Just heard a rumour that Cameron has promised to make any mention of 1966 a criminal offence punishable by the death penalty if Sotland says no.
Scotch Independence - the countdown
- Thread starter stopmeandslapme
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Nae bother mate.
Now you know yer gonne have to skin an extra joint for the trip so it's all good
You'll no catch me in "Chook" as the locals call it, plus "Chookters" are not all that fond of me. Probably because I liked to point out that they insulted themselves by refering to themselves as Teuchters**********
Then theres the mental ex.
Apart from the usually ****e lineup I don't think I'll be going anyway. It's a no from this bear.
Pud looks forward to the "Brave New World" when we are separated at birth into classes Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc, and your job, social status, and healthcare rights are assigned even before they cut yer umbilical.
Am an alpha, obviously.
There's a big problem with it.
The more you offer private services the more you eradicate the NHS and the more you expose your healthcare services to EU law.
NHS all the way. If you tossers are so willing to pay private annuity to private health care then ye's can **** off to the good ol' u ess of ****in a.
Ya pricks.
Are you takin the pish ya tory ****?
There is either a one for all NHS, or, there is a pay for what you can get. The two don't work together. The latter is an eradication of the former. Privatisation of services must be limited to services not available on the NHS and never as an alternative.
Any twat who says but but but but I can pay is just a queue jumping prick at the detriment of the actual NHS.
The NHS doesn't have universal access to every treatment though. There's always gonna be some private health care within the NHS.
Besides you skipped a few of my posts you pished ****.
I skipped all of them.
But it seems we don't disagree.
Private for services not available on NHS.
Never allow private alternatives to services available on the NHS. This really will erode the NHS and eventually destroy it.
So, that split in Kirsty Wark's skirt. A good thing in a lady of her years? Is her director doing her any favours with that camera angle?
Indeed.
Now
[video=youtube;WJhPLGMhRuQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJhPLGMhRuQ[/video]
By virtue of their financial muscle which sees constant buying out of each other, Their 20 year (or therabouts) copyrights on drug production so that, as they say, they can recoup their investment and are encouraged to invest more. These are some of the most powerful and ruthless companies in the world, rather like the oil companies. I worked in the pharmaceutical Industry for about 6 years, at that time only one company had an ethic to really pursue health care and that was the Welcome Foundation (the inventor of synthetic insulin) the rest were more interested in finding a new analgesic because that was where the big bucks were. Since then of course in a neo-liberal world they have been able to charge astrominical prices for certain drugs.
Another insight into their practices was there trading methods. The USA has the strongest drug agency that monitors the safety of medical products. When they ban a pill as hazardous the company switches sales to Europe until they ban it and then to Africa and so on. In other words they are quite happy to sell drugs with known health risks just as long as they can turn a profit. I remember as a rep being called into one of my companies depots to help out in shifting a lot of SMA baby milk onto trucks. What's happening with this I asked. It's been taken off the market as it's contanminated presenting a health risk, I was told. Oh! so we are sending it to the tip? No this stuff is going to Africa, they can sell it there.
EDGE.
Official POTY 2011, 2014, 2015, 2018 & 2023
I was listening to a program on R4 last night on the legalities of the "split".
Supposedly, the Act of Union is not actually an Act at all, more of an international treaty, and as such, parliament does not have the powers to annul the treaty as the British parliament did not exist when the treaty was signed.
I don't think a slender Yes will be the end of this at all.
Supposedly, the Act of Union is not actually an Act at all, more of an international treaty, and as such, parliament does not have the powers to annul the treaty as the British parliament did not exist when the treaty was signed.
I don't think a slender Yes will be the end of this at all.
The reason that Cameron didn't object to a legally binding vote in the first place was that he knew an appearance of intransigence would work heavily against him in a non-binding vote. I can't see them having any credible excuse to block it now (outside of having another vote).
Yes continuing to bully and intimidate No voters.
SNP wouldn't guarantee their supporters won't be outside polling stations intimidating voters
SNP wouldn't guarantee their supporters won't be outside polling stations intimidating voters
.