I've just seen an entertaining bit of fantasy on Sky News about what an independent Scotland would look like. (The original video report is embedded in the web-site article here.)
I'm actually quite positive about the idea of a seperate Scotland. Not because of the old chestnut about the money that heads north over the border - they're part of the UK and some parts of the UK are richer than others, you don't hear people from Harrogate complaining about money being spent in Helston, so I in Canterbury won't complain about money being spent in Coatbridge.
No, what I find attractive about the prospect of Scottish independence is that it also has the potential to free me and you.
How so? Well, the report is full of exciting stuff like this is what a Scottish passport would look like, votes for 16 year olds, a nuke free Scotland and all that, but it omitted some pretty important stuff, not least the fact that Salmond has wilfully missed something out.
You see, I'm not entirely sure that Scottish independence is as simple as a matter of a referendum north of the border. As I understand it we're not talking about independence, we're talking about the dissolution of the Union here, surely a question for both north and south?
The irony being that I think a referendum on dissolution of the Union stands more chance of being carried with the English and Scots involved than it does with just the Scots. (That is, slim chance as opposed to no chance). It's been well played by Salmond - if a referendum gets scuppered on constitutional grounds (likely) then it's another ploy by the dastardly English to undermine the manifest destiny of the Scots. If it doesn't, and at a vote it will not be carried, then it's another ploy by the dastardly English to undermine the manifest destiny of the Scots.
However, there is one big reason why I'd be voting yes, because if Scotland gets independence, the UK would cease to be, and it is the UK which is a member of the EU. So surely, no UK = no EU membership?
It is complete fantasy, because it just isn't going to happen. But can you imagine the clusterfuck if such a referendum was carried and all of a sudden re-application was on the cards? Would cast-iron Dave have the balls to put us up for re-entry without asking us? There would be open revolution.
And Sky talk about Scotland adopting the Euro. Blimey, that's like booking a cabin on the Titanic as the first lifeboat is being cast off.
It's all completely mad.
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Friday, 11 February 2011
Pay up! Pay up! And pay up again!
Just image the scene. It is Sunday morning and from your bed you hear the letterbox opening and then the floor cracking as the behemoth of a Sunday paper hits the ground and shakes the house to its very foundations. You take the publication upstairs and prepare to immerse yourself in the six colour magazines and countless niche supplements, or, if you're anything like Mrs. Snowolf, to half complete the crossword and sit the whole pile of papers on the shelf of the coffee table where in contravention of pretty much every physical law it will increase in mass and surface area for the next seven days.
I deviate. As you are about to sit down and enjoy your paper, the doorbell goes. It is the little scamp of a paperboy who has delivered the paper to you this morning (but not before 7am, see below), he is now explaining that the £1.20, £2.00, £2.50 or whatever you've paid is just for the delivery. As you have now chosen to read said paper, you have to pay again.
What would you do? Well, one of the first things you'd probably do would be to change your newspaper supplier.
But what if you couldn't change? What if you HAD to buy your newspaper from this shop? What would you do then? Oh, you'd be free to purchase another paper from another outlet, but that wouldn't absolve you of your obligation to buy your newspaper from this shop.
It would be an intolerable situation.
Yet. . .
My attention has been drawn to this old chestnut which is being wheeled out for the umpteenth time today:
But they already HAVE paid for the treatment. There is no such thing as free healthcare, these people are obliged to pay for the service. You want to charge them again?
'Ah, but Wolfers, these people are drunk', I hear you say.
Right then, define drunk.
What the patients' group wants to conjure up in your mind is an image of young men, Ben Sherman shirts, black slip on shoes, shaven headed or heavily gelled hair, brawling in the gutter. Let's just suppose you've been out for the evening with your friends to a nice restaurant. You're on foot, miss your step and break your ankle. You've had too much to drink to drive legally, but you're not drunk as you would see it. Are you drunk then? Whose definition of 'drunk' is important? What is the test? Incoherence? Evidential breath test? Blood test? Opinion of the triage nurse?
So, prosecute them for common assault then. If they break that little bit of law, which has served us well for, oooh, about a thousand years, then prosecute them. Give the magistrate the power to hand out a proper sentence, it doesn't have to be custodial, but it does have to teach that abusing those who are trying to help you is the act of a clot, and this is what happens to clots.
They HAVE!
They HAVE!
Oh for crying out loud, HELLO? HELLO? THEY ALREADY HAVE PAID.
Hang on. . .
At the weekend? Of course, the hardened drinker will out necking it every night, do they not end up in the hospital during the week, or are they members of some loyalty card club?
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth, it doesn't matter if it is based in fact or not. The fact seems to have been forgotten that we all pay for the NHS, it is not, and never has been free.
By perpetuating the myth that it is run on fairy dust and sunny mornings it makes it easy to demonise people, and drinkers and smokers and the fat are easy prey. What next? A pursed mouth saying 'Well, you chose to grow old'? An NHS that will offer treatment as long as you promise to never be ill?
Because people are told that the NHS is free they feel as if their health becomes the property of the state, or other 'well meaning' people (read: 'bloody nosy interfering busybodies'). It results in rubbish like this:
What? Eh? Why? How? *Boggle*
Oh, right. There's an old joke in catering about how do you know when a vegan enters your restaurant? Don't worry, he'll let everyone know, very loudly, every five minutes. It's a joke I like because it plays on the level of having a little crack at the self importance of the Righteous, whilst also working on the level of a fart gag.
Great, the Devizies Tree Hugging Display Team will also be giving a half time demonstration.
Oh, joy. Thank you very much, Dale.
I think you're about to learn a valuable lesson about market demand. Oh, there are those who will follow the club whoever is running it, this is how football survives, but you WILL lose supporters over this, and you will certainly lose revenue in the tea bar, revenue which no doubt helps bankroll the playing staff.
Can they? That's bloody good of you, old chap. No pat downs at the turnstiles for meat and dairy produce then? Does this mean you won't be coming around to inspect the contents of my fridge with a disapproving look on your puss?
Forest Green Rovers, enjoy the mocking from opposition fans. You deserve it.
Jeez, what is wrong with these people that they think they have the right to decide what your money is spent on, what access you are permitted to have to services the money you provided paid for and what you should and shouldn't be eating?
I deviate. As you are about to sit down and enjoy your paper, the doorbell goes. It is the little scamp of a paperboy who has delivered the paper to you this morning (but not before 7am, see below), he is now explaining that the £1.20, £2.00, £2.50 or whatever you've paid is just for the delivery. As you have now chosen to read said paper, you have to pay again.
What would you do? Well, one of the first things you'd probably do would be to change your newspaper supplier.
But what if you couldn't change? What if you HAD to buy your newspaper from this shop? What would you do then? Oh, you'd be free to purchase another paper from another outlet, but that wouldn't absolve you of your obligation to buy your newspaper from this shop.
It would be an intolerable situation.
Yet. . .
My attention has been drawn to this old chestnut which is being wheeled out for the umpteenth time today:
Drunk people should pay for the treatment they receive at accident and emergency units, a patients' group has said.
But they already HAVE paid for the treatment. There is no such thing as free healthcare, these people are obliged to pay for the service. You want to charge them again?
'Ah, but Wolfers, these people are drunk', I hear you say.
Right then, define drunk.
What the patients' group wants to conjure up in your mind is an image of young men, Ben Sherman shirts, black slip on shoes, shaven headed or heavily gelled hair, brawling in the gutter. Let's just suppose you've been out for the evening with your friends to a nice restaurant. You're on foot, miss your step and break your ankle. You've had too much to drink to drive legally, but you're not drunk as you would see it. Are you drunk then? Whose definition of 'drunk' is important? What is the test? Incoherence? Evidential breath test? Blood test? Opinion of the triage nurse?
The Scotland Patients Association said nurses and doctors were often abused by those who had overindulged in alcohol, particularly at weekends.
So, prosecute them for common assault then. If they break that little bit of law, which has served us well for, oooh, about a thousand years, then prosecute them. Give the magistrate the power to hand out a proper sentence, it doesn't have to be custodial, but it does have to teach that abusing those who are trying to help you is the act of a clot, and this is what happens to clots.
They said the time had now come for such people to pay for services.
They HAVE!
Ms Watt said: "Anyone who has been abusing alcohol and can't stand on their feet and is admitted to hospital at the weekend should pay towards their treatment.
They HAVE!
Ms Watt said drunk people should be charged for using ambulances and for the time of staff who treated them.
Oh for crying out loud, HELLO? HELLO? THEY ALREADY HAVE PAID.
Hang on. . .
can't stand on their feet and is admitted to hospital at the weekend
At the weekend? Of course, the hardened drinker will out necking it every night, do they not end up in the hospital during the week, or are they members of some loyalty card club?
If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth, it doesn't matter if it is based in fact or not. The fact seems to have been forgotten that we all pay for the NHS, it is not, and never has been free.
By perpetuating the myth that it is run on fairy dust and sunny mornings it makes it easy to demonise people, and drinkers and smokers and the fat are easy prey. What next? A pursed mouth saying 'Well, you chose to grow old'? An NHS that will offer treatment as long as you promise to never be ill?
Because people are told that the NHS is free they feel as if their health becomes the property of the state, or other 'well meaning' people (read: 'bloody nosy interfering busybodies'). It results in rubbish like this:
The move was introduced for players at the Blue Square Bet Premier club a few weeks ago but now the policy has been extended to the whole stadium.
What? Eh? Why? How? *Boggle*
The Gloucestershire club is owned by Dale Vince who is a vegan who runs green electricity company Ecotricity.
Oh, right. There's an old joke in catering about how do you know when a vegan enters your restaurant? Don't worry, he'll let everyone know, very loudly, every five minutes. It's a joke I like because it plays on the level of having a little crack at the self importance of the Righteous, whilst also working on the level of a fart gag.
Free-range poultry and fish from sustainable stocks will continue to be served.
Great, the Devizies Tree Hugging Display Team will also be giving a half time demonstration.
"We appreciate some will miss their burgers and sausages, but our catering staff are working hard on a range of tasty and interesting products to replace those that are no longer available.
Oh, joy. Thank you very much, Dale.
"We're a country now where apparently chicken tikka masala is the most popular national dish. I think the old sausage bap won't be much lamented."
I think you're about to learn a valuable lesson about market demand. Oh, there are those who will follow the club whoever is running it, this is how football survives, but you WILL lose supporters over this, and you will certainly lose revenue in the tea bar, revenue which no doubt helps bankroll the playing staff.
"Anybody that really needs it can bring a ham sandwich or something if they wish - that's no problem."
Can they? That's bloody good of you, old chap. No pat downs at the turnstiles for meat and dairy produce then? Does this mean you won't be coming around to inspect the contents of my fridge with a disapproving look on your puss?
Forest Green Rovers, enjoy the mocking from opposition fans. You deserve it.
Jeez, what is wrong with these people that they think they have the right to decide what your money is spent on, what access you are permitted to have to services the money you provided paid for and what you should and shouldn't be eating?
Monday, 30 November 2009
The One That Wonders What The Point Is. . .
So today the SNP are outlining their plans for independence. It would seem that Alex Salmond is very keen for the Scots to have a referendum on the subject.
Well why not? I have no vested interest in the Union. I'd like to think it would save me money if it were broken up, but I know full well that any actual financial savings made by England in the event of Scotland's departure from the Union would be soaked up by some other scheme. Nevertheless, if the majority of the people of Scotland want to split from England then that is only right.
The thing is, I'm not entirely sure that a majority of Scots (or perhaps more importantly, Scottish resident Brits) do want the Union to split. I think the oily fish is on a hiding to nothing. Sat in Edinburgh at the head of a minority government, an expensive and divisive referendum would cause terminal damage to his administration if it were returned with a no vote.
I'm not surprised that the Tories are against it, nor the Lib Dems, but I am surprised that the Scottish Labour party aren't, if not supporting it, certainly making noises that this question needs sorting out. In the likely event of a no vote, I think Labour would find their position in Scotland strengthened considerably.
That is unless of course, as some armchair constitutional lawyers have suggested on the radio this morning, that in order for it to be a democratically and constitutionally satisfactory referendum, everyone in the Union would have to have their say. If that were the case then I really don't know what the outcome would be. I think just as many English would vote in favour of kicking out the Scots as would vote in favour of locking them in. Many would vote one way or the other to piss the Scots off and many would do the same out of a genuine desire to see Scotland get the best. It would be a bloody mess.
The question that the SNP conveniently evades is independence from what?
On the face of it, the answer is an obvious one. England. But of course, it isn't real independence. The bloody great white elephant is still in the room. That being the EU. There is no independence from England, England is not in the driving seat. If Scotland wants true national independence, they need to have two questions on the referendum, one asking if a split from England is desirable and a second asking in the event of a yes vote in question one, do you want to remain in the EU.
This is an EU that has railroaded the Lisbon Treaty through. A treaty that was ushered in with nary a murmur from the Westminster parliament and one that Alex Salmond would have quite cheerfully signed if he were Prime Minister of an 'independent' Scotland.
Captain Ranty has a superb outline of a few of the rights that disappear from existence at midnight tomorrow night, including the removal of habeas corpus, trial by jury, the supposition of innocence over guilt and democracy. Just criticising the EU will become a criminal offence at midnight.
If Scotland wants independence, true independence, I'll back them to the hilt. If they get it, I'll be looking at the property pages in Stirling and Perth with great interest.
Well why not? I have no vested interest in the Union. I'd like to think it would save me money if it were broken up, but I know full well that any actual financial savings made by England in the event of Scotland's departure from the Union would be soaked up by some other scheme. Nevertheless, if the majority of the people of Scotland want to split from England then that is only right.
The thing is, I'm not entirely sure that a majority of Scots (or perhaps more importantly, Scottish resident Brits) do want the Union to split. I think the oily fish is on a hiding to nothing. Sat in Edinburgh at the head of a minority government, an expensive and divisive referendum would cause terminal damage to his administration if it were returned with a no vote.
I'm not surprised that the Tories are against it, nor the Lib Dems, but I am surprised that the Scottish Labour party aren't, if not supporting it, certainly making noises that this question needs sorting out. In the likely event of a no vote, I think Labour would find their position in Scotland strengthened considerably.
That is unless of course, as some armchair constitutional lawyers have suggested on the radio this morning, that in order for it to be a democratically and constitutionally satisfactory referendum, everyone in the Union would have to have their say. If that were the case then I really don't know what the outcome would be. I think just as many English would vote in favour of kicking out the Scots as would vote in favour of locking them in. Many would vote one way or the other to piss the Scots off and many would do the same out of a genuine desire to see Scotland get the best. It would be a bloody mess.
The question that the SNP conveniently evades is independence from what?
On the face of it, the answer is an obvious one. England. But of course, it isn't real independence. The bloody great white elephant is still in the room. That being the EU. There is no independence from England, England is not in the driving seat. If Scotland wants true national independence, they need to have two questions on the referendum, one asking if a split from England is desirable and a second asking in the event of a yes vote in question one, do you want to remain in the EU.
This is an EU that has railroaded the Lisbon Treaty through. A treaty that was ushered in with nary a murmur from the Westminster parliament and one that Alex Salmond would have quite cheerfully signed if he were Prime Minister of an 'independent' Scotland.
Captain Ranty has a superb outline of a few of the rights that disappear from existence at midnight tomorrow night, including the removal of habeas corpus, trial by jury, the supposition of innocence over guilt and democracy. Just criticising the EU will become a criminal offence at midnight.
If Scotland wants independence, true independence, I'll back them to the hilt. If they get it, I'll be looking at the property pages in Stirling and Perth with great interest.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
The One That Is Glad They've Figured It Out. . .
For years now we've seen the (faux?) wringing of hands from the politicians about how to increase the turnout of young voters at elections, which sits at a very low level.
Fair play to the MSPs who seem to have cracked this issue and look like adopting a policy which will hopefully see voters aged 18 to 20 turn out in record numbers north of the border:
Still it's not all bad news, the social responsibility fee sounds like common sense, after all they charge car manufacturers the same to deal with the fall out from road crashes, don't they? No? Oh, perhaps this is the shape of things to come then. It's still a good idea, as it will help bankroll the benefits of all those people who currently work in the production, packaging, distribution and retail of alcohol north of the border who will probably lose their jobs fairly soon as a result.
And what about those little tykes who live close to the border with the Auld Enemy? They'll just get in their cars and head south to do the booze shopping. Is this just a sneaky plan to usher in the EU regionalist model? Will there be police and customs officers manning a control at every point of entry between England and Scotland looking for contraband grog?
There's an Eliot Loch-Ness gag there, but I won't insult your intelligence.
Fair play to the MSPs who seem to have cracked this issue and look like adopting a policy which will hopefully see voters aged 18 to 20 turn out in record numbers north of the border:
Controversial legislation to bring in minimum-pricing for alcohol in Scotland will be defeated by opposition parties.Yep, that'll get them turning out in pretty short order, the thing is they won't vote for you. They'll be voting for the other guys. What was the percentage of the electorate who voted Labour in Glasgow NE? 17% or something like that? I wonder what percentage of the electorate in the average constituency is between 18 to 20 years old?
The SNP government said its legislation to take it forward would tackle drink-fuelled violence and health problems. But Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems raised concern the measure, contained in the Alcohol Bill, was illegal under European competition law.
The bill also included proposals to ban drink promotions, powers for licensing boards to raise age for buying drink from 18 to 21 and a "social responsibility fee" for retailers who sell alcohol.
Still it's not all bad news, the social responsibility fee sounds like common sense, after all they charge car manufacturers the same to deal with the fall out from road crashes, don't they? No? Oh, perhaps this is the shape of things to come then. It's still a good idea, as it will help bankroll the benefits of all those people who currently work in the production, packaging, distribution and retail of alcohol north of the border who will probably lose their jobs fairly soon as a result.
And what about those little tykes who live close to the border with the Auld Enemy? They'll just get in their cars and head south to do the booze shopping. Is this just a sneaky plan to usher in the EU regionalist model? Will there be police and customs officers manning a control at every point of entry between England and Scotland looking for contraband grog?
There's an Eliot Loch-Ness gag there, but I won't insult your intelligence.
Monday, 2 March 2009
The One That Will Not Be Going On A Booze Cruise. . .
. . . to Berwick upon Tweed.
Thankfully I do not live in the only country in Europe planning to introduce a regime to set a minimum price for a unit* of alcohol.
The SNP must HATE being in power to introduce a policy such as this. Another example of authoritarian fuckwittery. Poor old Scots, at least in England we only have 3 parties of authoritarian fuckwittery, those unfortunate bastards have 4.
I look forward to seeing Customs detection officers stood on the Anglo-Scottish border. 'And where have ye bin, sonny? Doon to England fer tha' cheap booze? Open the boot up. Hey, Wullie, c'mon and see all this booze!'
Good Lord, how to ensure a 'Summer of Rage' north of the border. Leg Iron quite rightly says that if we don't riot, Labour will be swept out office at the next election. If we do riot, there will be no election.
The SNP have the Scottish Parliament, Labour have a lot to lose north of the border in a Westminster election, a few riots, Civil Contingencies Act kicks in, no elections, SNP and Labour win. Be careful Scotland, be very careful, don't raise to the bait.
Of course, ALL Jocks are terrible alcoholics, so they'll all react like Father Jack. We've had it, Brown will clamp down on us, suspend 'democracy' and all because some Gorbals tramp sees the cost of a bottle Buckfast go up.
*That's the same 'unit' that was revealed to be a measurement with no more grounding in science than the creator's imagination.
Thankfully I do not live in the only country in Europe planning to introduce a regime to set a minimum price for a unit* of alcohol.
The SNP must HATE being in power to introduce a policy such as this. Another example of authoritarian fuckwittery. Poor old Scots, at least in England we only have 3 parties of authoritarian fuckwittery, those unfortunate bastards have 4.
I look forward to seeing Customs detection officers stood on the Anglo-Scottish border. 'And where have ye bin, sonny? Doon to England fer tha' cheap booze? Open the boot up. Hey, Wullie, c'mon and see all this booze!'
Good Lord, how to ensure a 'Summer of Rage' north of the border. Leg Iron quite rightly says that if we don't riot, Labour will be swept out office at the next election. If we do riot, there will be no election.
The SNP have the Scottish Parliament, Labour have a lot to lose north of the border in a Westminster election, a few riots, Civil Contingencies Act kicks in, no elections, SNP and Labour win. Be careful Scotland, be very careful, don't raise to the bait.
Of course, ALL Jocks are terrible alcoholics, so they'll all react like Father Jack. We've had it, Brown will clamp down on us, suspend 'democracy' and all because some Gorbals tramp sees the cost of a bottle Buckfast go up.
*That's the same 'unit' that was revealed to be a measurement with no more grounding in science than the creator's imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)