Ayeseetee
-
Posts
504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
Forums
Blogs
Store
Events
Posts posted by Ayeseetee
-
-
There's less than 140 votes! That is tragic. Viewing this poll as some sort of gauge of public opinion is desperate in the extreme! You're going to need 1,600,000 YES votes to win this.
C'mon Ayeseetee...I know you can do better than this!
Only 134 votes but 118 yes / 16 no
Also way to jump to conclusions I posted it here so it would get more votes and it is also why I said "brit-nats might not want to look at the results YET" can you remind me which side has been using polls to gauge public opnion the most?
-
http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/215987-referendum-poll/
pie & bovrils indy poll
(brit-nats might not want to look at the results yet)
-
What an embarrassment
-
1
-
-
I predict all 32 regions vote NO.
Clearly....
-
Salmond won time to accept it might happen sneckboy/yngwie or you may get a shock come sep 19th
-
I follow the West Ham chairman, am i joining west ham?
Just to note, I seen on twitter that Billy Mckay is following the Peterborough chairman on Twitter.....
I think there's a slight difference there...
A 200k bid for McKay is going to get shot down faster than an Malaysian airlines flight over Ukraine.... no need to worry yet.
(don't highlight that sentence if you are easily offended)
-
2
-
-
I use a gaming headset with my pc and I am only getting sound through the left side aswell so it isn't isolated!
-
3 points and a clean sheet from celtic
-
GGGGGOOOOOOOAAAALLLLL!!!!
(celtic own goal)
-
Not all too weakened when pukki / commons / griffiths are on...... no van dijk though
-
Celtic fielding a very much weakened team
10 changes in the celtic squad from their last game according to bt sport
-
No I don't, because if there was, there would be a resounding and unstoppable shift of opinion in favour of independence, and that's not what the rest of the UK wants.
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!
-
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.
We will be better off when trident sails away and we are no longer a warehouse for nukes and get the goverment we vote for EVERYTIME plus no more illgal wars in our name.
2/3rd's of the scottish people were against the iraq war but doofer wanted them to keep quite so he can still live in a world where britian isnt clutching to it's last bit of power on the world stage and making a joke of most of us!
So the question has been asked wouldn't it be better just to vote yes now instead of waiting for the inevitable since it will never be the same?
-
(not to mention an German monarch as head of state).
fixed that for you!
-
It is well documented that many Tory MP's would like to do with the NHS what they done with BT and BG and all the other national institutes that were privatised.
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.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-want-privatise-nhs-cuts-3102993
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-tories-hidden-privatisation-plan-1729681
http://labourlist.org/2014/08/300-mile-march-to-protest-nhs-privatisation-sets-off-tomorrow/
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/biggest-threat-nhs-tories-not-eu-us-trade-deal
http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2013/mar/05/nhs-reforms-government-privatise
http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/news-opinion/national-health-sell-off-dont-believe-3752792
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-9fe3-The-Tories-are-killing-our-NHS#.U_MVGGOVzTo
Just a mixed bag of links for you one quick google search will tell you things are going to **** down south....
I just think you dont want to believe it
-
Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.
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!He is mayor of the capital and is in charge of the biggest city budget in the uk so dont try and play him down...
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-08-13/boris-johnsons-dream-of-becoming-prime-minister-just-got-better/
If it's not boris the alternative is Osbourne
-
60 minutes of highlights (in gealic)
I wish the bbc would upload sportscene as fast as they do with motd
-
4
-
-
No comment by me required.
http://www.yesscotland.net/news/yes-scotland-challenges-alistair-darling-nhs-funding-hypocrisy
Yes Scotland Chief Executive, Blair Jenkins, has challenged No campaign chief Alistair Darling to explain the difference between claims made about the threat to Scotland’s NHS funding, that helped get him elected as an MP in 2010, and the exact opposite and contradictory claims now being made by the campaign he leads.
Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling, you were elected saying a Westminster Tory government would 'slash funding for schools and hospitals' in Scotland but now lead a campaign that wants us to believe that Scotland’s funding is safe in Tory hands."
The Scottish Labour Party’s 2010 General Election Broadcast makes clear that a Westminster Tory government has and would cut Scotland’s health spending and that this is a ‘risk’ that Scotland faces. The broadcast states:
"They [the Tories] starved our schools and hospitals of funding and there’s a real risk they’d do the same again."
"They wouldn’t fight for the NHS, they call it a 60 year mistake."
"The Tories would . . . slash funding for schools and hospitals . . . The Tories haven’t changed."
The official No campaign is now arguing that there would be no impact on Scotland’s schools and hospitals from Westminster Tory policies, including the ongoing privatisation of the English NHS.
Commenting, Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling has been caught out saying two very different things in two campaigns. He was elected on the back of the claim that a Westminster Tory government poses a threat to Scotland’s NHS, and now leads a campaign that is trying to argue the exact opposite.
"Of course, Mr Darling was right back in 2010 when he warned that Westminster Tory cuts could damage Scotland’s schools and hospitals.
"Elsewhere in the UK, the Labour Party is warning that the privatisation of the NHS in England could mean cuts. This would have a direct and automatic impact on Scottish spending as a result of the Barnett formula.
"Given that Mr Darling’s party identified the threat to Scotland’s NHS in 2010 and his colleagues, including the Welsh Health Minister, are repeating that warning today, it is simply not credible for the No campaign to continue with their assertion that Tory health privatisation won’t have a damaging impact on Scotland’s NHS.
"The NHS is Scotland’s most valued public service. We simply can’t risk any knock-on damage to our health service in the future from the Westminster government’s privatisation agenda. Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes."
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 I love when the no camp uses the nhs why dont we see what the english think? (2 mins in)
Cheers for salmond in england.....
they seem to disagree with you doofer! -
We would still have a voice after independence and could still help in international incidents I don't want to sit back and let genocide happen but what can we do now that we wouldn't be able to do as an independent country?
I agree. But you used non-intervention as an argument for independence.
And, yes, the West has been guitly of many crimes over the years but that wasn't the question. It was about the situation in northern Iraq today. Should Kurdistan be allowed to be over-run and many thousands of minorities and moderates slaughtered, or should the UK help a secular peaceful community defend it's territory from the Islamic State?
For me, the answer isn't 'Yes' because we've had a brutal history. It's also in the history of many other countries. That's also an excuse for turning our back on the victims of the Nazis (to invoke Godwin).
It isn't 'Yes' because Israel bombs UN schools.
It's also not 'Yes' because there is not the time to get together a multi-agency force from the UN.
It's not 'Yes' because they are not Scottish, so why should we care about genocide
And it's not 'Yes' because only US and EU countries have the will and arms to achieve it but we should wait for Kenya and Lithuania to do something.
There's a few days to do something. It's do it now or not. Washing your hands isn't an ethical policy in my view.
BTW, try to talking to someone about peacekeeping missions in developed countries. It basically means standing aside whilst someone gets ripped apart. It's anything but peace, just not actual war.
The problem is the uk can't be some peace loving nation while selling weapons to other countries including Israel / Iran / Russia and 20 others...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/17/uk-sells-arms-to-worlds-w_n_3608760.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/uk-government-reviews-arms-sales-israel-gaza
http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed
-
The wrath of the Cybernats
It had to be me. They had no Plan B
Or was it simply that you didn't know who was voting so you couldn't scare them into changing their opinion?
#betterwithbannerman
-
There's no chance of Celtic getting made to play in Kazakhstan at such short notice!
I doubt the European Court will rule in Legia Warsaw's favour, anyway.
But, if they do overturn UEFA's decision, and Celtic are suddenly forced into the Europa League play-offs, I think they'd be well within their rights to seek a postponement.
Celtic have done nothing wrong. Their 'crime' was being outclassed over 2 games by a superior opponent who inadvertently broke the rules. i.e. cheated!
I despise Celtic as much as everybody else - they're an odious club - built on bigotry and rooted in family histories of sectarianism, prejudice and frankly, scum.
Nobody can dispute that.
But to be fair, they have earned their right to be having a crack at Maribor and a place at the top table of European football. It does us all a great service!
I remember the days of Scottish clubs commanding 5 and even 6 places in Europe. We have finished 4th and 5th the last 2 seasons, Ordinarily, we'd have been in Europe - but we're all guilty of taking glee in our 'rivals' stumbling in Europe. We must wish Celtic well in Europe, for our own future good.
I'd love us to beat them at the weekend, though! Although it matters little in the title 'race' whether we beat them or not on Saturday.
I must admit when celtic beat barca I was grinning from ear to ear mostly because it raised the image of scottish football and the fact we were playing them a few days later...
for those who don't remember we won
(I am hoping Scotland can do the same against germany
) -
I thought I'd already implied my criticism of Israel.
I don't think we should be supporting neither Netanyahu or Hamas (both politically or militarily). Both are part of the problem rather than the solution. Neither wants to live in peace. Bombing UN schools was a war crime. Hamas would do the same had they access to the same weapons. Support moderates on both sides. Everyone knows the solution. Two states side-by-side living in peace. Arafat and Begin almost had it (really they did if Begin had survived) and Olmert and Abbas were close too (which might surprise some as he led the Lebanon War but negotiations went well with both sides on the 2-state). Israel may elect a peaceful leader but Hamas needs increased pressure as they have refused to have an election since 2006. There's no way Tony Blair (our leader in 2006) would get elected today, so every chance Hamas would be voted out for a more peace-minded assembly too.
But north Iraq is another story. The Kurds, Christians and other religious minorities wouldn't be burying children alive, taking women as sex slaves and decapitating men in pursuit of religious fascism. Invading Iraq was wrong (and it still would be) but letting the Kurds defend their own country (which is what their autonomous region is in effect) from a dark-ages inspired medieval force is absolutely right.
It's far from a controversial view, given that the UN condemned IS unanimously (how rare is that?!) and the EU voted to support the Kurds. We could sit back and let others do it, but I would condemn other countries that took that view.
We should never have invaded. We still shouldn't get involved in what is basically a Shia-Sunni power battle in the south. But the north is a functioning, reltively safe, secular community, dominated by moderate Muslims, welcoming those of different religions into its sanctuary. Well worth defending their right to exist. I'd hope a moral Scotland, whether in the UK or not, would support them.
I hope Scotland would voice support also but these international incidents are for the united nations and not for the usa/uk to interfere at any other level than supporting/condemning!
We would still have a voice after independence and could still help in international incidents I don't want to sit back and let genocide happen but what can we do now that we wouldn't be able to do as an independent country?
-
1
-
-
Israel isn't committing genocide. They could do that very easily. However, they have (as has Hamas) committed war crimes. When they voted for two enemies (Begin and Arafat) willing to put differences aside for peace, it was within a hair's breadth. Now they vote for Netanyahu, who cares nothing for the Palestinians, and Hamas, who promptly killed their rivals and refused to hold another election (if we did that, Blair would still be in charge). If you vote for the enemies of peace, what do you get?
But then why do you care? Remember: your 'Not Scotland's problem' solution?
Vote no and pledge to kill another 140,000 innocent iraqi men women and children in your name!
> And your response to religious genocide would be...?
Not Scotland's problem
That's pretty selective morality. Caring about one international incident but not about another.Talking about genocide maybe the uk could stop selling weapons to isreal?
Much as I was (and I was) against the war in Iraq and believe Bush and Blair committed war crimes, I would be profoundly disappointed if we let religious minorities and a moderate Muslim society be brutally murdered by an invading force. Be we independent or part of the UK, I would be disgusted if we stood by laughing and washing our hands as such a horror unfolded. As criminal as the war to depose Saddam was, it doesn't approve allowing genocide here.
I am not asking for an invasion of isreal and either way the usa is "dealing" with iraq so why should we?
look what happened last time we followed them into iraq!
Talking about being selective do you think we should be selling weapons to isreal?
-
Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.
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.
Well all 3 major uk party's are all on one side on this debate and it is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between the conservatives and labor politicians so cut him some slack.
I get branded an snp voter because I am voting yes so it happens on both sides
The Big Scottish Independence Debate
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Ayeseetee
while salmond is having toast, darling and brown have started thier bogus journey in dundee I wonder why
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scotlands-city-discovery-also-centre-4088148