what does the red mean?

[v0031]

No-one is content while there are people struggling, and young people not reaching their potential.

[angus]

Here, potential is used as a noun rather than as an adjective.  It refers to economic potential.  To reach one's potential is to realize one's ability.  Young folks who drop out of school to work to support a family, sometimes, might have experienced greater material success had they stayed in school.  Perhaps a budding olympic athlete sadly ends his career when he is arrested, off-season, for selling marijuana because no one would give him legitimate work.  That sort of thing.  

More Karl Marx than Jesus, I'll allow, but a noble sentiment nonetheless.  It is however, a rather prosaic rendition.  I suggest a more colorful restatement, such as:  Like a prematurely dry flower clinging to a thirsty vine during a drought, knowing that neither it nor its brothers will ever become succulent fruits, no man will come to fruition when his fellow man, penniless, frustrated, and wallowing in misery, is unable to quench his thirst for the sweet nectar of prosperity.  

Edit:  sorry for the terribly mixed metaphor.  It's early yet.  Catch me after my fifth cup of coffee.

[v0031]

The question is: how do you get that change? For me it’s simple. You don’t get the change you want by ripping your country apart. You don’t get change by undermining your economy and damaging your businesses and diminishing your place in the world. But you can get real, concrete change on Thursday: if you vote No. “Business as usual” is not on the ballot paper. The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were. A vote for No means real change. And we have spelled that change out in practical terms, with a plan and a process.

[angus]

Ah, 'tis a political question then, is it laddie?  I thought it merely a grammatical inquiry.  My interests here are purely academic.  For spirited debate on the Caledonia question, look elsewhere.  Although I enjoy the spectacle, I suppose I don't have strong feelings on the matter one way or the other.

Not that I think they'll secede--given recent polling data, it appears that just over half the voters favor the status quo--but in the unlikely, and decidedly more interesting, outcome favoring Scots nationalism, I'd wonder more about arcane matters such as "What will the new British flag look like?"



And, would they dump the queen?  Canada and other countries still put the old bag on their banknotes, so it's not entirely unheard of.  Maybe they'd keep the monarchy but transact in European currency.  As for the economics of the matter, however, my guess is that they're an industrious people and would not fare any worse or any better than they do now.  Like the rest of us, they'll eventually have to figure out how to survive when the oil runs out, but they'll have to do that whether or not they obtain a divorce from the English.

Overall, though, it seems like the nationalists will fall just short.  I suppose that they could, like Palestine, take it to the UN General Assembly.  After all, if their leaders press the case, they could spin it as forced occupation, a 300 year old vestige of British colonialism.  Then again, they'd be fighting against one of the permanent members of the Security Council.  Not unlike the situation with Palestine (since the US will involve itself).  Or with Tibet, for that matter.  

All nations are equal, but apparently some are more equal than others.  

[v0031]

A Mouse running over his face awakened a Lion from sleep. Rising up angrily, he caught him and was about to kill him.

Whose face, the lion's?

[memphis]

A Mouse running over his face awakened a Lion from sleep. Rising up angrily, he caught him and was about to kill him.

Whose face, the lion's?

The original sentence is not in standard English. According to the official rules, one shouldn't use the pronoun his until one has named the noun he is referring to. While not everybody is 100% consistent with all the language rules, most of your examples in your threads are clearly written by non-native speakers. There's no shortage of English content written by people who grew up speaking the language. I would recommend reading their work instead.

[angus]

Hmmmm.  "While searching for my keys, I suddenly realized that I had locked them in my car."  

To me that seems reasonable even though the antecedent ("I") to "my" in the dependent clause doesn't show up until we get to the independent clause.  You could argue that the first person is an exception because "I" is unambiguous, but it seems to be equally valid in third person:  "While searching for his keys, John suddenly realized that he had locked them in his car."

I do think that v0031's first sentence has other another problem because "his" is somewhat ambiguous, but not much reflection is required to figure out that the moose isn't running over his own fact.  I think it is pretty clear that the moose is running over the lion's face.

(Why there would be a moose and a lion in the same cage is another matter altogether.  Maybe the muppets made the quartering arrangements at that zoo.  It is a problem that will solve itself, however, once the lion becomes hungry.)