Seil Chat

......got to block the wishes of the younger majority? ( Sorry Jim, I've been dredging again)
It would be interesting if Jim could explain why the over 60's think they have the right to stand in the way of the wishes of the generations that will succeed them? Particularly when natural attrition will bring independence sooner or later anyway.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/sc ... 74406.html

Bill - You're at it again. Drumming up support for your cause from whatever source you can find it.
I personally, are not responsible for the defeat of the independence referendum. Although as you will probably be aware I did cast my vote in the NO camp - I was not alone, and fortunately for me, and unfortunately for you, I was in the majority.
Now the current stuff you have put on the website suggests that we oldies have been the only reason that the upcoming generation were denied a victory.
Consider this - I do not know if you have children, personally I had a couple, but my experience of being a child and also a parent has taught me that over the years of my maturity, I have developed a sense of the broader picture and not just the gut feeling of adolescence, that I know best.
Could it be that the older generation might be just a little bit wiser and a little less headstrong than those of more tender years?
This searching around for reasons that YES did not prevail will probably continue until you get another bite at the cherry, and the only apparent reason for this continuation is to boost the morale of those disaffected. I hope that your morale is boosted by your efforts.

Sorry Jim, I wasn't blaming you or any other proud holder of the bus pass, I also have one. ( I also have 2 Kids, 'Kids?' they're both in their thirties, time does fly ).

I just thought it was ironic that our generation appears to have blocked the wishes of the generation who would benefit - or otherwise- from independence, I happen to believe that they would make a great success of it and not waste the opportunities independence would present.

Bill, There is an assumption there that the younger the voting age the greater the percentage of YES potential. Now you may be correct on this assumption - certainly A . Salmond reckoned it would help his cause when he succeeded in lowering the voting age to 16, but the supposition that the younger you are the better chance you have of running the country is a bit suspect.
While I would categorise the elderly as being cautionary, the young are rash, and neither are the qualities needed to run a country. If you are reliant on a future younger generation swinging a YES vote in your favour, this might prove difficult as medical science is keeping the older generation alive beyond their allotted span (myself included). and an economic falling birth rate will not redress the balance.
Perhaps among all these statistics that are being bandied about it would be very interesting to know the actual percentage for each age group who take the trouble to vote - this might give an indication on which age group to target with exhortations to put a voting slip in the ballot box - provided that they were sympathetic to your cause.
It's a can of worms, but it makes for interesting reading on these pages, for those who need a diversion from the daily routine, or need a political "fix" to make the day seem a bit brighter.

jimcee wrote:categorise the elderly as being cautionary, the young are rash, and neither are the qualities needed to run a country........................................................... medical science is keeping the older generation alive beyond their allotted span (myself included). and an economic falling birth rate will not redress the balance.

Leaving Independence aside for the moment.

The young are rash but we aren't allowing the 16-18 yr olds to vote, even although it's their future that's up for grabs and they're in full control of their cognitive faculties.

The elderly are cautious but a significant unfortunate percentage have become 'doolally' but they are allowed to continue to vote.

If you are correct and medical progress is extending lifespan but by default increasing the prevalence of dementia we may have a problem.

Should we remove the franchise with the issue of a pension book for example or God forbid the Bus Pass?...... or is all this a bit too '1984'

Although if I was a young-un, the calibre of those deciding my future may well worry me.

Oops, sorry this wasn't about independence!

.
Time for Carousel, Bill?

I'd better go for a 'run' then. Oh! Sh!t, is that a Sandman?.......................*!/?#{$£%........(terminated)

Bill. So it was all those aged "doolally" pensioners that robbed you of your goal?
Hereabouts, I am surprised at the alertness of some of our senior citizens, and my marbles all still seem to be intact - but I have a bit to go on these stakes.
I am glad that the current postings have taken a slightly less acerbic tone, although our administrator tends to make obscure references which I find difficult to comprehend (Carousel?) but maybe that is age finding it difficult to keep up with all the current buzz words.
Anyway, it does make a pleasant change from character assassination.

jimcee wrote: although our administrator tends to make obscure references which I find difficult to comprehend (Carousel?) but maybe that is age finding it difficult to keep up with all the current buzz words.

It was a reference to the 1970's film Logans' Run, starring Jenny Agutter..and err....some blokes,

OK Bill - a reference to some private joke between yourselves - but completely lost on all and sundry.
At the expense of seeming like an old sourpuss, carping on about perceived deficiencies in these pages, surely any asides between posters should be transparent for all to appreciate.
Another erstwhile contributor to this site, D.Campbell was also prone to making references to films that were not common knowledge, and although I have this threat of being a troll (it sounds like a Scandinavian hamster) hanging over me, and this has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, I feel that it is worth mentioning.

jimcee wrote:OK Bill - a reference to some private joke between yourselves - but completely lost on all and sundry.
At the expense of seeming like an old sourpuss, carping on about perceived deficiencies in these pages, surely any asides between posters should be transparent for all to appreciate.

Hardly a 'private joke' - Logan's Run is a very well-known film, dealing with the subject of age-based euthanasia in a futuristic version of Earth.

Your assumption that something is obscure because you haven't heard of it could be considered a tad egocentric by some.

Although the perception that "Logan's run" by our administrator may be considered to be a well known film, I don't think that I am the only one who said to myself " What has "Carousel" (actually in the Wikipedia it was listed as Carrousel) got to do with the subject?" I did take the trouble to research the subject on Wikipedia and after trawling through the information, got a fair idea of what NB was referring to.
But apart from B mcD, I would be very surprised if any other reader of these remarks had the slightest inkling on what he was on about.
I stand here again to be corrected - did anyone else out there in cyberspace connect with this oblique reference?
Again, NB this is not a personal attack - just a hope that I might be able to share the joke on these pages.

I got it!

I remember seeing the fim on telly as a young adolescent! It had a profound effect on me

Worth a watch Jim!

OK - I stand corrected. There were 3 contributors to this thread, with long memories about films who understood the oblique reference.
With SJ's glowing reference to the film , I shall make a point of watching it, should it ever come my way.
There was one other thing about the exchange that puzzled me - in Bill McD's reply he mentioned Jenny Agutter? .....and some blokes - this seemed to me to suggest that he might have played some part in the film, but was too modest to mention it. I searched the Wikipedia cast list but there were no Mc Dickens in it. Could it be that he had a stage name, or was just an extra? Although not about to lose any sleep over the quandary, it is intriguing.

jimcee wrote:this seemed to me to suggest that he might have played some part in the film, but was too modest to mention it.

Alas no, I was referring to some aspects of Ms Agutters' performance that rendered it extremely memorable and had, as Stevie pointed out, a profound impact on a whole generation of spotty young men.
This (possibly) reduced the visual impact of her male co-stars somewhat.
Anyway, what has all this got to do with Scottish Politics and the BabyBoomers?

Absolutely nothing.
But in the cut and thrust of political debate, occasionally someone makes a statement, possibly suspect, but in this case intriguing in it's implications. So in the interests of public helpfulness, I thought it worthy of mention in case others were sharing my quandary.
I do not wish to prolong the agony of prolonging an off topic subject, but it would appear that Steve J, was moved by the film, and Bill was so obsessed with Ms Agutter's performance that he was oblivious of anyone else taking part. This redoubles my intention of viewing -should it come my way.
And Bill- maybe an aside or two might put an element of levity into the proceedings which can sometimes be a bit heavy.

jimcee wrote:This redoubles my intention of viewing .

Do. Because joking aside, 'Logans' Run' painted an very unpleasant if stylised vision of the future and is well worth looking out for.

So there you are - you do get some tips on these pages which are of a non-political nature through an ostensible political site - and all because NB made an oblique comment (way back).
Here, I am just throwing out a thought which may have some validity worth considering, but which may be shouted down by others of a more rigid mentality, but it might be in the interests of longevity (and interest) to let a subject diversify into wherever branches it might take, without being bogged down with "off topic".