The Leaders debate (Scotland)

I watched the leaders debate a couple of days ago on the television. I thought it rather good for showing the flaws in the leaders Ideals rather than defining, or redefining my voting opinion.

Ruth Davidson, perhaps showed her debating skills as stronger than the others but there was in my opinion no outright winner. I wish here to address the Elephant in the room. I am neither quick witted nor particularly intelligent being a writer of only mediocre means yet in an instant I saw the obvious flaw in Nicola's sensible, democratic point of view. It is true democracy that if the Scots people wish independence then we should be independent, there is no fault in her logic there in my opinion. That is the essence of democracy. We also have time periods built into the voting procedure to ensure that public opinion does not shift so quickly that a government has no chance to implement those things that it needs to do for the sake of the people, to improve things, for many; decisions can in the short term be bad but in the long term good.

I could not understand for a second why none of the other parties voiced the obvious question when presented with Nicola Sturgeons immanently sensible idea that if the Scottish public wish independence that it should only be decided by a democratic vote. There is nothing at all wrong with that and despite the fact that I am opposed to separatism from the rest of the United Kingdom she was right. If the majority of the Scot's public wish it, then it should be so, no matter my wishes or thoughts. That is the way a democracy works. It rests on the votes of the majority. (I wish there was a way for democracy to give me what I want to exclusion of all others but there is not).

It pains me to say that "Nicola is right". We are a democratic country and that should never change. Should we, only twenty months after the original vote have another referendum? In my opinion the obvious answer is; no, even if the mood of the people has changed. It takes time to do things, to change things, to make things better. A political landscape is not instant, you do, today, things that may not be felt for years. That is where my thoughts with the other candidates lie, if I could have easily debated her conviction, then the Labour, Conservative and Liberal candidates should have fixed on that argument in seconds. They did not.

If the thought of the Scot's people in May is for independence then they should gain it. If they then change their mind in June by Nicola's distinction then we should rejoin the UK. If loads of Scot's (let's imagine them SNP supporters head off for their holidays in some exotic destination, we remain part of the UK but then their two weeks squandered in the sun and hurting from sunburn they return home and so another referendum, they are home now. "oh this sunburn , it's all the fault of the English" Lets go for independence again.

We could have the Scotland/ UK, Hokey kokey, we spend this year in, this year out, we try for more money and piss it all about. Lets have an annual national referendum. In fact lets have two or three a year, a month or a day. Party time (but lets ignore the liberals that are standing in the corner discussing actually helping people) lets ignore the labour party that wish to help the lower paid and disadvantaged in favour of nationalism. Let's not.