Paranoid Personality Disorder

Paranoid personality disorder is a way of interpreting other people’s actions as the ones, intentionally causing a threat to the person. This disorder is usually shown by mistrust and suspicion and may lead to people being misunderstood or misinterpreted. It becomes evident in early adulthood where negative thoughts, attitudes and feelings are rejected.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Paranoid Personality Disorder specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The people suffering from this disorder feel mistreated and exploited, thereby failing to interpret good comments and others’ behavior. As a result, they do not accept reality as it is and remain rigid in their way of thinking (Alper 28). This condition is characterized by paranoia, mistrust and uncertainty. Fear harbors hidden motives and wrong intentions rendering the people with paranoid personality to be unable to work with the others. They end up socially withdrawn, detached and hostile. They tend to scan the environment for clues that can prove their prejudicial knowledge as valid. Their minds are preoccupied with looking for some sources of danger and fighting very hard to find any suggestive sign. They hold many grudges and mistrust towards others. People with this disorder show lack of self-sufficiency. Others may develop poor self-image and an inability to incorporate right attitude. In addition, they have a poor sense of humor and are unable to adapt to participation quickly in a group activity. As a rule, they appear cold, rigid and litigious. People with this disorder have poor relationship with the others as they seem odd and eccentric. According to Freeman, â€Å"People with paranoid personality disorder doubt being committed , loyal, trustworthy as they believe they may be deceived or used in a wrong way † (32). Sometimes, they are quite reluctant to confide in the others or fear of revealing some perso nal information that might be used against them. In addition, they do not easily forgive and tend to harbour a grievance. They are hypersensitive, poorly take criticism and innocently read the remarks. They wrongfully judge their spouses or lovers as being unfaithful. They do not fulfil their role, while trying to handle their desease, and always believe that they are right. In addition to being hostile, they are stubborn and argumentative. Researchers still do not know the exact cause of the paranoid personality disorder. Some argue that it occurs due to biological and psychological factors. It is genetically common in families with psychotic disorders. However, the environment may also have a great influence on its cause.Advertising Looking for research paper on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Thus there are biological or psychological causes. They include schizophrenia and delusional disorder. It is more common in men than women. Paranoid personality disorder can be associated with negative childhood experiences and a pure replication of hostile domestic environment. Sometimes, parental influence and rage may foster child insecurity. It is important to note that treatment of paranoid personality disorder is possible unless the patient fears the doctor or becomes suspicious. Early treatment is necessary since the disorder may become chronic. The common way of treating this disorder is by medication and therapy. It is evident that mostly, this disorder is caused by disruption of family, and employment loss. Perhaps, comprehensive therapy may be applied to recovery and prevent further stigmatization. It is recommended to carry out some consumer education programs, family counseling and advocacy and vocational assistance (Alper 41). Proper diagnosis should be done by a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist. The psychologist should be able to understand the extent of symptoms. Examples of symp toms are such as fear of being rejected, suspicion of others and a habit to distort events. These conditions must be keenly monitored not to interfere with normal interpersonal relationships. Careful inspection of person’s normal life should be done. At this point, it is also important to be careful not to confuse the symptoms of paranoid personality disorder with schizophrenia or any manic depressive disorder. This will require a careful examination and evaluation of person’s mental health (Freeman 122). Appropriate and individualized psycho-therapical program should be considered. This will help find the initial causes and the best treatment possible. The person is sometimes reluctant to seek therapy. This is because he/she does not trust any therapist so his/hewr way to recovery may take a lot of time. Group therapy may be necessary for addressing some positive behavior. It also provides a person with an opportunity to interact in a constructive way. It allows a per son to relate to likeminded peoplem, though this may develop more paranoid conditions. An individual gets rid of distrust and isolation by developing a sense of belonging and also a normal relationship with the others. This is when this program should be combined with self-help group. (Freeman 56).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on Paranoid Personality Disorder specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Giving medications causes high level suspicion, and this in turn leads to withdrawal from therapy. Such an action is, therefore, not encouraged. Medication is preferred for treatment of specific conditions associated with this disorder. It is only administered in cases where symptoms impede normal functioning. Medications for severe anxiety or delusion should be used within the shortest possible period. Psychotherapy is considered as the best method of treating paranoid personality disorder. People who have this dis order develop problems which require intense therapy. It is, therefore, necessary for a therapist-client relationship to be good enough to ensure great care and a given level confidence (Alper 58). One way of managing the paranoid personality disorder is through self-care. This does not require any kind of treatment as social groups help in alleviating mistrust and suspicion in an individual. After examination, the doctor should begin to evaluate the medication to be prescribed and patien’s medical history, if any. Absence of any biological tests makes it necessary to use diagnostic approach as a way of evaluating any physical illness. Patients may also seek for some health care professionals to check and diagnose any mental illness. Tools for assessing and evaluating the disorder are supposed to be designed by the psychologist. People suffering from paranoid personality disorder do not seek for any medical attention on their own. This is because they cannot judge themselves as suffering from such a condition. Any treatment offered should focus on developing more skills for coping with every situation that may occur. This will further enhance developing more communication, interaction skills and feeling of self-esteem. Trust is regarded as a tool for treating this disorder. Distrust of the others makes it difficult for people with paranoid personality disorder to be treated as it becomes almost impossible to implement treatment plans. The use of antidepressant or anti-psychotic drugs may be prescribed if condition goes extremely beyond a certain level (Freeman 102). In conclusion, paranoid personality disorder affects individual’s way of life. It totally ruins the relationship with the others, even at the workplace. Affected individuals find it hard to adapt in any work situation. They usually fight or sue people whom they regard as their enemies.Advertising Looking for research paper on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This disorder can last for the entire life of a person, if not effectively addressed and treated. Some people suffering from paranoid personality disorder may marry and get employed while others may intensively be disabled by this condition. Their resistance to treatment is quite alarming as it worsens the outcome of any treatment strategy. Prevention of this disorder is impossible nowadays but treatment, if not well managed, may cause even more problems than no treatment at all. Works Cited Alper, Gerald. Paranoia of Everyday Life: Escaping the Enemy Within. New York: Prometheus Books, 2005. Print. Freeman, Daniel. Overcoming Paranoid and Suspicious Thoughts: A Self-Help Guide Using Cognitive Behavioral Techniques . New York: Basic Books, 2008. Print. This research paper on Paranoid Personality Disorder was written and submitted by user Valentin E. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

How to Tell if a File Exists in Perl

How to Tell if a File Exists in Perl Perl has a set of useful file test operators that can be used to  see whether a file exists or not. Among them is -e, which checks to see if a file exists. This information could be useful to you when you are working on a script that needs access to a specific file, and you want to be sure that the file is there before performing operations. If, for example, your script has a log or a configuration file that it depends upon, check for it first. The example script below throws a descriptive error if a file is not found using this test. #!/usr/bin/perl$filename /path/to/your/file.doc;if (-e $filename) {print File Exists!;} First, you create a string that contains the path to the file that you want to test. Then you wrap the -e (exists) statement in a conditional block so that the print statement (or whatever you put there) is only called if the file exists. You could test for the opposite- that the file does not exist- by using the unless conditional: unless (-e $filename) {print File Doesnt Exist!;} Other File Test Operators You can test for two or more things at a time using the and () or the or (||) operators. Some other Perl file test operators are: -r checks if the file is readable-w checks if the file is writeable-x checks if the file is executable-z checks if the file is empty-f checks if the file is a plain file-d checks if the file is a directory-l checks if the file is a symbolic link Using a file test can help you avoid errors or make you aware of an error that needs to be fixed.

Starbucks in China Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 7500 words

Starbucks in China - Coursework Example How this coffee shop at the neighborhood did invade and changed the lifestyle of many It is a sort of colonization. I call it Starbuckzation. Starbucks has been around since 1971. According to Starbucks Coffee Company (2007) history, it started by selling roasted coffee beans in Seattle's Pike Place Market bearing the name of Starbucks Coffee, Tea and Spices. It was in 1981 when this coffee shop caught the attention of plastics salesman Howard Schultz (Wilson, 2005); Schultz is now the Chairman of Starbucks Coffee Company. But it was never easy for him to turn the business into an international giant that it is now. In 1982, Schultz was hired as Starbucks' head of marketing; shortly thereafter he was sent to Italy for an international house ware show It is where he got the idea of turning Starbucks into an espresso bar (Wilson, 2005). But things did not immediately come his way. The opportunity came in 1987 when Starbucks was up for sale; Schultz was able to raise the money, remade the establishment, and started history in the coffee industry. Today, Starbucks has 6,281 company-operated stores and 3,533 licensed stores in 50 states of US plus the District of Colombia It has also established coffee houses in 39 countries outside US (Starbucks, 2007). It is not quite surprising though that Starbucks is a success in the United States of America since a cupful of steaming coffee has almost become a necessity to every American. What is more amazing is its success in Asia particularly in China that can be considered, by far, as Starbucks' largest market outside North America. Traditionally, Chinese are fond with tea, which they say has healthy benefits. How come that a tea-drinking country could easily shift to coffee Starbucks started its operation in China in the late '90s. The company began with a store in Taiwan in March 1998, spread in Mainland China at the China World Trade Building in Beijing in January 1999, then in Hong Kong in May 2000, and Macau in August 2002; to date, there are almost 500 stores all over China (Starbucks China, 2007). Has China really fell under Starbuckzation It could be so. However, Starbucks' phenomenal success in China has not been copied in Australia. Since its first store was established at Sydney's CBD in July 2000, Starbucks has set-up only 50 stores in Sydney, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast, Canberra, and Melbourne today (Starbucks Australia, 2007). It could be attributed to a number of cafes in Australia. Geographical and social settings also contribute to this aspect. 1. Efficiency Among the keys to attain success in any field is efficiency. In Starbucks' case, it is the coffee house's capability to deliver the goods regardless of its customers' race or creed. There is a cup of flavorful coffee that will suit the discriminating taste buds of everyone. It has a blend from various regions; coffees are blended depending on the flavors that characterize a certain country. There is Colombia Nario Supremo, Guatemala Antiqua, Arabian Mocha Sanani, Komodo Dragon Blend, and Sumatra, to name a few. Apart from coffee, Starbucks also offer tasty cakes and pastries. There is also a variety of

Protection of Human Rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Protection of Human Rights - Essay Example Towards this direction it is supported that 'Britain has one of the worst human rights records in Europe and faces investigation over its failure to comply with a series of European court rulings'1. On the other hand, the recognition of human rights in Britain has been often related with specific sectors of the society, like the health sector. In this context, it has been noticed that 'there was much speculation about the potential impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on established principles of health care practice; now the statute has been "bedded in", predictions that existing good practice would not fall foul of the legislation provided it was demonstrable, have proved to be broadly accurate'2. As it will be explained below, the Human Rights Act 1998 has been extensively transformed through a series of laws that have been published since 1998 (i.e. ... rights in England: 'human rights remain at the heart of the foreign policy agenda and the UK works through international forums and bilateral relationships to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy'3. This paper will evaluate the development of English law on human rights in comparison with the international law on the specific issue (with a special reference to USA and Australia). In this context, the EU laws and the laws of countries within the international community, like USA and Australia, are going to be examined in order to identify the main elements of human rights law as they are highlighted and respected by countries internationally. The potential conflict among existed legislation will be also discussed (if identified) and appropriate courses of action are going to be suggested. Chapter One In order to understand the criteria used by legislators around the world (including UK) in order to develop the various provisions regulated the human rights we should refer primarily to all aspects of human rights as a concept of significant importance for both governments and public within the international community. In this context, it is stated that human rights can be characterized as 'basic moral guarantees that people in all countries and cultures allegedly have simply because they are people'4. On the other hand, it is supported that 'the term 'human rights' has mainly positive associations (with liberty, security, freedom of expression etc) but there is little understanding of the application of human rights / the HRA to normal life / public service delivery'5. In accordance with the above definitions, human rights should be extensively protected by the law because they are the rights that guarantee the development (personal, social

Is hunting ethical Essay Example for Free

Is hunting ethical Essay The difference between hunting and killing â€Å"It is 4:00 in the morning as a father and son prepare for a day of elk hunting, Whenever October comes around this father and son know that it is an important month because it is hunting season and they have a chance to provide meat for their family. The day brings success to the hunters as they harvest a male elk and take it back home to share not only the meat but also the memories that were provided by the hunt. † Many people in this world have opinions about hunting saying it is â€Å"unethical† or that it is a cruel form of killing for fun. Hunting is portrayed as an activity that allows humans the right to go out into the wild and harvest an animal or animals just as our ancestors did many years ago, that is a good picture of it but there are many reasons why people hunt other than to get meat shoot a gun or hang out with friends in the outdoors Benefits of hunting Hunting isn’t what most people think, it doesn’t just help the hunters who are getting meat but it helps the population of animals as well. In Colorado alone there are an estimated two thousand elk and 1500 deer taken a year, this seems cruel but hear me out. If a herd of elk gets to big then there will be scarce amounts of food because there many mouths to feed but only so many acres of edible grass and plants to feed them. This problem causes fights and the weaker elk get run out of the herd because of over population, these elk that are disowned by the herd usually die off from starvation or predators. Matt Forsyth a local area hunter says â€Å"my family and I can live for a year on one animal harvested from our hunting trips†. That means that one animal out of the thousands in Colorado can support a family and save an estimated 400 dollars that is usually spent on beef pork and chicken bought from the store. My family relies on meat from my father and I every year, if we are not successful it is a devastating blow on our bank accounts. STATISTICS ABOUT HUNTING 12. 5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22. 9 billion. An estimated  10. 7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days. There were 4. 8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2. 4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. 2. 3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl 1. 1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons. As the above figures state hunting is a very much enjoyed sport that Colorado residents take a very great passion in and I believe it always will be. DISADVANTAGES ABOUT HUNTING Many animals die yearly from accidental death from hunters, accidental death occurs when a hunter mistakes and shoots an animal or the target species he was pursuing. I have seen many accidental deaths as a hunter and it is very sad because I hate to take a life from an animal that did not deserve it, I am not saying all animals deserve to die but if I cannot benefit from the death of an animal then why does it deserve to die? Poaching is also a huge problem in America. I do not like this one part of hunting and I wish it could be eliminated, poaching is when a human illegally harvests an animal without a license. Over 1500 animals are poached each year and many of those animals had their lives taken only for their horns or ivory teeth and tusks. Many people will say that hunting is not right because the animals are helpless and innocent, I say otherwise. At the beginning of time hunting was a major part of life and was a necessity, being the only means of survival. It was a source of food, clothing, and sometimes tools. Hunted animals were know as game animals. The earliest tools used to hunt were bow and arrow and spears, where now in the present we hunt with more powerful weapons like the compound bow and rifle. Having these newer and updated tools man can now hunt with out having to work as hard at killing their prey. Just because it is easier to hunt with the new and improved rifles and bows does not mean that it is easy. I give a lot of credit to the Native Americans because they had it worse than us, they had to run and chase their animals till it was down where as now days you can use an all terrain vehicle or a truck to get deep in the forest. I feel like people do not look past the blood of hunting because it is such a gory part of the process and they feel justified to say that hunters are messed up in the head because would we want to be shot and bleed to death, I wouldn’t but still hunting has evolved from the early ages so humans were just taught that hunting was a way of living. I have been hunting since I was nine and I will admit that there were some parts of the sport that I wish I didn’t see. I hate to see an animal suffer and I have seen my fair share of that, but my plan was not to kill for the thrill or pride of taking down an animal. I did it because it was the meat that my family ate for a whole year and without it we would pay more than five hundred dollars for meat in 6 months because of my large family size. There is always a downside to everything and as much as I love hunting I have to say that there is parts that I do not like. What we see is the aftermath of people going out and killing trophy animals and removing those trophy parts, which would be the antlers or the horns and leaving the carcasses to rot, It is so disrespectful to the wildlife and gives hunting a bad name. (Sarason) Antlers are valuable. They can earn poachers hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per mount. (Forsyth) Some people do it purely as a business. Theyve detached from their activity. Its just pure dollars and cents. They dont see wildlife as anything other than something you can buy and make a buck, (Sarason) â€Å"it is 4:00 in the morning as a man and his hunting guide sit in a cozy cabin drinking coffee and going over the game plan for the day, this man has paid his guide an estimated 3,000 dollars for this hunt. The day starts off in the truck as they drive to a hillside to see if spotting a herd will bring them luck, sure enough out of the tree’s comes a beautiful male elk with an astoundingly big set of antlers. This is where the 3,000 dollars comes in because this man is on a guided elk hunt that has been set up on a high fenced ranch (the animals have no way to escape or be free), the elk are given special grass and food to grow big antlers. The man shoots the elk takes pictures and leaves the meat with the guides who will charge him an additional 500 bucks to get it cut and delivered to his house† People from around the world come to have supposedly the hunt of a lifetime and partake in an event that our ancestors have done but it is far from what actually happens. Many guided hunts are just slaughter of animals because they have no place to be free and live a life, they shoot the animals and the guide hauls it cuts it and prepares it and all you have to do is pay 3,500 dollars for it which is a deal right? Real hunting is when you pay 300 dollars a year to chase fair game through beautiful mountains and enjoy cutting the meat hauling it and doing all of the stuff that makes hunting what it truly is today. HOW ARE ORGANIZATIONS GETTING INVOLVED Many people have a jaded opinion about hunting because they see tv shows about it and the people always shoot the big animals and it all looks so easy but in reality it is not all that easy, real hunting requires patience love and respect for not only the pastime of it but the animals as well. No person will ever be right about wether it is ethical or if it isn’t but everybody can have a say in what they think is right or what they believe in. hunting is such a controversial subject to many people because just like anything, if you don’t know anything about it you are either really interested or very skeptical and I have found that many people are skeptical. Because of all the modern PETA campaigns many people are upset about hunters going out and harvesting an animal because it is an â€Å"innocent† animal that has been killed for pleasure or thrill. But hunting is an art form and a blessed opportunity for humans to provide their family with meat as well as learn more about the outdoors and life. Many campaigns have been run to stop hunting in many states. These campaigns are put together by PETA a non-profit organization that try’s to outlaw the abuse and neglect of animals, also called animal cruelty. Organizations like PETA are against hunting because they are under the impression that hunting is a cruel form of killing helpless innocent animals which is true somewhat. What they do not understand is that while many animals die every year but true hunters will never kill for the fun of shooting a gun or killing. With a lot of the gun laws that the president is trying to pass maybe all of these animal cruelty organizations wont have to keep fighting hunters because if such laws pass then many Americans will not be able to hunt anymore. Rumor has it that PETA is trying to get all gun laws passed just because of the way that it could help save many animals every year. Hunting is a very controversial subject because it is so important to some people and many families rely on an animal to be harvested every year. Good hunting ethics are not usually covered by written laws. Ethics are a personal code which dictates how we act. It is conduct that is morally right, safe, proper and fair. According to Aldo Leopold, regarded as the â€Å"father† of wildlife management, â€Å"ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal. † T. D. Carroll, the Father of Texas Hunter Education, once said: â€Å"There are written and unwritten laws. The written laws tell us what we can and cannot do while the unwritten laws tell us what we should and should not do. † HOW WOULD ANIMALS BE AFFECTED IF WE DID NOT HUNT If we didnt hunt animals they would die of starvation and disease. That is why we have regulations on hunting. And that is why bag limits and seasons change yearly. Take for instance the Snow Goose, It is so overpopulated right now that it takes food from animals and fish that are low in population thus the overpopulation of this bird could cause other animals to go extinct. It would not be the hunters causing the extinction. This year there was a conservation order in effect issued by the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Department to hunt as many as you can-no bag limit which seems like a killing frenzy for all of the geese but given the options it really helps all animals. Another instance is with exotic species (species that dont naturally occur in a particular area). For instance here in Colorado, the Mountain Lion does not belong here but It flourishes and if it keeps its pace then it could totally wipe out the population of native species of animals. Thus, the state says you can hunt and kill the Mountain Lion whenever you want and as many as you want, you just have to tell the state where you shot it. Look at the wild pig. Not natural to the United States and now we have a major problem on our hands. They destroy crops and take the food of our natural species. If deer hunting became illegal we would have so many deer in this country no one would be able to drive down the highway without fear of hitting one at 70mph possibly killing the passengers of the vehicle. Or there would be so many deer the food would eventually run out for them causing them to starve to death. Many in Colorado are interested in living a healthy lifestyle, which often includes consuming organically-grown food. â€Å"Locally grown† is becoming an increasingly popular way to enjoy fresh fruit and vegetables and backyard gardens are seeing a resurgence. One of the driving forces for the â€Å"going organic† movement is related to concerns about chemicals and pesticides associated with mass production of our food. Meat from hunting does not go through the chemical-related processes of grocery-store domestic meats. Hunting and eating wild game provides a lean, â€Å"free-range† protein product similar to that of organic food stores. Moreover, for those who hunt, fresh meat procured through hunting offers a â€Å"do-it-yourself† pride and satisfaction similar to that of growing your own garden. Hunting provides healthier food for the hunter and his/her family. I have nothing against farmers, I support them 100%, but theres more protein in the meat of a wild animal than there is a cow, pig, etc. So, more protein means a healthier cut of meat. It only takes one male to reproduce so anybody that says population control isnt a valid reason to hunt isn’t well equipped with the facts of hunting. Since it only takes one male animal, then theres no reason to have older animals that are not healthy reproduce because that would be passing along weaker genes, and that will make that generation of animals weaker. A lot of people say that hunters only shoot the males animals but that shows just how un-educated they are on this subject. I know many people who will kill a female over a male any day. Theres no benefit to just harvesting males and not the females. Each sex needs a specific number harvested to keep the population healthy. Back to the example I used about an older male animal breeding. Same thing goes with female animals. The older they get, the weaker their offspring will be. The less milk theyll produce. The older the animal (males and females), the weaker the state of their body/health. Inbreeding DOES happen where animal populations have exploded. You need a good mix of male and females of different lines so that you will get healthy offspring. Not only for that aspect of population control- if there are too many animals in a given area no matter if they are mostly males or mostly females, the animals will deplete the area of resources- food, water, cover. So, not only will the animals be at a higher risk for diseases/illnesses like rabies or CWD in deer, the land will be greatly affected by it too. The difference between hunting and killing â€Å"It is 4:00 in the morning as a father and son prepare for a day of elk hunting, Whenever October comes around this father and son know that it is an important month because it is hunting season and they have a chance to provide meat for their family. The day brings success to the hunters as they harvest a male elk and take it back home to share not only the meat but also the memories that were provided by the hunt. † Many people in this world have opinions about hunting saying it is â€Å"unethical† or that it is a cruel form of killing for fun. Hunting is portrayed as an activity that allows humans the right to go out into the wild and harvest an animal or animals just as our ancestors did many years ago, that is a good picture of it but there are many reasons why people hunt other than to get meat shoot a gun or hang out with friends in the outdoors Benefits of hunting Hunting isn’t what most people think, it doesn’t just help the hunters who are getting meat but it helps the population of animals as well. In Colorado alone there are an estimated two thousand elk and 1500 deer taken a year, this seems cruel but hear me out. If a herd of elk gets to big then there will be scarce amounts of food because there many mouths to feed but only so many acres of edible grass and plants to feed them. This problem causes fights and the weaker elk get run out of the herd because of over population, these elk that are disowned by the herd usually die off from starvation or predators. Matt Forsyth a local area hunter says â€Å"my family and I can live for a year on one animal harvested from our hunting trips†. That means that one animal out of the thousands in Colorado can support a family and save an estimated 400 dollars that is usually spent on beef pork and chicken bought from the store. My family relies on meat from my father and I every year, if we are not successful it is a devastating blow on our bank accounts. STATISTICS ABOUT HUNTING 12. 5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22. 9 billion. An estimated 10. 7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days. There were 4. 8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2. 4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. 2. 3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl 1. 1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons. As the above figures state hunting is a very much enjoyed sport that Colorado residents take a very great passion in and I believe it always will be. DISADVANTAGES ABOUT HUNTING Many animals die yearly from accidental death from hunters, accidental death occurs when a hunter mistakes and shoots an animal or the target species he was pursuing. I have seen many accidental deaths as a hunter and it is very sad because I hate to take a life from an animal that did not deserve it, I am not saying all animals deserve to die but if I cannot benefit from the death of an animal then why does it deserve to die? Poaching is also a huge problem in America. I do not like this one part of hunting and I wish it could be eliminated, poaching is when a human illegally harvests an animal without a license. Over 1500 animals are poached each year and many of those animals had their lives taken only for their horns or ivory teeth and tusks. Many people will say that hunting is not right because the animals are helpless and innocent, I say otherwise. At the beginning of time hunting was a major part of life and was a necessity, being the only means of survival. It was a source of food, clothing, and sometimes tools. Hunted animals were know as game animals. The earliest tools used to hunt were bow and arrow and spears, where now in the present we hunt with more powerful weapons like the compound bow and rifle. Having these newer and updated tools man can now hunt with out having to work as hard at killing their prey. Just because it is easier to hunt with the new and improved rifles and bows does not mean that it is easy. I give a lot of credit to the Native Americans because they had it worse than us, they had to run and chase their animals till it was down where as now days you can use an all terrain vehicle or a truck to get deep in the forest. I feel like people do not look past the blood of hunting because it is such a gory part of the process and they feel justified to say that hunters are messed up in the head because would we want to be shot and bleed to death, I wouldn’t but still hunting has evolved from the early ages so humans were just taught that hunting was a way of living. I have been hunting since I was nine and I will admit that there were some parts of the sport that I wish I didn’t see. I hate to see an animal suffer and I have seen my fair share of that, but my plan was not to kill for the thrill or pride of taking down an animal. I did it because it was the meat that my family ate for a whole year and without it we would pay more than five hundred dollars for meat in 6 months because of my large family size. There is always a downside to everything and as much as I love hunting I have to say that there is parts that I do not like. What we see is the aftermath of people going out and killing trophy animals and removing those trophy parts, which would be the antlers or the horns and leaving the carcasses to rot, It is so disrespectful to the wildlife and gives hunting a bad name. (Sarason) Antlers are valuable. They can earn poachers hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per mount. (Forsyth) Some people do it purely as a business. Theyve detached from their activity. Its just pure dollars and cents. They dont see wildlife as anything other than something you can buy and make a buck, (Sarason) â€Å"it is 4:00 in the morning as a man and his hunting guide sit in a cozy cabin drinking coffee and going over the game plan for the day, this man has paid his guide an estimated 3,000 dollars for this hunt. The day starts off in the truck as they drive to a hillside to see if spotting a herd will bring them luck, sure enough out of the tree’s comes a beautiful male elk with an astoundingly big set of antlers. This is where the 3,000 dollars comes in because this man is on a guided elk hunt that has been set up on a high fenced ranch (the animals have no way to escape or be free), the elk are given special grass and food to grow big antlers. The man shoots the elk takes pictures and leaves the meat with the guides who will charge him an additional 500 bucks to get it cut and delivered to his house† People from around the world come to have supposedly the hunt of a lifetime and partake in an event that our ancestors have done but it is far from what actually happens. Many guided hunts are just slaughter of animals because they have no place to be free and live a life, they shoot the animals and the guide hauls it cuts it and prepares it and all you have to do is pay 3,500 dollars for it which is a deal right? Real hunting is when you pay 300 dollars a year to chase fair game through beautiful mountains and enjoy cutting the meat hauling it and doing all of the stuff that makes hunting what it truly is today. HOW ARE ORGANIZATIONS GETTING INVOLVED Many people have a jaded opinion about hunting because they see tv shows about it and the people always shoot the big animals and it all looks so easy but in reality it is not all that easy, real hunting requires patience love and respect for not only the pastime of it but the animals as well. No person will ever be right about wether it is ethical or if it isn’t but everybody can have a say in what they think is right or what they believe in. hunting is such a controversial subject to many people because just like anything, if you don’t know anything about it you are either really interested or very skeptical and I have found that many people are skeptical. Because of all the modern PETA campaigns many people are upset about hunters going out and harvesting an animal because it is an â€Å"innocent† animal that has been killed for pleasure or thrill. But hunting is an art form and a blessed opportunity for humans to provide their family with meat as well as learn more about the outdoors and life. Many campaigns have been run to stop hunting in many states. These campaigns are put together by PETA a non-profit organization that try’s to outlaw the abuse and neglect of animals, also called animal cruelty. Organizations like PETA are against hunting because they are under the impression that hunting is a cruel form of killing helpless innocent animals which is true somewhat. What they do not understand is that while many animals die every year but true hunters will never kill for the fun of shooting a gun or killing. With a lot of the gun laws that the president is trying to pass maybe all of these animal cruelty organizations wont have to keep fighting hunters because if such laws pass then many Americans will not be able to hunt anymore. Rumor has it that PETA is trying to get all gun laws passed just because of the way that it could help save many animals every year. Hunting is a very controversial subject because it is so important to some people and many families rely on an animal to be harvested every year. Good hunting ethics are not usually covered by written laws. Ethics are a personal code which dictates how we act. It is conduct that is morally right, safe, proper and fair. According to Aldo Leopold, regarded as the â€Å"father† of wildlife management, â€Å"ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal. † T. D. Carroll, the Father of Texas Hunter Education, once said: â€Å"There are written and unwritten laws. The written laws tell us what we can and cannot do while the unwritten laws tell us what we should and should not do. † HOW WOULD ANIMALS BE AFFECTED IF WE DID NOT HUNT If we didnt hunt animals they would die of starvation and disease. That is why we have regulations on hunting. And that is why bag limits and seasons change yearly. Take for instance the Snow Goose, It is so overpopulated right now that it takes food from animals and fish that are low in population thus the overpopulation of this bird could cause other animals to go extinct. It would not be the hunters causing the extinction. This year there was a conservation order in effect issued by the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Department to hunt as many as you can-no bag limit which seems like a killing frenzy for all of the geese but given the options it really helps all animals. Another instance is with exotic species (species that dont naturally occur in a particular area). For instance here in Colorado, the Mountain Lion does not belong here but It flourishes and if it keeps its pace then it could totally wipe out the population of native species of animals. Thus, the state says you can hunt and kill the Mountain Lion whenever you want and as many as you want, you just have to tell the state where you shot it. Look at the wild pig. Not natural to the United States and now we have a major problem on our hands. They destroy crops and take the food of our natural species. If deer hunting became illegal we would have so many deer in this country no one would be able to drive down the highway without fear of hitting one at 70mph possibly killing the passengers of the vehicle. Or there would be so many deer the food would eventually run out for them causing them to starve to death. Many in Colorado are interested in living a healthy lifestyle, which often includes consuming organically-grown food. â€Å"Locally grown† is becoming an increasingly popular way to enjoy fresh fruit and vegetables and backyard gardens are seeing a resurgence. One of the driving forces for the â€Å"going organic† movement is related to concerns about chemicals and pesticides associated with mass production of our food. Meat from hunting does not go through the chemical-related processes of grocery-store domestic meats. Hunting and eating wild game provides a lean, â€Å"free-range† protein product similar to that of organic food stores. Moreover, for those who hunt, fresh meat procured through hunting offers a â€Å"do-it-yourself† pride and satisfaction similar to that of growing your own garden. Hunting provides healthier food for the hunter and his/her family. I have nothing against farmers, I support them 100%, but theres more protein in the meat of a wild animal than there is a cow, pig, etc. So, more protein means a healthier cut of meat. It only takes one male to reproduce so anybody that says population control isnt a valid reason to hunt isn’t well equipped with the facts of hunting. Since it only takes one male animal, then theres no reason to have older animals that are not healthy reproduce because that would be passing along weaker genes, and that will make that generation of animals weaker. A lot of people say that hunters only shoot the males animals but that shows just how un-educated they are on this subject. I know many people who will kill a female over a male any day. Theres no benefit to just harvesting males and not the females. Each sex needs a specific number harvested to keep the population healthy. Back to the example I used about an older male animal breeding. Same thing goes with female animals. The older they get, the weaker their offspring will be. The less milk theyll produce. The older the animal (males and females), the weaker the state of their body/health. Inbreeding DOES happen where animal populations have exploded. You need a good mix of male and females of different lines so that you will get healthy offspring. Not only for that aspect of population control- if there are too many animals in a given area no matter if they are mostly males or mostly females, the animals will deplete the area of resources- food, water, cover. So, not only will the animals be at a higher risk for diseases/illnesses like rabies or CWD in deer, the land will be greatly affected by it too.

Character Analysis of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight :: English Literature Essays

Character Analysis of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Depiction of a believable character has always been a difficult task for any writer. A true character must evoke emotions and make the readers want to learn more about him or her. The appearance, acts, words and nature of this character must be vivid and understandable by the audience. In medieval England, Arthurian literary works, such as Sir Gawain and the Green Knight or "The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell," describe the character of Sir Gawain as a noble hero, having chivalrous and virtuous attributes. Sir Gawain is said to be the nephew of Arthur: "His parents are Lot of Orkney and Morgause (though his mother is said to be Anna in Geoffrey of Monmouth). Upon the death of Lot, be becomes the head of the Orkney clan, which includes in many sources his brothers Aggravain, Gaheris, and Gareth, and his half-brother Mordred" (Legends, online). He is also the youngest of the knights of the Round Table. Besides being the nephew of Arthur, he is one of his closest companions and an active participant in the numerous adventures which they encounter. Sir Gawain is a protagonist or a main hero in the earlier Arthurian legends, but he is often included in later stories of the fifteenth century as a confidant or a secondary character. For example in Morte Darthur, by Sir Thomas Malory, Gawain is a secondary character, and the main hero is Sir Lancelot. In the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight written by an anonymous author, we are given a description of Sir Gawain's appearance, as he is preparing to go on a quest to find the Green Knight and complete the yearlong beheading game (Norton, 215). His armor, clothing and horse all suggest that he is not a poor knight. His helmet is decorated with gems and embroidered with parrots and turtledoves; his shield has image of Virgin Mary on the inside and an "endless knot"(Norton, 215) or a pentangle on the outside. This figure is a star with five points that is drawn in an unbroken line, which also happens to be a symbol of Gawain's five virtues.

The Cost of Independence

â€Å"The Cost of Independence – concerns and fears of Scottish Businessmen† Martina Macakova â€Å"What business leaders in Scotland really seek to hear is a positive discussion on the future for Scotland and what part they can play in shaping it, not a re-run of old arguments about potential damage to the economy of constitutional change. † introduction Ewan Hunter, Director of HunterSearch This essay deals with a discussion about Scottish independence through the perspective of local business leaders.Its aim is to analyze their opinion on Scottish tendencies towards independence, if and to what extent could they influence the results of upcoming referendum and whether Scotland’s business companies could play a role of an ally of the UK government. It provides the analysis of the current situation, especially in the light of recent events, as the First Minister Alex Salmond, leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP), in the beginning of January announc ed that the referendum on Scottish Independence should be held in autumn 2014.In this essay I will attempt to come with a prediction of the possible future development of the opinion of Scottish leading business companies. For that purpose I have examined mostly newspaper articles, opinion polls, governmental documents and public speeches given by the local business representatives. As a secondary source and the introduction to the topic of Scottish Independence I found very valuable a publication written by Jo Eric Murkens, Peter Jones and Michael Keating Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide. A division of state into two sovereign parts would be very complicated and long-term process.It is a process fraught with problems and controversy. Whether it is a break up of marriage or of nations, the major bone of contemption is always the same – who gets what. The division of Czechoslovakia in late 1992 and 1993 could serve as a precedent for similar action, anyhow the situatio n of the Union and former Czechoslovakia differs. In Scotland’s case, controversial may be especially the separation of state debt and North Sea oil reserves; the future of military bases on the island of Clyde, home of British nuclear missiles; question of the membership in the European Union and currency issue.Despite the fact that the independence is primarily a question of national identity and political change, we cannot forget that economic prosperity is prerequisite for well-functioning state. It's Scotland's oil If there was an independent Scotland would it be economic failure or success? It might sound a paradoxical thing to say but the core issue related to the economics cannot be really answered correctly. According to Peter Jones, the starting point for dealing with the economics of independence needs to be existing Scotland.And current Scotland is a Scotland that operates within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is obvious that public s pending would demand greater income as two new types of costs would affect the public sector. First of all, there are costs incurred by the need to add on functions (such as defense) and those incurred by the need to disentangle the Scottish element of such UK-wide bodies (for example Inland Revenue). Undoubtedly, Scottish government can count on the benefits from obtaining control of offshore oil and gas resources.The representatives of SNP repeatedly assert the Scotland would be among the world’s richest countries. Additional GDP acquired from the profit made by oil companies offshore is something what we can more or less rely on. Before his re-election campaign Alex Salmond grasped the opportunity to dust off SNP’s old slogan â€Å"It’s Scotland’s Oil†. It was a smart move. As the election results showed the resurrecting claim that all North Sea oil – as well as its revenues – belongs solely to Scotland, was what Scottish voters wa nted to hear. Oil and gas resources themselves don’t guarantee long lasting wealth.Douglas Fraser, Scotland Business and Economy Editor at BBC, expressed his concerns that there is an elephant in the room that needs to be discussed. The price of oil is volatile and volatile price of oil means volatile income. Moreover, the trend is clearly for the volume of oil and gas production to fall, though that is partly offset by higher average prices, higher tax rates, and so buoyant revenues. Yet, an economy of an independent Scotland would be dependent on number of variable factors whose precise effects cannot be forecast. Among those unpredictable factors is a haracter of the negotiations that can either minimaze or enlarge the degree of uncertainty. The level of uncertainty affects business confidence and investment and it is something that has been often mentioned by the Scottish business representatives while comenting on the question of independence. As Peter Jones points out, another parameter which stands completely out of political control is whether the general economic environment is good or bad. In adverse times, business would be extremely nervous about independence as would the international markets. In this situation the price of independence could be quite high.The aim of idependence is to change the monetary, fiscal and regulatory regime which is currently the same as the in rest of the UK. The Scottish voters are likely to approve a different kind of a devolution model, which would provide more powers for the Scottish Parliament, particularly in terms of tax-varying powers and fiscal policy in general. The conclusions of a poll conducted by Ipsos MORI in November 2009 are that 66 per cent of the respondents are in favour of the Scottish Parliament having increased its powers, whether in terms of further devolution or fully independence.The attempts to get the public involved and the referendum itself should be appreciated. That is the major di fference in comparison with the zero involvement of Czechoslovak citizens when the dissolution of Czechoslovakia was decided about. More explanation about the proposed concept of independence provides the â€Å"Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper†. Independence in terms of the proposal would mean that the Scottish Parliament and Government would be responsible for all areas of legislation, including foreign affairs, defence and taxation, but the Queen would remain the head of the state.The current political and monetary union would be replaced by a social and monarchical union. Although the monetary union would no longer exist, Scotland would keep operating within the Sterling system until it would be decided in a referendum that Euro would be accepted. Although, SNP leaders would most likely to follow the peacefull process of velvet divorce of Czechs and Slovaks, it doesn’t seem that monetary question would be the case as the issue of currency remains unclear.While the Czechs and Slovaks immediately began to create their own currency, the Scots first considered adopting the euro. In connection with lasting Eurozone crisis First Minister Alex Salmond changed his rhetorics and now claims that they would keep the pound. The SNP proposes sticking with sterling until Scots choose, by referendum, to join the euro. According to Douglas Fraser from BBC, his problem, in explaining this policy, is that remaining with sterling leaves the Treasury and Bank of England in London to set Scotland's monetary policy, while having no influence over it.THE business of (un)certainty Until recent time, there has been almost deafening silence on whether Scotland should become an independent country from local business companies. We could argue whether the reason for the lies in potencional risk of going out on a limb, as Douglas Fraser suggest in one of his articles, or if it more simple than that and the business leaders are just too occupied with the current financial crisis. Fraser writes in his article titled Holyrood's challenge to business: â€Å"Iain McMillan seeks to balance support of some policy with pungent criticism.On balance, he says members say the potential advantages of devolved business taxation are outweighed by the likely costs. But it is the criticism that gets McMillan noticed, and nationalist voices can increasingly be heard questioning the legitimacy of the CBI as a voice for business in Scotland. The Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Council Development and Industry and Scottish Chambers of Commerce are careful to sit on the fence, probably because their memberships are split on constitutional questions.It is also because the implications of the Scotland Bill, or of increased devolution of taxation powers, are so unclear. [†¦] Representing the banks, insurers and asset managers, Scottish Financial Enterprise wants to know if the tax base could be changed as well as the rate. Would there be additional complexity, and at what costs to business? How volatile would tax receipts be, and can a value be placed on the value of being part of a larger, more diverse tax base, as at present?Even asking questions, which might be seen as hostile or at least awkward, is risky territory for business. † SFE Chairman, Mark Tennant, expressed his concernes regarding independence at the end of his speech at the annual dinner in December last year: â€Å"Our approach, however, should be empirical and focused on facts and the removal of uncertainties. [†¦] Our role is to identify the questions that need to be answered and ensure that the electorate receives an answer before they vote. † Also Danny Alexander who is MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, and Chief Secretary to he Treasury shares opinion that uncertainty hurts economy and remarks that „if the Eurozone has taught us anything, it is that monetary union between fisca lly independent states is an extremely difficult challenge. â€Å" He argues that Scottish Government says it would continue to operate within the sterling currency area, but doesn’t say how. His message to the Scottish leader „think carefully before sacrificing stability through independence. â€Å" Regarding to the timing of the referendum, David Lonsdale, assistant director of Glasgow-based CBI Scotland, said in an interview. We want it sooner rather than later. † From the comments above is obvious that umbrella organizations associating Scottish business companies such as CBI and SFE are taking the side of UK government claiming that referendum should be held as soon as possible and at the same time expressing serious concers about the benefits of country’s independence. For a long time it seemed that the individual business leaders adopted an ostrich strategy because few Scottish business leaders have spoken publicly about constitutional change.Howev er, year 2012 brought a turnover as some one of managers decided to stir up the still waters a bit. Martin Gilbert, chief executive officer of Aberdeen Asset Management Plc, Scotland’s largest fund manager, spoke out: â€Å"Whether it is independence or not is a matter for the voters to decide. I would like to see all the figures so you can make an informed judgment. At the moment you don’t know what the true figures are. † Boyd Tunnock, representative of the Scottish maker of Caramel Wafers and Snowballs, commented in e-mail statement: â€Å"Scotland and Scottish business needs certainty and clarity.We need the independence referendum to be held as soon as is reasonable so that investors know where they stand. † To some extent the uncertainty was diminished by the Salmond’s clear statement about the referendum date. One of country’s leading businessmen Jim McColl welcomed the Scottish Government’s upcoming consultation on Scotlandâ⠂¬â„¢s constitutional future by saying: â€Å"Many of us in business are convinced a prosperous future for this country depends on more powers for the parliament. Article Business leaders join in referendum debate published on Tuesday this week shows slighty more positive attitudes towards the constitutional change and vice versa express criticism towards the representatives of CBI, SFE and Westminster politicians: â€Å"Members of Scotland's business community have refuted questions over the timing of an independence referendum and called for an end to scaremongering and a proper discussion on the merits of taking all decisions about Scotland within Scotland. [†¦] There is little hard evidence that the referendum or the prospect of Scottish independence is damaging the Scottish economy.Business leaders have in the main expressed either a neutral or a positive attitude towards constitutional change in Scotland. † The author of the article supports his argument by quotin g some of the local business leaders: â€Å"Recently David Watt, Executive Director of the Institute of Directors in Scotland was asked by the BBC's Huw Edwards whether he was concerned by the prospect of a Scottish referendum in autumn 2014, as opposed to the Westminster government's preference for a vote as soon as possible.Mr Watt said that he thought that the date of the referendum made no difference. Having a timetable leading up to the second half of 2014 allowed businesses to plan. † Similar opinion has Dan Macdonald of Macdonald Estates: â€Å"The fact is the biggest decision in three centuries lies before us and we owe it to our children, and those who succeeded us to take whatever time is required to discuss the form and detail of what will be our New Scotland. In order to do that London politicians need to stop peddling scare stories and focus on a meaningful debate about Scotland's future. On the same is also owner of The Residence Glasgow, Sarah Jane Walls who f eels that there should be â€Å"less negative scaremongering and more positive debate about Scotland's future,† continuing that she is â€Å"excited about the possibilities for Scotland as independent country. † According to the survey processed for the Business Insider that covered opinions of business on Scotland’s independence, the majority of businesses (67 per cent) think independence for Scotland would not have a positive effect on their business with only five per cent saying it would be positive and 17 per cent unsure.Questionnaires were sent to companies listed in Insider’s TOP500, SME300 and SPRINT100 lists. One of the CEO with this opinion poll further commented: â€Å"Achieving Scottish independence will not, in itself, prove to be the panacea for the challenges being faced. After all, there is little or no evidence to show any change will be positive. Therefore, to help improve our economy appoint independent Scottish and international busin ess experts to properly advise our inexperienced politicians to tackle the real, everyday issues of business rather than spend unnecessary time debating the future of Scotland without ny clear evidence to support how, and indeed why, the status quo should be changed. † The contrary opinion expressed David Watt, executive director in Scotland of the Institute of Directors, by saying that none of the institute's 1600 members have expressed any concern as to a delay in a referendum vote. A spokesperson for UK Oil & Gas said although the body has no member consensus on the issue of independence, none of its members has raised the issue as a specific concern. Conclusion The aim of this essay was to deal with the issue of Scotland’s independence from the perspective of local business leaders.By analyzing especially newspapers articles that are dealing with the topic I learned that there are three possible attitudes towards Scotland becoming independent. One side represented m ostly by CBI and SFE publicly claims that independence vote could harm Scottish economy. The opposite camp, which is primarily constituted of blue-chip companies, suggests the contrary. These positively thinking business leaders are denying comments that a delay on independence and the independence in general will destabilise the Scottish economy. The third group is classified by being neutral or by refusing to comment on the independence question.It is logical that CBI and SFE are speaking less in favour of independence and the later date of referendum as they have closer relations with the government in London than the individual organization do. In my opinion, even the business leaders that proclamated their support for independence cause and Salmon’s referendum timing feel at least some doubts. Also I think that a lot of the is actually tired of the independence talk and they would rather here from both UK’s and Scottish Government some warranties in the time of ec onomic crisis and that the politicians will support their efforts to kick-start the ailing economy.From the side of the local business leaders there is understandable demand for answers on number of important question. That brings us back to the introduction of the essay where I comment that most of the issues regarding the economic situation of independent Scotland cannot be precisely predicted. However it sounds disappointing. Many options might take place and the situation depends on various factors that Scottish Government cannot influence. We don’t even know the answer to the fundamental question – whether there will be an independent Scotland. UK’s government is strictly against the eparation of the Union, neither the Scots itself are united on the matter and as stands out from the lines above, nor the Scottish businessmen. Still, the independence is surely more realistic than it was couple months ago. I believe that CBI and SFE could be potencial partner of the central government during the future negotiations over independence. They associate number of important companies and they could have certain influence on their members. On the other hand, there is a quite large number of companies, which are managed by people who decided to prove that the idiom â€Å"You can't fight City Hall† is a false statement.My belief also is that business could influence the negotiations, however I wouldn’t say that companies could be determine the public opinion in general. Which side in end the majority of the business leaders joins will depend on numerous factors, especially on how skilfull in answering difficult questions will Scottish political representatives be. SNP with Alex Salmond in lead is trying something that no-one has ever tried before. To conclude I would say that I propably wouldn’t bet on my own prediction because predicting something in terms of the economic situation of independend Scotland is like predicting the unpredictable.References Murkens, Jo E. ; Jones, Peter; Keating, Michael. Scottish Independence: A Practical Guide. Edingburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2002. Tom Clark. If one day it really is Scotland’s oil †¦ what will we do with it? The Herald Scotland, 29 October 2011. Available online: http://www. heraldscotland. com/news/home-news/if-one-day-it-really-is-scotlands-oil-what-will-we-do-with-it. 15567484 (accessed on 16 January 2012). Douglas Fraser. What would happen to Scotland's economy after independence? BBC. 15 January 2012.Available online: http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/business-16548644 (accessed on 16 January 2012). Douglas Fraser. Holyrood's challenge to business. BBC. 30 September 2011. Available online: http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15122749 (accessed on 10 January 2012). Scotland's Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper. 15 February 2010. Available online: http://www. scotland. gov. uk/Publications/ 2010/02/22120157/0 (accessed on 10 January 2012). Danny Alexander. Uncertainty hurts economy. Scotland on