Ellie 2

Sure they voted SNP because they're Scottish or just live there. If someone told them their job was on the line they would have voted differently. Might be a total waste of money, a lot of things in defence work are, should see the money that gets wasted, it's enough to make you cry. However it keeps people in a job.

I did read that the SNP had plans to utilise that facility so that there would be minimum loss of jobs. I can't remember what the plan was. That's old age galloping on!

Gbye Grey Sky, I should have mentioned in my last post that the SNP, before the referendum, published the "Wee Blue Book" which explained what they would do, in all areas of government, immediately after a YES vote. I have a copy but don't know if it is still available on their website.

That was exactly my point. At the moment there is a common enemy to unite the Scots and distract them from many of the real issues. Get Independence and all the factions will split, the unity will go, and it will be business as usual with most Scots ultimately dissatisfied with their Government but they will be a small nation with little clout in Europe.

I doubt if it will be any different from any other democracy. How well do you know the Scots? I don't think there is distraction from the real issues which independence would bring.. At the minute there is a focus on autonomy for the government and ultimate independence, but that doesn't mean that the Scots think it will be paradise when it happens.They are used to hard work. The prize is deciding their own future not having it decided by people miles away who don't know them and are not interested in getting to know them.

What independence ?

That was comprehensively rejected. Why on earth bring that up ?

As I have said before, you don't have a clue. You should research a subject to learn something about it before you comment on it.

I must say that it is hard to see how they could become more anti-Westminster.

 

The SNP are riding high on creating a bogeyman that is an easy target really. Have the Scots considered a post-independence landscape or do you feel that they would become effectively a one-party state like the ANC in South Africa without a credible opposition. I have a feeling that Independence would be the worst thing that could actually happen to the SNP and to the Scots though I know that its supporters believe that Scotland would then proceed as a unified socialist utopia ruled by Brussels (sorry, Holyrood).

I think a lot of people, in and out of Scotland, have the misconception that after independence Scotland would have only one political party. Within the SNP at the moment there are people with various political views, who have come together to fight for common goals, namely more autonomy for the Scots Parliament and ultimately independence. With independence the SNP will split into other political parties e.g. conservative, labour, liberal etc. The difference between then and now will be that they will truly be Scots parties with Scots mps and their headquarters in Scotland. Oh, believe me the Scots could become very much more anti Westminster. I base that on what a large number are saying.

I am amazed the Scots got out the pubs to vote, and those that did get out the pubs found a polling station while blind drunk:wink:

That is so funny. I can hardly type for laughing.

You have absolutely no evidence to back that up.

Most Scots wanted to stay in the UK as was proven in the referendum.

You don't have a clue!

Except that the SNP claimed throughout the campaign and since that the GE was not a referendum on leaving the Union. Were they lying about that in your view?

No the SNP were not lying. They have the trust of the Scots because they do what they say. They will fight to get everything that was promised by the 3 other parties just before the referendum. If this is not delivered by Cameron it will simply mean the Scots will become more anti Westminster and your guess is as good as mine what will happen. However, I expect the SNP's manifesto, for the 2016 Scots election, will contain their preference for independence. When that will happen depends on the feelings of the people. I know many wish it sooner rather than later but only time will tell. The SNP will not act until they are sure that there is a good majority.

That's your opinion not mine. As for Cameron , he has delivered nothing to Scotland. He is trying to " water down" what was promised. To date he has delivered nothing of what he promised last September. The referendum result was not the view of only the Scots. Anyone who lived in Scotland could vote in that but in the GE only citizens could and the result was a landside for the SNP. The GE is a truer picture of the feeling of the population of Scotland than the referendum was.

Which policy ? I think Scotland is getting what was promised to them and quickly.

They are not. That's why there was the large swing to the SNP. Cameron has no mandate to impose his policies on Scotland. As for the demonstrators in London; I believe that they are letting the Tories know that they have had enough of their policy of austerity which is hurting mainly the disabled and low paid workers. This they are entitled to do .

The Institute of Fiscal Studies report is based on Scotland fiscal position staying the same as now and what you quoted deals mainly with the UK as a whole. Nicola Sturgeon addressed the IFS two or three weeks ago and by all accounts they were very impressed, so I would worry too much about Scotland going bankrupt if I were you.

Ellie

I'm married to one from a big family, and I don't know one of them or other Scottish friends who voted for independence.

Besides which Cameron has an absolute majority, and there certainly wont be another referendum on independence for many years to come.

We obviously come from opposite sides of the fence as my experience is the opposite. Why did over 50% of Scots elect 55 SNP members to go to Westminster? To gain what was promised by Cameron to secure a NO vote and which has mostly been reneged on. If he refuses to give the autonomy he promised all of it, not some watered down version, then they,the Scots people, will demand another referendum.

No the SNP vote was to show that the Scots were tired of being either ignore or lied to by successive Westminster politicians. The SNP connect with the people of Scotland and have shown through the Scots Parliament that they do what they say and don't lie to get elected.

Scots are more than prepared to take control of their own finances rather than raising funds and handing them over to Westminster to be then given a portion back, which the English like to call handouts. Which elected SNP members do not like the idea of independence? They are in the wrong party if that is the case. Help from Westminster? The only help they have given to Scotland is to have squandered the royalties of their oil for years. If the Scots are such a drain on English finance why did the government want to keep them so much? Why did they run a campaign to keep them based on lies and fear and rush up to Scotland the day before the referendum to promise them the world - if they stayed in the union? The ones who believed the government lies are now realising they were just that - lies. Hence the big swing to SNP.

Great post! Just posted a similar one.

^^^ Independence would mean they'd have to raise, and spend their own money and I doubt that any help would be given by Westminster. Even the elected SNP members, on the whole, don't like the idea of that. Independence may be a dream for some but the reality of what that would mean for Scotland would soon wake them up.

Please don't believe all that you read. Who told you that the elected SNP members don't like the idea of Scotland raising it's own finances? If Scotland is so poor why did the Westminster mob go to such lengths to persuade Scots to stay in the Union. It wasn't because they liked them, they normally insult and ignore them. The only reason was because they would no longer have the benefit of the finance Scotland generates.

Regardless of the number of SNP members in parliament, the majority of Scots voted against independence just a few months ago, so I can't see them having much effect in Whitehall to make any substantial difference to any future lesgislation.

Mike

With the number of votes given to the SNP it shows that more Scots are doubting their No vote and if Cameron doesn't grant all of what he promised then more than the mere 200,000 No voters will turn to Yes. You obviously don't know the Scots.

Seems the British have comprehensively rejected the left ideology.

No, the English have. The Scots voted SNP for one very good reason to keep the reality of independence alive. If Cameron ignores the Scots at Westminster he will simple hasten the demise of the UK.

Well done SNP. The first step is completed.

As I said there seems to be a lot of upset with any criticism and the people on pio are representative a cross section of the rest of the world, there may be some truths in what people are expressing for them and also there may be a kernel of validity in what they are saying, so to simple castigate people for an opinion without taking time to consider what is the driver for them seems to be a little bit of a knee jerk reaction which could be seen as questionable as the original opinion.

Are you sure that there "seems to be a lot of upset with any criticism?" Couldn't it simply be that other people have a different opinion and , like you, are expressing it? I don't see much castigating going on. I think that the validity of some opinions is being questioned because of the length of time those expressing it have lived here. I think most would agree that it takes quite some time to really get to know someone.

I think if you take your citizenship certificate with you, you should be all right. The date on that and your reason for travel should suffice.

You could live in the Hills. Great schools, sports clubs,restaurants, shopping etc. Not far from Giraween.

Doesn't seen to be better in Scotland. Same old February snow. Schools and road closures as usual.

The scheme has been dropped, so the points below are purely academic. But...

 

No there weren't. There is a flat rate of rebate for bulk billing doctors based on the length of consultation. The proposal was to reduce the level of rebate for the most common form of consultation. Since the rebate was based on the doctor and not the patient - and blind to the level of payment that might be made by the patient - there was no mechanism to offer a rebate.

 

That was not what I heard stated.

 

I am sorry you think that people who can't or don't want to pay for GP visits are rabble. I think your comment says quite a lot about people on the right wing of politics in Australia right now.

 

I did not say that people who couldn't pay were a rabble, I said that there was rabble rousing going on. That means some people were not telling the whole truth about the changes, but that's nothing new!

Of course it can. If you take the line that the payments would not deny people access to healthcare then all that is happening is that the country is paying for healthcare at the point of use rather than through general taxation. The overall cost would remain the same. On the other hand, if you think that "user pays" would reduce the overall amount paid, it would be because less healthcare was being consumed - and it would be the poorest people losing most.

 

The old system worked very well but I guess you know little,if anything, of that. UK with its huge population are making cut backs in the NHS,so I would like to hear how Medicare can be afforded here in is present form, considering the size of the country, relatively small population, the labor party leaving a deficit and refusing to pass any bill that would help cut the debt.

 

Good luck with that one. I find it generally more useful to form my political opinions based on what happens now, not what happened a few years ago.

Oh, we are now adopting a superior intellectual tone, are we? How you came to the conclusion that I base my opinions only on what happened in the past I don't know. My comment on children's jabs was in response the comment about nurses clinics that perform this service now. However, anyone who bases a political opinion only on the present has, in my opinion very little substance. Surely one should look to the past and present to compare, judge,evaluate the changes and then make the decision where your preferences lie politically.

My understanding is that there are exemptions e.g. pensioners, children under 16 etc. I think that there is a lot of rabble rousing going on about this. The country cannot afford the cost of universal health care, so something has to change before it sends us broke. I don't know what the score is now with children's jabs but years ago you just had to front up to the local council chambers and they were done for free.

We arrived one August morning in 1966. Were awakened the next morning around 5 am by someone hammering on the door. It was a guy we'd never seen before who heard my OH was arriving and organised a job for him- both chippies. The wage was $45 a week.