DoofersDad

I really enjoyed the game and thought we played some great stuff at times. It is great to be top of the league without having conceded - but let's not get too carried away just yet. It is easy to be blinkered by the good stuff but I thought Yogi got it spot on with his post match comments about us riding our luck a bit. Celtic hit the woodwork and Brill was by far the busier of the two keepers, indeed, the fact that so many here have marked Brill out for particular praise reflects the fact that on another day we might well have lost that game by 2 or 3. This, remember, against a severely weakened Celtic side with lots of guys probably playing together for the first time in a competitive game. By contrast we have a settled team from last year which clearly has a good understanding between them. It was also the same team that received significant criticism after a disappointing draw against Dundee a couple of weeks ago. Several fans expressed concerns following a run of disappointing performances at the end of last season and were criticised for not giving Hughes time. Now we have just a couple of decent performances and that, apparently is enough for large quantities on humble pie to be eaten! Let's enjoy the win by all means but let us also have some perspective here. Last season we got off to a flier because we had a settled squad. The same is true this year but other teams will get better as their re-shaped teams begin to gel. Let's judge Yogi on where we are at the end of the season and not on where we are just 4 games in. There were some encouraging signs on Saturday, but it is still very much work in progress.

Well, the chap with the boots got the ball closer to the car than Leigh Griffiths got to the goal. Well done to all three guys for having the guts to have a go.

The figures are the value of Scotlands exports in whisky, oil and gas. We export oil and gas as well as use it. We export refined products from oil and gas.These are nothing to do with revenue income but more to do with demonstrating that we are a thriving nation. Bear in mind that showing a healthy economy also shows that people are in employment and paying taxes. Its not just about the taxes from the profits of the companies its about the taxes from the people. There are around 42,000 employed directly and indirectly in the Scottish whisky industry and close on 200,000 in oil and gas in Scotland. Assuming an average wage of £30,000 and taxes at 20% thats 1.4 billion to the treasury. Add to that the taxes on spending (VAT, Insurance taxes etc) and it comes to a substantial amount from two industries. Yesterday or the day before the Financial Times ran an article stating that an independent Scotland would be in the top twenty of the worlds wealthiest countries. I'd provide a link but I've no intention of paying a subscription. Thanks for trying to clarify, but the figures for oil and gas cannot be annual export value. The link here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fff67a62-88fa-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3B7Z5SzkA is pretty factual I think and quotes a Scottish Government spokesman as saying the exports of of oil and gas in 2012 (including to the rest of the UK) to be £24.4bn. In terms of wider value to the Scottish economy, using your figures of 200,000 earning an average £30,000 gives us a wage bill of £6bn in oil and gas related activity. The value of oil related exports and the wider benefit to the economy is therefore in the region of £30bn - that is just 2% of the £1,500bn quoted in the "YES" bookle I would imagine that the figure includes sales of oil and gas, sales of petroleum products, sales of expertise, sales of technology, sales of equipment, servicing of rigs etc etc. It may surprise many people not involved in the industry exactly how much of the aforementioned comes out of the country. The installation I'm on at the minute, although built in Singapore, is built from many components sourced from Scottish companies. Sorry, can't buy that one either. The sum quoted is £300,000 for every man woman and child in Scotland and therefore cannot relate to annual figures as the rest would appear to do.

Or are these trials for a new striker and the £100 is a signing on fee?

The figures are the value of Scotlands exports in whisky, oil and gas. We export oil and gas as well as use it. We export refined products from oil and gas.These are nothing to do with revenue income but more to do with demonstrating that we are a thriving nation. Bear in mind that showing a healthy economy also shows that people are in employment and paying taxes. Its not just about the taxes from the profits of the companies its about the taxes from the people. There are around 42,000 employed directly and indirectly in the Scottish whisky industry and close on 200,000 in oil and gas in Scotland. Assuming an average wage of £30,000 and taxes at 20% thats 1.4 billion to the treasury. Add to that the taxes on spending (VAT, Insurance taxes etc) and it comes to a substantial amount from two industries. Yesterday or the day before the Financial Times ran an article stating that an independent Scotland would be in the top twenty of the worlds wealthiest countries. I'd provide a link but I've no intention of paying a subscription. Thanks for trying to clarify, but the figures for oil and gas cannot be annual export value. The link here http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fff67a62-88fa-11e3-bb5f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3B7Z5SzkA is pretty factual I think and quotes a Scottish Government spokesman as saying the exports of of oil and gas in 2012 (including to the rest of the UK) to be £24.4bn. In terms of wider value to the Scottish economy, using your figures of 200,000 earning an average £30,000 gives us a wage bill of £6bn in oil and gas related activity. The value of oil related exports and the wider benefit to the economy is therefore in the region of £30bn - that is just 2% of the £1,500bn quoted in the "YES" booklet.

HT - 1 - 0 FT - 1 - 2 ICT Scorer - Tansey Celtic Scorer - Commons 1st goal 21 mins

I agree that Savage's statement is not clever. I am an Englishman who has lived in Scotland for 40 years and I can honestly say that I have never been on the receiving end of any animosity because of me being English. That is one of the things I love about Scotland, there are plenty of things the Scots get very patriotic about but I have never experienced that being translated into anything remotely racist.

I very much do get the fact that some people's sense of Scottish identity is such that they will choose to be independent no matter what - and I very much respect that view point. But there are very few who display that level of honesty. Too many people have that view but are dishonest about what the consequences will be and imply that they want Independence because Scotland will be better off. You may be happy in a poorer but independent Scotland but I suspect the majority who say they will vote "YES" will do so because they believe they will be better off. They will not be happy when they realise they have been duped.

This is just an honest simple question that I would be grateful if one of our "YES" supporting friends would be good enough to answer. Today I got a mailing through the door from the "YES" campaign. There is a page where it says "Scotland's got what it takes" where it lists a number of things and puts a value to them but with no supporting explanation. For instance it has "Whisky Export £4,3bn" which I think is an accurate enough annual figure. It also has "Oil and Gas £1,500 billion". Can anyone tell me what that figure means? The innocent reader would be excused for thinking these are the sums of money which will come into the Scottish Government to spend but yet total UK tax revenues from oil and gas last year were a mere £4.7bn. £1,500bn is equivalent to £300,000 for every man woman and child in Scotland and is over 300 times the total annual UK revenue from oil and gas. I am thinking this might be an estimate of the total value of all remaining recoverable reserves of which only a small proportion of the value will ever come back to the Government as oil tax revenues and even then, this will be spread over 30 to 40 years. This would appear to be just the latest bit of misleading information aimed at duping people to believe they will be better off in an Independent Scotland.

Sorry SP, but as you will see from my post above my view has not changed! I talk about "we" and "us" because I live in Scotland and pay my taxes in Scotland and have done for 40 years. The decision we make on Sep 18 affects me personally as much as anyone born and bred in Scotland. If we are talking about freedom, I think that independence may actually curtail the freedom of many. Within the UK Scots get the best of both worlds, the security that being part of a larger economy brings plus the freedom to make decisions on a wide range of devolved issues. The English don't get that. We have levels of freedom as part of the UK that William Wallace could never have dreamed of!

Top marks for Yngwie for spotting that the sentiments expressed in Alex's post were not from the "Scotsman". It is difficult to see how the actual "Scotsman" article can be seen as supporting independence but one gets quite a different sense when you read the bits which were attributed to it but were not in the article. One relevant bit states - "Scottish voters are about to be faced with a stark choice. They can choose to take responsibility for their own affairs and manage the future with the security of a massive oil bonanza behind them, or they can choose to run away from responsibility and go crawling to a Westminster which will be under enormous pressure from voters to punish them viciously in the name of “more devolution”." This sneaky add on is nonsense of course but is exactly the the sort of thing that persuades those emotionally attracted to the concept of Independence that Salmond's vision of a wealthy land of social harmony and justice (milk and honey too, no doubt) is there for the taking if only we have the "courage" to vote "YES". Truth is there is no oil bonanza massive or otherwise. Oil production has fallen every year since it peaked in 1999 and is now running at around 30% of those levels. Exploration is down and the amount of oil being discovered is falling. Last year UK tax revenues from oil were £4.7bn and the office for budget responsibility forecasts these will drop to £3.5bn by 2018/19. The Scottish Government's own predictions are for revenue for the Scottish sector of between £3.2 and £8bn by 2018/19. The upper figure is unlikely to be realised and clearly it would be prudent to budget for the lower end figures. Beyond that, nobody is seriously suggesting revenues will rise much beyond that, and whilst there may be periodic peaks of activity, the general consensus is that revenues will slowly drop off over the next 25 years. Coming back to what was actually in the Scotsman article there is the suggestion that the UK Government might end the benefit Scotland receives in public funding in the event of a no vote. That is speculation of course, because whilst the English voters may see that as fair, the politicians will want the Scots votes. What is clear is that whilst an Independent Scotland would receive all the tax revenue from the Scottish Sector, these alone would not be sufficient in order to maintain public sector services at current levels. As the Scotsman article points out, Salmond is warning that £4bn could be removed from the Scottish budget and that (or should it be £7.2bn) will be what an independent Scotland would need to find. Given the total UK oil revenue is less than that, it is clear that the freedom independence would give is the freedom for the Scottish Government to decide whether it raises taxes or cuts public spending first in order to address the budget deficit. Added to that are the costs of setting up the infrastructure of a new state and a requirement to pay £5.5bn annually as Scotland's share of the UK debt. You really have to ask where the money is going to come from to maintain peoples standards of living in Scotland at the level we currently have. As for all the milk and honey stuff about a fairer and more equal society, you can forget it. No matter how appealing it sounds in principle, Scotland does not have the cash to boost the wages of the lower paid and if it tries to increase taxes of the rich they will simply b*gger of south of the border and not pay any tax into the Scottish exchequer. If Salmond tries to go ahead with his social vision he will bankrupt us. He's promised us oil but what we'll get is Greece.

That discriminates against us lefties as the natural curve will take the ball across the target rather than into it. Guess I'll just have to strike the ball with the outside of the foot. - If only I could kick a ball that far at my age!

In May we have a General Election. It is fascinating to think what might happen in the event of a "Yes" vote. Whilst the current administration at Westminster would open negotiations with the Scottish Government, all could change in May. There is the real prospect of Labour being elected with Ed Milliband becoming PM and he would then be responsible for the final agreements. However, if that happens, it might be only because of the number of Scottish Labour MPs elected. When Scotland actually becomes independent, Scottish MPs would then relinquish their seats and Labour might become a minority government which would not be tenable. Labour would lose a vote of no confidence and another General Election for rUK would be held. With that scenario in the offing, Milliband would be desperate to get certain key bits of legislation through before Independence and he would only be able to do so with the support of his numerous Scottish MPs. Those MPs might be Labour MPs but they would also be Scottish MPs who will be looking for political careers in a Scottish Government. They will be looking to gain favour with the Scottish electorate and they will do that by helping to secure a good deal for Scotland in the post referendum negotiations. Regardless of whether they were in favour of Independence or not, in the reality of independence their loyalty will be with Scotland and not with UK Labour. The price Milliband would have to pay to ensure their support for UK legislation would be in making concessions to Scotland. If the Tories win the May election, they will have no such worries and will negotiate very hard indeed. It will be backlash time. If the best option for Scotland is a Labour Government propped up by Scots labour MPs, it will be interesting to see what the tactic of the SNP will be for the general election. With independence won, would there actually be any point in them standing for the UK parliament for 10 months? The SNP are certainly going to have no influence on the party in power in the UK and it would be in their interest to have as many labour MPs as possible. So would they simply not stand and instead suggest to voters that they should vote for whoever the electorate feel can best further Scotland's cause in the negotiations? It could be fascinating - not to mention highly disruptive for the government of rUK. If the people in the rest of the UK think the Scottish referendum has little impact on them, they are about to discover that it does!

In that case it'll be easy for you to provide a link to demonstrate this. Remind me, which side is "project fear"?! The English folk wouldn't stand for the things you talk about any more than the Scots would. Everybody wants the same thing from the NHS. The "English folk" voted for the Tories--we didn't, and haven't done for decades, which suggests strongly that we do indeed want starkly different things from our governments and social services. I don't think there is a huge difference. The rest of the UK is generally pretty moderate politically as was illustrated by a pretty lengthy run of labour administrations before the current one ( which, let us not forget, is actually a coallition because the Tories dod not get an overall majority). Fot those who keep to the view that Scots have no influence on a Tory dominated Westminster, let us not forget that the previous PM was a Scottish Labour MP.

Well, I can agree with you on this one SP! I think it is going to be a very close call on Sep 18th and if the result is for independence it will be somewhat ironic that the 2 people most responsible for the break up of the Union will be 2 Conservative and Unionist PMs. Firstly there was Thatcher. Single handedly she destroyed the standing of the Tory party north of the Border and fuelled the fans of nationalism by her insensitive policies and arrogance. Secondly there is David Cameron who naively agreed to a referendum, despite polls never having showed a majority in favour of independence, in the belief that we would say "No" and then the issue would go away and support for the SNP would wane. I wonder, will Cameron resign if Scotland votes "Yes"? .

It would be too late because we would have voted to stay and wouldnt have another one so soon after so don't expect another for 25+ years unless something huge happens like the uk leaving europe and even that might not be enough! I don't think it is as simplistic as that. What is for certain is that there is no going back if there is a "YES" vote. If we vote "YES" and then regret it we could only ever return to the UK if the rest of the UK wanted us back - and they won't. If it is a "NO" vote then I think it all depends on the strength of feeling. If polls showed a consistent majority in favour over 5 or 10 years or so then I can't see how the UK Government could ignore that. If a majority of Scots voters consistently demonstrate they want independence then we will have it. Up to this point in time, the majority of Scottish voters have consistently indicated that they do not want independence and therefore now is not the time to take such an irrevocable step.

Sadly there is a lot of truth in what Alex says. Whatever way the vote goes there will be a changed relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK and it will not be for the better. The nub here is that a reason for voting "Yes" is boiling down to the fear that having sought independence and failed, a "No" result would cause a backlash which would threaten the favourable status Scotland enjoys within the UK. To quote the song - "You don't know what you've got till it's gone". Should Scotland be an independent country or not? Obviously views are hotly divided on this. For my part I think that regardless of how the vote goes, we would have been better not asking the question in the first place.

It's what I call a good try - but wrong on so many levels.

Oddquine's lengthy post is testement to her passion for the subject and the time she puts into these things but it contains much that is factually wrong, much that is irrelevant and nothing which seriously addresses the major point I was making. I will just pick up on a few points here. Lets start with the NHS as it now is in Scotland and the reality that much of it is provided by the private sector. Oddquine satates ""Privatisation" and the rules underpinning it, re non-clinical dentistry, non-clinical opticians and pharmacies, and the PFI hospitals which cost us a heckuva lot of money in payments annually and will for years yet, but involve no clinical input, predate the current Scottish Government starting with Thatcher, and employs about 12000 employees out of 160,000 NHS staff. However, only the PFI hospitals are under fixed long term immovable contracts, the others are paid on a more piece work basis according to how much and what work they do for the NHS..... and they do not bid against other dentists, opticians and pharmacies for contracts. England is now privatising clinical interventions." This is just packed with errors! She refers to "non-clinical dentistry" etc, but these helathcare professionals all provide clinical interventions. She choses to omit the biggest group of private sector employees off the list (the GPs) presumably because she realises that even she simply couldn't get away with pretending that GPs' work was "non-clinical". She goes on to say that the arrangements for these private contractor health professionals started with Thatcher. Wrong. The arrangements started with the inception of the NHS over 60 years ago. In order to scare us all she says "England is now privatising clinical interventions" . But the NHS in Scotland has had privatised clinical interventions since day one! She then refers to the "piece work" contracts these clinicians have as though that is fine because they are not bidding against each other. These contracts are very complex and GPs in particular can pick and choose what non core service they provide. This means that some elements of care deemed necessary by the commissioning Health Board don't get done by these contractors. The nature of the "contract for life" also means that if a contractor is just not very good, there is little the Health Board can do about it. At least if there was a tendering process, clinicians unwilling to do all that was required or who weren't performing as well wouldn't get the contract. Better would be to have the professional staff employed by the Boards so poor perfomance could be addressed, but despite several years of Labour and SNP Governments in Scotland, these private contractors are still at liberty to some extent to pick and choose the services they wish to provide. She is also wrong to say that clinical care is not subject to tendering processes. Tendering takes place in relation to an increasing range of home care interventions for example. So don't kid yourself that there is no privatisation of clinical care in the NHS in Scotland, it's always been a part of the NHS - and it is growing in Scotland under left of centre Labour and SNP Governments despite Health being a wholly devolved function. Of course, a greater range of things is going into the private sector in England. As I have said before, I am pretty horrified by some of the initiatives and trust that Scotland learns from the mistakes the English are making. England has got itself into a mess for a number of reasons including debts from the PFI fiasco (Thatcher's legacy again) and because the UK Government does not fund public services in England as well as it funds public services in Scotland. This means the NHS in England has reached crisis point where despite increases in funding in real terms, the NHS cannot meet the demands. Radical measures have been taken and many of these involve the private sector. But don't think this is all the doing of rabid right wing Tories. Much of it is to do with the power of the medical profession. Allow me to quote from Beven when he was asked how the medical profession agreed to join into the NHS and he said "by stuffing their mouths with gold". They are still exerting that power and England has GP led commisioning groups because that is what the medical profession wanted. The funding issue is largely a red herring. Without going into any detail, if the block grant is reduced in the future it will be as a consequence of a poitical decision to cut public spending. Increasing public spending means higher taxes. Higher UK public spending and a higher block grant means higher UK taxes. A lower level of UK public spending and a lower block grant mean lower taxes. If a devolved Scottish Government feels the block grant is insufficient to address the pressures on the NHS or elsewhere then it has the power to raise taxes. In a devolved Scotland, the Scots have the freedom to raise taxes if they want to increase public spending. So whilst I absolutely agree with you that I don't like the way the problems in the NHS in England are being dealt with, that is simply not the issue. The issue is, how is the Government of an independent Scotland going to deal with the inevitable ongoing pressures on the Health Service? There is a spectacular silence on this and instead we get meaningless soundbites such as "the NHS will be protected in our Constitution." Just what is that supposed to mean? Do you really think that some constitutional gimmick is going to make all the problems and pressures go away? Or do you simply protect the NHS by limiting what it provides and expect everyone to go private for the rest?

Actually, Butcher would be very good for them. Hibs never gave him the chance of doing what he is good at - and it would give the derby games an extra edge!

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land. Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"? Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is. My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom. I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way. I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put at the end. So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London". To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid. The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region. As a non Tory I am very happy with that. It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for. The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for. However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for. I pity No voters, but fire on with your future of Boris for PM, seems you're quite happy with that prospect, and with the "thriving and vibrant" UK being one of the most unequal and divided of all developed societies, food banks, bedroom taxes, it's all good. Boris for PM Don't think so!

I am not aware that anyone has said that Independence is the big danger to the NHS in Scotland. In our current devolved parliament, Health is a wholly devolved matter. The Scottish government already has the power to fund it within available resource. What do you mean by "sucumb to privitisation"? As I made absolutely clear in my previous post, the private sector is and always has been an important part of the NHS. Involvement of the private sector does not mean cuts to the NHS or cuts to the funding. The NHS continues to fund services provided by the private sector. All the major unionist parties have pledged their continuing support for the NHS. The Government has continued to protect the NHS from other post recession public spending cuts and funding for the NHS continues to rise above the rate of inflation. What the NHS in England is doing and which the Scottish Government is hoping to conveniently ignore till after the referendum, is to address the fact that demands on the NHS are rising even faster than the rising funding can address. I may not particularly like the way they are going about it in England but the fact is that Independence will not make these pressures disappear in Scotland. It is not political policy at Westminster that is a threat to the health service in Scotland, it is the growing demand for health care from the people of Scotland that threatens to overwhelm the NHS. The question is, how will an independent Scottish Government address this problem?

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land. Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"? Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is. My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom. I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way. I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put at the end. So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London". To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid. The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region. As a non Tory I am very happy with that. It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for. The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for. However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for.

Having suffered a pounding on the pound, Alex Salmond will now look to breathe new life into the Yes campaign by exploiting the public's support for the NHS. Oddquine is quite right that Alistair Darling has got some explaining to do on this one and the next televised debate may well see him having some awkward questions to answer. The NHS will surely become a hot topic in the next few weeks. But voting in the referendum should not be based on whether or not Darling has got himself into a bit of bother. As far as the NHS is concerned, the issue is about whether or not independence will make a radical difference to the quality of healthcare in Scotland. No doubt pledges that the NHS will be safe in an independent Scotland will be bandied about but it will be interesting to see whether there is a debate about the real issues rather than the usual shallow sloganising. There must be few things which attract so much ill informed comment as the NHS. We hear people saying we need Independence to keep privatisation out of the NHS. Nonsense! It's here already and it always has been. Do you go to a GP? Do you get NHS prescriptions dispensed at a pharmacy? Do you get NHS dental treatment or NHS eye tests at an optician? If so 99% of the staff who provide those services either are or are employed by private contractors. A variety of other services are contracted out to private contractors and that trend will continue in an independent Scotland. It is true that more services are privatised in England than in Scotland but that is largely due to the fact that the per capita spend on the NHS is higher here and the NHS in England is forced to explore private service provision because it is cheaper. Whether the NHS provides the service itself or whether a private sector contractor provides it, the NHS in England pays for it. Whether you like it or not, healthcare costs are going to rise massively and these rising costs are putting pressure on the service both North and South of the Border. More radical steps to address these pressures have been taken in England than in Scotland because of the more generous public funding in Scotland. But the extra funding and, indeed, any further funding which might come into Scottish public funding as a result of independence, will only delay the inevitable. The fact is the NHS is a victim of its own success and people live much longer only to go on and develop other more expensive conditions. In addition, treatments become more sophisticated and ever more expensive. Any debate on the NHS needs to address how it is going to tackle these massive cost pressures. It is very easy for people to say, as Oddquine concludes by saying "Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes", but what does that actually mean? If it means that the NHS needs to continue to be fully funded by the state then there are two choices for the electorate. Either we need to continue year on year to pour an ever increasing percentage of the public purse into the service (and therefore increase taxes and/or cut other public spending to pay for it) or we limit what the NHS provides so that it stays affordable. That latter option may sound draconian but actually we do it already. There are, for instance, a lot of alternative therapies not available on the NHS or you can get better hearing aids etc if you go privately. Indeed, just in terms of general care and advice or screening for early diagnosis, the NHS could do far more than it does now if it had more money. We therefore currently limit what the NHS provides and if individuals feel that is not enough for them, they have the option of getting private treatment if they can afford it. That is true in Scotland today as the existence of various private hospitals and clinics and the number of folk with private healthcare insurance demonstrates. In Scotland, we already have extensive private health care provision funded by the National Health Service and we already have people paying for a variety of treatments, equipment and health services where NHS services don't meet their needs. With the spiraling costs of healthcare associated with an aging population and the development of ever more expensive treatments we are now seeing a shift in England towards greater input from the private sector and greater private purchase of healthcare. That shift is also happening here but is not yet so developed. What we need to hear from the "Yes" campaign is how these challenges will be addressed in an independent Scotland. Cheap sloganising will simply not do.

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land. Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"? Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low.