zurich_allan
-
Posts
788 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by zurich_allan
-
-
Do referees have the same allocation to postpone a game? Willie Collum's used his up... :-P
-
-
Done! Good luck getting it all written up!
-
I worked in the NHS for nearly 40 years before I retired at the end of 2007. I was involved as a front line GP and also behind the scenes as a member of the GP Subcommittee of the health board, so that I too have a very good idea of the internal wokings of the NHS. One of the major problems of the NHSiS has been the snowballing of the number of "managers", many of whom are not managers but administrators. Much more money could be saved by getting rid of many of them than by abolishing free prescriptions.
In which case I find it genuinely astonishing that you wouldn't agree about how horrendously stretched the frontline currently is compared to 10 or 20 years ago... To deny that is like trying to say the sky is green or the sea is red...
The management crock is often one that is wheeled out. Personally I think it's complete nonsense as any organisation as massive as the NHS NEEDS a huge amount of management, there cannot be any debate over that I'm afraid. Where the debate is relevant is over the types of management required.
My mother wasn't in the 'management' side of things per se, she was at operational director level and set up a number of life saving and changing successful initiatives in the areas of cancer screening, smoking cessation and heart care across multiple areas of Scotland, for which she was awarded an MBE a decade ago.
-
I would be interested to know who is going to have prescription exemption withdrawn under your regime. Is it the over 60s, the under 16s, those exempted on health and income grounds or all of these groups. It might interest you to know that more than 90% of prescriptions dispensed in Enland between 2010 and 2012 were free of charge, so the relative cost to Scotland of totally free prescriptions is not huge compared to the English set up. There is little to suggest that free prescriptions have a substantial effect on the provision of "front line services". I take it that you do not believe that GP services are not front line services.
I know far more than most about the internal workings of the NHS, my mother was a senior figure behind the scenes for more than 25 years until she retired in 2011. She didn't retire due to age (she was 59 when she retired), she retired before the proverbial hit the fan due to unrealistic expectations under impossible budgets and the blame was (will be) passed on to management. She wasn't willing to accept being a potential future scapegoat due to the current administration's inability to understand basic economics.
-
Yes because as a country (Scotland) we have elected successive socialist governments to spend the pocket money we have been given by the English parliament on things which benefit society as a whole rather than lining the pockets of already rich people.
Therefore we have free prescriptions to allow poor people to get the same medical treatments as rich people; free personal care for the same reason; free education to attempt to equalise opportunity regardless of wealth or class and a vast range of other benefits which England doesn't enjoy because THEY choose to piss their money away on other things like.......well you tell me? What exactly do the English gain from not having free prescriptions, free tuition and free personal care? Cheaper taxes? Nope. Lower National Insurance? Nope. Cheaper council tax? LOL I think not. What exactly is being done with the savings made?
Sorry bud. If you want a government which isn't socialist you'll wait a long time in Scotland.
What I would add there regarding education Oaksoft though is that just not charging for tertiary education hasn't and isn't giving equal opportunities. Quite the opposite, due to the lack of finance coming in, there have been unwanted forced mergers, redundancies, and closed opportunities at all levels of tertiary education. Evening classes have all but vanished meaning that full time workers looking for education are struggling to find it, highers are no longer being offered by the vast majority of Colleges, with the rest giving a hugely reduced amount. Age discriminatory policies are in place now for entry to a variety of courses including nursing (discriminating againts both younger potential students and / or older depending on the course in question).
Things are being stretched to breaking point in education.
The same is true with health care. Free prescriptions are a great ideal, but not at the expense of frontline services, which again are currently stretched to breaking point.
These policies have been good whilst they've lasted, but they are not sustainable in the long term and I 100% guarantee that.
-
Killie fans after the game thought so also. We weren't that good yesterday but we were the better side. Unlucky to come away with nothing.
Indeed, as I was leaving the ground, heard a group of Kilmarnock fans saying that St Mirren were the better team throughout, but that we were woeful at the back...
-
Indeed. And that is what makes us 8th.
And taking the demise of Rangers & Hearts out of the equation, we have made absolutely no progress in the league after nearly 4 years of Danny Lennon!
And what if those same teams hadn't overspent by millions upon millions of pounds for years if not decades and had actually decided to live within their means? Not to mention those that are still doing it and bound to take a fall in the coming months and years?
Many of those teams are cheats, not on the field, but off it, and that's no better.
We are where we are, full stop. I'd rather be 8th in our current state than 4th - 6th and on the verge of bankruptcy.
-
Just seen an advert for Worlds Strongest Man, Boxing Day 8:15 channel 5, and remember watching these for many years as a youngster.
Also Superstars was GREAT TV, time TV bosses brought this back.
World's Strongest man has been on for the past week or two with all the qualifiers to get to the final, you can get them on demand if you have sky. :-)
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Total nonsense they get no such thing as danger money. They get a wage like you or I do. No one goes to their work expecting to be assaulted regardelss of their occupation.
Boxers? :-)
-
No such thing these days as a pyscopath - the medical term is antisocial personality disorder. Just in case you was wondering ;)
Oh and many people function in life without being violent murderers with these tendacies
Although factually correct that psychopathy has been redefined in a pure medical sense, it isn't accurate to say that there's no such thing as a psychopath or even that the two are identical. There's plenty of recent research that discusses the short-sighted approach that was taken with the changes in labelling, as the ASPD categories have been proven with evidence to not be as good predictors of future behaviour or offending as the previous (and still relied upon by many practitioners) PSL-R. As such, within the criminal justice system they still significantly rely on the PSL-R (and PCL:SV) when evaluating the potential for re-offending. It's been shown many times that although very similar, ASPD and psychopathy aren't in fact a perfect fit in all circumstances.
-
Same story here - I run between 15 and 25 races a year between 5k and half marathon distance, and I would say that at some point in 3 or 4 of those races I will develop a stitch. Can pretty much always get rid of it whist still running by a combination of pinching hard on the site of the stitch and taking extremely deep breaths. I'm perhaps not as fit as those posting before here, but run 10k around 44 mins and half marathon around 1hr 45mins, which isn't too bad.
-
48% For me!
"Though your conscience is in the right place you also have a pragmatic streak and generally aren’t afraid to do your own dirty work! You’re no shrinking violet - but no daredevil either. You generally have little trouble seeing things from another person’s perspective but, at the same time, are no pushover. ‘Everything in moderation – including moderation’ might sum up your approach to life."
Sounds about right I reckon! That said, I think they're blurring the boundaries here between psychopathy / sociopathy, as a number of the questions are framed in such a way that the results do not quite indicate psychopathic tendencies, but do very firmly indicate sociopathic tendencies. There is a subtle difference between the two, and they've not quite got the wording of the questions right.
-
The two best films in history are 'Step Brothers' and 'Elf'. :-)
-
Glad you realise that its only his opinion. Granted he may know more about EU than you or I however others also have opinions.
These include Sir David Edward (he's a former EU judge & a unionist I believe). He reckons it's a question of negotiating an amendment to the treaties to form the basis of Scotland’s continuing membership.
this view was also recently confirmed by a European Commission official, who stated that Scotland can legally negotiate a continuation of its current membership from within the European Union following a Yes vote.
As for the Scotland Act, its irrelevant in the context of £3.5 bn of austerity cuts and the coalition signing up to cut or abolish the block grant. Even the english media are catching on to this and its likely to be around £4bn less than it is now. Sturgeon pointed this out last week to carmichael during their debate, he denied it and then she held up the Westminster document confirming it...
I know you aren't very clever with figures (you're admission when blaming the education system for failing you) but surely you can see that this amounts to 7.5bn less for Scotland.
Oh and there's also the fact that we currently only receive 70% in return for what we contribute to the westminster treasury. To keep this simple that means for every £1 that heads from Scotland to London only 70pence gets sent back to us "subsidy junkies"
Dont worry though, I'm sure HS2 rail line will still go ahead - good news if you work in the city of london or anywhere south of birmingham. Better together for London...
Yes Tony, I tried to be quite clear, indeed they can legally negotiate from within, but to be successful in those negotiations they still require the agreement unanimously from all of the existing Member States.
Although indeed, it is a first time situation exactly like this, what isn't new is the concept that various already ratified treaties would have to be altered, and there is no argument that to revise and alter any treaty within the EU requires unanimous agreement from the existing Member States. To alter them without that agreement would actually be an illegal act in itself, and would not be allowed to stand under any circumstances. That is not opinion I'm afraid , it's factual.
Some of the issues are that the European Council, the Council (of Ministers), the Commission, the Court of Auditors, and the Court of Justice Judges would need to have their membership upped from 28 individuals to 29 for decision making procedures, diluting that power held by each State that little bit more. This makes gaining qualified majority decisions that little bit harder in contentious areas.
It would also result in alterations being required to the EU budget, something that was a painstaking process when the latest budget was agreed just a few weeks ago. For example, each Commissioner is entitled to hire their own small cabinet and staff, each Member State has individuals on the committee of permanent representatives etc. Before you know it, you're running literally into the £millions in staff costs alone, without a single penny being attributed to substantive issues.
Likewise, another small State in the EU Parliament is a problem for some of the larger States, especially where a qualified majority vote is required on any issue, as all it takes is for a few smaller States to group together and they can effectively veto decisions of the larger ones, even though those larger States may represent an overwhelming majority of EU citizens.
These are some of the political reasons why some States may not be so keen to allow another State in right now (not just Scotland, but ANY State). All it takes is one, and then as per what I have said regarding the unanimous agreement, the Internal negotiations would fail and we would be forced to apply through the formal accession process.
This is not to say it is all doom and gloom though! We could still apply to rejoin the EEA / EFTA, which would see us retain some of the benefits of EU Membership, albeit with no ability to effect policy to a great extent. However even doing that requires a successful application, which would also take time.
-
I'd take issue with one point. Nobody would be voting Scotland IN to the EU. They'd be voting to REMOVE us because we are already in Europe and as you say there is no precedent for this.
I'm pretty sure that if we were REMOVED from the EU by Spain or anyone else, this will end in the courts because there is no law covering this situation.
There are no guarantees on this of course just like there are no guarantees that a plague of locusts won't hit us in the next 30 years but the reality is this will probably be solved by political means.
The exact nature of the barrel is anyone's guess but if the big players want to keep Scotland in the EU then the others will most likely agree. Spain may well be talking the talk right now but it is inconceivable that they'd risk losing the fishing rights they currently enjoy.
This is all being blown out of proportion.
No they wouldn't I'm afraid Oaksoft. Much as I would love that to be true, it's not. The Member State is the UK, not Scotland, and the remaining elements of the UK would retain the position of Member State.
What we DO have as both Scots and Brits as things stand is citizenship of the EU, and as I explained a couple of posts ago, there are indeed laws in this regard, but effectively the EU abdicate those provisions to the Member States themselves. Under the white paper, if it was proposed that we retain British citizenship, we would almost certainly retain EU citizenship also. If, however, we adopt a new 'Scottish' citizenship as is proposed, we are entirely at the mercy of the UK Government as to whether or not we are allowed to also retain EU citizenship.
If we wanted to challenge such a decision, the challenge would be to either the Scottish or UK (or whatever it is called) Government, and not to the EU I'm afraid - the EU itself would have no jurisdiction to hear such a challenge.
-
Voting to rescind the union equates to voting to leave the EU? Seriously? Where does it say that in the white paper, must have missed it.
Another for z_a - since the UK wouldn't exist anymore, wouldn't rUK be treated the same ad Scotland?
No, not quite. There would be a natural successor to the UK which would remain as the Member State of the EU in question, this would be the collective body of England, Wales and NI - whatever they decide to call themselves. That part is a certainty, the uncertainty is over what the status of Scotland would be - as I've tried to be independent (no pun intended) and maintain, that part isn't certain either way. Certainly there has to be negotiations, but the form, length, complexity etc. of those negotiations is what is reliant on other Member States at this stage. It could range from being as simple as gaining the common accord of the other States and an additional Membership being created instantly, or it could be as extreme as Scotland having to take up a position as a candidate country and demonstrate that they meet all of the requirements of the 35 Acquis chapters, agree to take on the Euro and make various undesirable concessions... it really could be anywhere from one end of the scale to the other. For the former, we require the unanimous agreement of all 28 existing Member States (including the UK - ouch that could create frosty relations if they voted against us!!), and this could theoretically be either very simple or incredibly difficult to gain - we cannot know with certainty how other Member States would vote and what tactics could come into play...
-
I'd echo oaky's comments, z_a, and I know it's your area of expertise, but surely we have rights as individuals and taking those rights away from us would surely be open to challenge?
The problem in this area is that the EU rules on citizenship are quite simple - if you hold the 'nationality' of a Member State, then you automatically acquire citizenship of the EU. However under EU law, whomever holds that 'nationality' of the Member State is 100% under the authority of the Member State itself.
So it wouldn't actually be the EU who remove citizenship as such, it would be the UK (assuming that they still call themselves that), or indeed Scotland, who alter the nationality status of Scottish born or naturalised individuals from 'British' to 'Scottish' - in the white paper, although I haven't read the section in fine detail, I do know that there is a proposed new 'Scottish' Nationality to replace the 'British' one. This would have the automatic effect of Scots losing EU citizenship.
Yes it would indeed be open to challenge, but NOT to the EU. The Scottish nationals would have to challenge whomever made the decision to alter the domestic nationality, whether that be the UK Government or Scottish Government.
It's actually incorrect to say that EU citizenship cannot be taken away. I have factual and indisputable examples of court cases where domestic and as a result also EU citizenship has been removed from individuals based on nationality / citizenship / birth etc. disputes, it's just that it's not happened to a large collective group before, but it CAN be done.
-
Okay, it's time to discuss this properly rather than a lot of the meaningless generalisation that is going on here with regard to EU Membership for a potential post-independence Scotland.
First of all, in spite of the rhetoric of some saying that they could live with not being in the EU - that's great - but sadly Scotland couldn't. Or at least it could, but would by a MUCH poorer country with substantially higher costs in a vast number of areas which could ONLY be absorbed by either raising taxes or passing the costs on to the consumer. As neither of those are desirable, then our only option is to remain within the EU whether as a newly entering state or by common accord.
So to what will actually happen then. And here is the reality:
Yes, Scotland could be admitted by common accord, but ONLY with the agreement of ALL 28 existing Member States. I'm not saying that that definitely would or wouldn't happen, but what I am unequivocally saying is that if any existing Member State wanted a concession in some area, we would have to give them it otherwise they have us over a barrel. The UK is NOT viewed well within the EU, or by the representatives of other Member States wihin the EU institutions. David Cameron has been a snake within the EU, and this is common knowledge - he has been rebuked by the president of the Commission in public on multiple occasions for both downright lying, and for saying one thing to the EU, and the opposite to the public in the UK. The latest free movement 'changes' being discussed in the news this past week are an example of that - the UK public are being told that the issue is the EU laws in this area being too relaxed, when the reality is that they are not - it is our own domestic mirroring of the directives in question (particularly directive 2004/38) that is MUCH more relaxed than the directive actually requires us to be. It is our domestic policy on the area that is at fault, NOT the specific EU law. In any case, should just one Member State decide that they don't want Scotland to become a State from within (and there ARE reasons that they might not want this), then we have literally NO choice but to seek entry as a new State.
The wording used within the various discussions is very 'interesting' - it speaks of it being 'legally possible' to negotiate from within, and this is true - it IS legally possible, but that doesn't even come close to being a guarantee that we would be successful.
This nonsense about 'but we're already de facto Members / Citizens' is just that - completely irrelevant nonsense. If we are forced to apply from the outside, which IS a certainty if any of the other States decide not to allow us entry from within (again, I can expand on the reasons why this might happen if anyone wants me to), then we HAVE to be able to meet the strict entry criteria (the Copenhagen Criteria) for Membership, comprising of tangible evidence that we can meet the requirements of all 35 Acquis Chapters. The generalisations that the EU would want to keep us because of our Oil, or for fishing in the North sea etc. are completely meaningless - citing that shows a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of how EU entry criteria work.
Currently as things stand, an independent Scotland would be MUCH more advanced than any of the existing candidate countries (btw, being a candidate country is HUGELY different to just being an applicant or something, those would be classed as 'potential candidate countries' - a candidate country means that the EU is actively working with the country in question, screening them at set intervals and developing the abilities of that country to be prepared to take on EU Membership in the future), but in my opinion, there are certain chapters that as things stand, we might struggle to meet the requirements of, those being:
Chapter 17 on economic and monetary policy
Chapter 31 on Foreign, Security and Defence policy
Chapter 32 on Financial Control
There are others that could be problematic, but certainly those three are the ones that spring to mind based on the proposals in these areas within the white paper.
Even if Scotland were forced to apply externally, that's not to say that we might not be granted Membership, but it WOULDN'T be immediate, there would be a lengthy transition period.
To sum all of this up:
NOTHING is certain regarding EU Membership. The YES side claiming that we would definitely get membership by negotiating from within are wrong. The NO side claiming that we would definitelty have to apply as a potential new Member State are also wrong. It's somewhere in between as there is legal merit in both arguments. However even being allowed to NEGOTIATE from wihin does not then automatically lead on to entry - it IS a gamble, and not as sure a gamble as some would believe. Anyone viewing this issue as black or white is incorrect.
Remember before you argue with me that I am currently in my 7th year of teaching EU law, so feel free to ask me questions and I'll answer them if / when I get the time, but rest assured I am quite certain that I am correct with all of the above and have no political agenda one way or the other.
-
Just because the term 'precedent' is being thrown around, and I'm not trying to infer that the EU issue would be resolved one way or the other as a result of this (in reality it is a horrendously complex issue, and not as simple one way or the other as many on here seem to think whether from the yes or no camp), but there is no legal doctrine of stare decisis / precedent within the EU. They have complete autonomy to either follow past decisions or depart from them without comeback or legal consequence. So what has gone before is not necessarily a good indicator of future conduct.
-
Shh, don't tell Allan but I work a constant night shift pattern and by the end of November I will have clocked up 124 hours of overtime on top of my regular 48 hours per week. Today is my day off. I wonder how he - as a University Lecturer - can manage to post at 14.27 on a Tuesday though. I hope he's not being workshy at taxpayers expense.
Hah, glad I opened the typical response that I knew would be coming. For a start, a university lecturer is not a 9-5 job, secondly, believe it or not, people have things called 'breaks' that they are allowed to have during the course of their working time - you know, the things that you eat your cake and talk shite on this forum during, and thirdly, my wife had a baby 10 days ago, so I don't actually have to be in work as we speak - though in spite of this I've actually gone in and taught 4 double lectures and 6 tutorials during that time.
Fourth and final point before I go back to NOT arguing with a moron - you're a dick.
That is all.
-
Failed again Dicko The Liberal Democrats only came into existence in the mid 80's so your creative accumulation theory is pants....
now just who were these imprisoned labour Mp's..? Ministers..? former ministers..?,
and what were there crimes say compared to Hamilton, Aitken, Archer etc...
One of the reasons I have the bell-end SD on ignore. He's a pseudo-intellectual (read: an arrogant tosser who thinks he's an intellectual, but he's actually thick). Funny how he likes to get on his his high horse about people he perceives to be workshy too, yet I seem to find the time to post maybe once every couple of days on the forum compared to his 20 lengthy posts full of drivel and utter bullshit a day. So who is it that's workshy exactly? Twat.
-
Haha!
I did have a chuckle to myself when he was still apologising on the way out. Don't know what he was apologising for, the fact he was shouting shite or for telling me to shut up. There has not been one game this season I've not turned round and told them to shut the f'k up.
I can accept people going Oh for f'ks sakes when a player makes an arse of it, but these idiots give it to them non stop for 90 minutes. Totally know what you mean about the commentating voices... I can see the game, shut the f'k up!
Hopefully, they got a fright and will shut the f'k up now. Doubt it but.
Need to introduce yourself next time mate.
It's made even more annoying because neither of them has a clue, and are 99% of the time wrong with what they're droning on about anyway. I sit right next to them with my (English) pal on my other side. We sometimes talk to Craig next to you guys.
-
Great game and well deserved three points. We never make it easy but do we?
Delighted McGinn got MOTM. I'll be pointing that out to the tosser that sits behind me at the next game who thought it was appropriate to shout "PISH, YA C'NT" at McGinn after he turned his man and hit a shot at the keeper with two minutes to go. Thankfully my mate pulled me back as I was about to stick the nut on him when I seen red after he told me to shut up when I questioned what he had done wrong. Complete moron of a man. If he's reading this, you'll have me putting you in your place for the rest of the season mate.
Delighted for Danny. I wanted him out after our poor start, but he's changed what we were all looking for him to change and I'm delighted he has turned it around. Credit to him.
8th place. This league is a piece of pish.
Hahaha! I sit right next to the two particular twats you're talking about. It was particularly funny when they both sh*t it and started apologising to you.
The two morons sit and bad mouth our players left right and centre from the 1st to the 90th minute of every game in their irritating, nasal commentating voices. I put them in their place at one point too when they were slagging Goodwin as he headed the ball wide after he clearly didn't know who was behind him and didn't get a shout. Unfortunately, it was that header that led to their goal, but he still made the RIGHT choice to head it wide at the time.
In any case, keep up the good work with keeping 'irritating twat no.1' and 'irritating twat no.2' in check. Anything to shut them up.
Michael Schumacher In Critical Condition
in General Nonsense
Posted
Aye, and Jens Paeslack's worried that Karma's coming to get him!! :-)