engages in rape, torture, beheadings, amputations, crucifixions, live burials, mass executions, and genocide.
Are they simply misguided? They desire to spread their civilization and form of government over all the earth. Is that wrong? Are you being "judgmental"?
ISIS Attacks: “Religious Cleansing and Attempted Genocide”
Horrors Of ISIS: Children Buried Alive, Crucified Corpses
Iraq crisis: Islamic militants 'buried alive Yazidi women and children in attack that killed 500'
It isn't rare for would-be "martyrs" to disapprove of dying when it isn't under their control, and they don't get to take large numbers of people with them to "earn" their spot in paradise.