-TSS-

It seems to me that Obama has allowed his personal feelings get the better of him, which is understandable for an average citizen but inexcusable for the President of the United States.

Obama says "It could have been me 35 years ago". Interesting! The President can picture himself as a youngster banging a white guy's head against the pavement.

Why is Obama himself stirring the pot by making statements like: "If I had a son he would look just like Trayvon" or "Trayvon was just like I was 35 years ago". He isn't really helping things by making such statements. On the contrary. It would be in everyone's best interests to let the dust settle and hope for the whole thing to die down.

Do you think that in some other state the verdict would have been different? After all, even though the laws differ from state to state they all have the principle that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and that was the main reason why the verdict was what it was. People see these verdicts in too black and white terms (no pun intended). A not-guilty verdict does not necessarily mean that the jurors believe that the defendant is innocent but only that they can't prove that he's guilty.

The problem with the system of trial by jury is that in order to be fair those people on the jury should have lived in a cave for the past few months or otherwise been totally cut off from all news around them and be acquainted with the case in the trial itself for the first time instead of having heard about it everywhere especially when the media adds its own bias to twist the story to suit its own agenda.

The only chance the independence could win the referendum is that if the government in London all of a sudden decided to cancel the Scottish devolution but they are not dumb enough to make such a mistake. When the Labour-government introduced the devolution in 1997 the Tories said that as soon as they get back they would cancel it but later in the years they also changed their mind on that issue.

The media really whipped up hysteria and lynch-mentality in a case which was already sensitive enough. Not very responsible, one must say. They seem to enjoy provoking confrontation.

Of course there are. I was just pointing out that the pro-independence people could point out to a fact that the reason why the Scottish independence was terminated 300 years ago those reasons have long ago become obsolete. Today, there are various reasons why Scotland will remain in the UK and the independence-referendum will most likely result in a defeat for the independence-movement.

The act of union of 1707 which was signed between England and Scotland to form the United Kingdom was a move against the growing influence of the French. The English wanted to make sure that the Scots don't scheme behind the scenes in favour of the French. It can be said with a reasonable degree that the reasons for the signing of the act of union over 300 years ago have become outdated so the act should be dissolved and English and Scottish independence should be restored.

The Scottish National Party is overwhelmigly the most popualr party in Scotland but the people of Scotland are very unlikely to support the main-agenda of the party- the independence. If and when the referendum will end ina defeat for the independence it will bury the issue for decades to come and really destroy the reason for existence for the SNP:

By that same logic you could have told the Irish 100 years ago that they really don't need a country of their own as they have sufficient home-rule.

If Scotland became independent it would create a lot of confusion as to who would be citizens of Scotland. A lot of English- and Welsh-born people living in Scotland would all of a sudden become foreigners even though they never thought of themselves as such.

I'm all for it but at the same time it should be noted that it is extremely unlikely to happen. Such a shame. If there is an independent Ireland there is no reason why there shouldn't be an independent Scotland.

I know this is a Canadian forum but I still must tell you about an Aussie friend of mine years ago. Namely, there was the republic-referendum in Australia in 1999 and the republic lost the referendum. Not really because people would have preferred the monarchy but because the pro-monarchy government worded the referendum in a way that was unacceptable to the voters. However, my Aussie friend was talking to some of his Japanese friends about the upcoming referendum and his friends said that perhaps it is time for Australia to finally become independent. That was in 1999 and those people did not know that Australia has been independent since 1901. It's just an arrangement that the foreign head of state is the head of state of Australia as well. That moment made up my friend's mind as he was undecided until then. He voted for the republic but to his disappointment the republic lost.

Exactly, how big an issue is this in Canada? I could imagine that for an immigrant coming from a third world country if the only obstacle to becoming a citizen of a wealthy western country is to swear an allegiance to a foreign head of state, I just can't believe there would be a long queue of people refusing to swear such an oath.

Perhaps in fledgling democracies they should have at first very short terms for presidents and parliaments so that if their new leaders turn out to be incompetent the people have sooner an opportunity to kick them out and don't have to start yet another revolution.

Hudson: You should register yourself on this site. http://smeggys.co.uk/ The forum-host speaks exactly like you do. You would make the best of friends.

It's the only hope for the survival of the human race that China colonises Africa and enforces such strict rules that the birth-rate of Africa plummets. Cruel as it may sound but that is really the only way to go. Otherwise the world will get suffocated with overpopulation.

As much as I hate to admit it I must still say that the islamists are right on this issue. It's a totally another matter whether the coup was necessary to restore order. Perhaps, perhaps not. However, to justify the coup by vaguely stating the will of the people is not the right answer. Thousands of people out 85m people marching and rioting in the streets interpreted as being the will of the people to overthrow the government?

This latest turn of events is probably a sigh of relief for Israel. 30 years ago Anwar Sadat was murdered by the islamic brotherhood for signing a peace-treaty with Israel. Probably Israel feels safer that its next door neighbour is controlled by the army than belligerent civilians. Oh, the irony!

The ousting of Morsi could have a major impact on the Syrian civil-war as well as Morsi and his party supported the rebels and was contemplating intervening. That probably was the main reason why the Egyptian army threw him out. They don't want to be involved in Syria.

The president representing Muslim brotherhood has been ousted but it doesn't mean that the new regime is anti-Islam as it has been made to believe. In a country with 85% of the population being Muslims it is very likely that the army is also pro-Islam.

Brazil would be just an ideal tourist-paradise but as long as it has the repuatation of being an extremely violent and dangerous society it is futile to hope for any boom in the tourist-trade.

Sorry, wrong thread.