zurich_allan
-
Posts
788 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by zurich_allan
-
-
Checked a few figures - the university has 1600 - 1700 staff over all 4 campuses, with around 50% of those being in Paisley, so it's around 800 - 900.
-
The university is a fairly large employer too. Over a thousand in Paisley alone I think.
-
The only problem with this is that all of these points are dependent on the party in charge and any solution presented on all points will be temporary.
Independence really is only about one long term decision which is who should control how Scotland brings in and spends the money it generates and the decisions which affect Scots. Should it be Scotland or another country. It's really as simple as that. Anything else is political bullshit IMO.
Here's an example. Let's say we gain independence.
Take Defence.
If the Tories win the following election we'll see a continued reduction in the armed forces.
Labour will probably do the same.
SNP are talking about increasing it and changing the focus on what they do.
Which one should you base your independence decision on?
I'd say neither.
You can take any of your other points and you'll find 3 different answers from the Tories, Labour and SNP.
Again which do you base your decision on?
Again I'd say logically you can't base it on any of them.
This is the reason why I've always stated that independence is about who we want controlling the decisions which affect Scotland. Do you want it to be Scots elected by Scots and answerable only to Scotland or do you want it to continue to be taken by another country where a few token Scots have a say?
To me, this is a total no brainer.
I understand that Oaksoft, that's why early in my post I mentioned that I'd like to see plans on the central issues from all parties, regardless of what side of the fence they fall. Also, I get that in the long term, it ought to be purely about people being able to vote and have a say on their own future etc. However the initial potential post independence period would be so critical and sensitive that you simply cannot ignore the party politics either, as to commit to a policy that initially doesn't pan out could cause lasting if not irreparable damage at such a crucial point. So to an extent, it would actually be naive / irresponsible to completely discount the party politics. Not the whole basis for making a decision, but it has to come into the equation.
I also have multiple concerns about what will happen in a legislative sense as currently the vast majority of laws that cover Scotland are actually UK wide statutes linked to a complex series of linked obligations (EU, ECHR, and other linked domestic laws), are we going to hurriedly rewrite these literally thousands of statutes overnight? Is there a long term plan for this? Are we just going to keep the existing UK statutes but substitute Scotland for UK in the wording (we shouldn't do this as the context is very different).
Lots and lots of questions, but very little by way of credible answers. I hope in time that all parties provide hard answers to all of my concerns and more so that I can make an informed decision either way. Without that assurance, I personally believe that just wanting to control our own affairs is not a strong enough reason to throw the dice.
-
As things stand, I'll be voting no. I'm not interested in the party political nonsense, as I completely 'get' that if independent, in 10 years we could still have an SNP Scottish Govt. or we could have a Labour Scottish Govt. etc.
BUT - to an extent, you have no option but to listen to party politics given that the only main political party who as a whole support independence are SNP, and so almost exclusively they have been / will be presenting the case for independence. Given that logically, if the yes vote were to pass, that would also mean that the majority (not all - so don't nitpick) in the referendum have been persuaded by the case put forward by the SNP and therefore it's most likely that in the initial first term as an independent nation that we would have a SNP Govt. at least for the short - medium term.
In any case, as I said, I'll be making my choice (currently no given the hard evidence available) based on the substantive issues of long term sustainability of defined strategies relating to areas such as the economy, defence, international commitments (including the EU), health, education etc.
I'll take each of these in turn as things stand:
The economy - I would like to see a robust set of projections (not spin and rhetoric - which is entirely what we've been fed so far), on how our economic model would look post independence. This is not a stand alone issue either - it is very much dependent on our coninuation within the EU or EEA. Currently, with limited tax raising powers, whether the previous Labour Govt. or the current SNP Govt. the vast majority of the budget for the devolved areas in Scotland comes from a block grant given to us from Westminster. As such, dividing that budget is relatively straightforward as it is a (relatively) predictable income, that doesn't fluctuate significantly dependent on external economic issues such as the global economic meltdown - we have been relatively insulated from that in Scotland in a central Govt. sense. I want to know what each party would do with a fluctuating economy that isn't so easy to predict. However, regardless of who would likly be in power initially, I would like to see these predictions from all of the major parties, supporters of independence or not. This is because if they are being responsible, the other unionist parties should still be prepared for independence, even if they don't support it. Until I see that we can support ourselves in black and white, and not with buzzwords and rhetoric about oil etc. I cannot vote for independence.
Defence - The issue of armed forces, trident etc. is one thing as it is relatively easy to set a broad policy for this, but there is more to defence than frontline and nuclear capabilities. What will happen for example to the current MOD contract that gives BAE in the west of Scotland almost its entire workload? Will that contract run to completion and then not be renewed? Will work be moved down south? We could be talking about thousands of jobs with virtually no other area of shipbuilding left for those individuals to go to. Beyond that, what would the transitional arrangements be for the move from a UK defence strategy to a Scottish one (whatever that might be)?
International Commitments - Particularly the EU / EEA. In spite of the rhetoric presented otherwise, we NEED to be in the EU, free trade without import / export taxation is vital, certainly in the early stages of an independent Scotland as we can't afford for all of our imports to have a price hike to take into account the legal taxation that could be applied. Our imports would certainly outweigh our exports, so this would result in huge financial problems. In addition, the likes of Prestwick and Aberdeen airports would no longer be subsidised as they currently are by EU funds, so the cost of flights from these airports would raise significantly (they would have to, to allow for the raised landing taxes that would then be charged to still make those airports viable and break even, otherwise they WOULD be unsustainable). Those are just a couple of the hundreds of reasons we would need the EU. Speaking as an EU and constitutional law expert, our ongoing membership, or lack of eligibility to continue without re-application to the EU is not certain either way - both sides have presented opposing viewpoints, and there is in fact (oddly) supporting law for each side of the argument - I would like to see the issue resolved with 100% certainty one way of the other before making my choice.
Health - Currently, we have the free prescription service. This is great, however I don't want to retain that basic benefit at the expense of frontline services, which are currently stretched to breaking point. I already know for a fact that in several areas the NHS are not meeting various legal obligations due to being stretched on a frontline staff basis, and this is due to a combination of financial mismanagement from individual healthboards (actually mainly due to trying to stretch funds that aren't there to cover a budget that is significantly more than what they have coming in - not easy!!), and not enough funds being brought into the NHS to begin with. So what will the NHS financial model look like post independence? Brilliant that new hospitals such as the Southern General are being created, but will that continue? Will it be at the expense of areas such as the near closure of the RAH kids ward and other hospitals that have already closed? Again, I want to know. I also want to know what will be done about the scandelous costs that many pharmaceutical companies charge for their products, often life saving ones, and effectively holding health services to ransom as they have no choice but to pay up? Again - no rhetoric - firm plans and figures.
Education - The area that I work in - currently, education (further and higher) is again being stretched to breaking point. There have been forced mergers, discrimination in entry criterias stemming from central government policies, reduction of part time and evening provision as it's not 'cost effective' (apparently higher education is now a consumer product), closed doors to many adult learners that want to come back to retrain. Many institutions are struggling in the current environment, I want to know that the long terms strategy is for this.
That's all I have time to discuss - I have other issues linked to all of the above and more, but ultimately what it comes down to is that I want to see more facts and hard policy and less rhetoric and party political in fighting, spin and bullsh*t.
Until that happens, I will not be voting for a leap into the unknown. I am a generally neutral person on most issues, as I base my decisions on facts. I am open to change in general, but not under the current circumstances.
-
Excellent game and great result. It would have been easy to cave to the 10 man team, it's happened to many other sides in the past. Also, earlier in the season, our players heads would have went down after so many equalisers. It was great to see our boys dig in and get the result.
Goodwin was outstanding, making every necessary tackle, mopping up after others and stepping in whenever necessary to take charge of a situation.
McLean I thought was man of the match, I'd actually say the best game he's ever had for us. That run down the left when he took on and passed two of their players with ease was brilliant.
Dilo was exceptional on goal, commanded his box well and could do nothing about any of their goals.
Only minor grumble was that all three of their goals were too easy and our defence should have done better, but we shouldn't dwell on that after such a great win.
COYS! :-)
-
Maybe you two should talk this out in private... Over a nice cup of coffee and slice of cake in Ta Ta Bella's... :-) (trying my best to drag this back on topic and stop all this shite)
-
'Scone'... :-) Great marketing that!
-
All of this bickering, derailing a thread meant just to promote a local business.... Well done to everyone...
I used to go into Coffee and cream a fair bit, since I work virtually next door in the university, I'm looking forward to popping in soon to see the changes! :-)
-
-
Nobody here could. They might think they could, based on how they play in their own 5s / 7s / 11s team, but that's not a good reference point. In spite of how much many (myself included) might moan about some players, it's all about different levels. Playing against a fan / casual footballer or even relatively competitive player would be childsplay for any of our first team squad. They would be quicker, crisper on the ball and extremely quick to release the ball if pressed. Jim Goodwin would seriously extract the urine out of any of us who went against him.
-
If they say no maybe you could get them for sexism. Zurich Allan might know. Or you could ask Oaksoft kindly to camp outside St. Mirren Park as a protest that a wee girl was being "victimised" or "repressed".
I just saw this thread, and you're along the right lines. As far as associations go (of which St Mirren FC is legally classed as one for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010), it would be illegal for the club to refuse to allow a female to attend trials and become a member unless it is decided following that trial that she doesn't have the same level of skill as the others that are selected.
Justifcations do exist within the Equality Act that allow sporting associations to discriminate on the grounds of gender, but only where they can show that:
1. There is a clear difference in physical strength or stamina required to succeed in the sport in question: Or;
2. One or other of the sexes would be at a clear disadvantage over the other.
It is generally accepted that neither of these are relevant until children reach the age of 12, and so refusing a girl prior to that age would be on very rocky ground legally speaking.
This legislation doesn't just cover existing members of the association, but those seeking membership also.
-
Oh so you know my feelings as well now?. I,m not responsible for the conditions in South American prisons either. I have simply stated a fact and I dont give a rats f**k if you find that unpalatable or not so f**k right off and go and sniff some other cunts pants and leave me in peace.
You wrote it, I simply pointed out how bad the way you wrote it sounds. If you don't 'give a rats f**k' about it, why are you getting worked up like a 14 year old suedo-hardman instead of either ignoring it, sensibly debating the point, or admitting that what you said was a little crass / ill advised. Grow up.
-
Point out exactly where I have said they deserve to be raped?. Dont put words in my mouth!!!
Okay then, if not 'deserve' then how about 'taking some sort of sick pleasure from the fact it might happen'. That IS the way that what you wrote reads. Either way, it's wrong.
-
A pair of stupid wee spunk emptying vessels playing at gansters. They are now on the flip side of that lifestyle choice and I hope that as two White faces in a South American jail they have plenty of lubricant and toilet tissues.
Oh right, so beyond serving the sentence for the crime they committed, they also deserve to be raped whilst in jail?
Yes, they deserve their punishment, and yes they should be serving their time. However they should also be protected from other violent crimes being carried out against them, that's not something that should happen to anybody, in jail or not. -
Censured = Criticised / Blamed / Condemned
Fined = Punished as a result of being found to be at fault
Stuart Dickson = Thick moron in denial who seems to think that undeniable idiocy is acceptable. What a twat.
-
Floyd Mayweather wins WBC and WBA light middleweight titles beating Saul Alvarez on points.
That's 45 fights for Mayweather and still unbeaten.
What was surprising was just how dominant he was too! Majority decision was wrong, he had that fight won by about 6 rounds. Can't help but think that Alvarez must have been struggling to maintain strength with his weight cutting, as he has looked immense in his career to date. Was more like a training fight to watch, felt that Mayweather still had gears to go through if he'd needed them....
In other news - Eubank Jnr looked absolute class again last night. He has one of the most stinging, heavy jabs I've ever seen. 11 fights, 11 wins, 6 KO's. I can see him being in world title contention within the next 2 years if he keeps progressing the way he is. Was talking about fighting on the Haye v Fury undercard which would get him some major exposure.
Great KO for Galahad too.
-
Very sad indeed, I met Kevin a few times briefly but didn't know him well, my sister in law was one of his best friends, saw him at the Scotland match just last Friday.
-
Sounds like the mother needs a slap too - a la airplane...
-
Another great thread...
Great post! :-)
-
Absolutely Drew - Moral innocence and legal innocence are not necessarily the same thing. No arguments at all there from me. Just as, for example medical insanity and (what used to be termed) legal insanity are not necessarily the same thing.
The problem is - we don't know what happened behind closed doors, it could have been something, it could have been nothing. Therefore we cannot judge on the morals - none of us are in a position to do that, we can only judge on the evidence. Being legally 'not guilty' does = being legally 'innocent', the two are intertwined.
But then I would say that given my area of work....
-
Never heard a judge ask a jury how do you find the accused, guilty or innocent?
He was found not guilty end off. No need for your spin.
There's no spin involved here. The verdict itself from the jury is indeed guilty or not guilty (or not proven in Scotland), but the overarching law as relates to justice specifically and clearly uses the terminology 'innocent'.
Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law...."
Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
If a fair trial or tribunal does not displace the presumption of innocence (as is the case here), then the presumption stays in place and the accused remains legally innocent.
-
I thought all alleged victims in sex abuse cases, regardless of age, had lifelong anonymity?
Not quite - they are all afforded it automatically from the outset, but the judge in the case has the absolute discretion to end the anonymity if he / she deems it either necessary in the interests of justice or in the public interest. Beyond that, accusers also have the choice to waive their anonymity if they so wish currently.
There is also precedent for proven malicious complainers to have anonymity removed via parliamentary privilege (See Shannon Taylor / Warren Blackwell case a few years ago - I don't have a link, but a quick google search will give you the details).
The law has very slighty differences north and south of the border, but the practice is identical.
However this is relating to complainers in sexual offences cases in general, as far as those complainers under the age of 18 there are various other statutory laws and orders that can be put in place relating to reporting restrictions that can be used in conjunction with the general anonymity (such as the various Children and Young Persons Acts - there are several - in both Scotland and England / Wales), making lifting anonymity all the more difficult - again, the use of the relevant areas of these statutory sections is entirely dependant on the low chronological age of the complainer.
Age based laws are used for no other reason than financial, resource and time limitations, and are not conducive to actual, real justice as related to the individuals involved.
Nobody can win an argument with me that it is right that a child aged 11 years and 364 days who factually murders somebody cannot under any circumstances be prosecuted in an ordinary court or legally held to account, whereas a child who is one day older can. You can have 11 - 12 year olds who are very much children and extremely naive, and you can also have 11 - 12 year olds who, although not mature still have a perfect awareness of the consequences of their actions and are perfectly capable of factually having an evil intent.
It's a highly complex area, and I certainly would never say that a minor or a complainer in a sexual abuse case shouldn't have anonymity afforded to them. What I am saying, is that a complete, blanket approach is not, never has been and never will be appropriate. It should always be about the circumstances of the individual case and nothing more.
-
Love a good factual based post.
Fancy marrying me?
Lol, someone else beat you to it, but I'm all for sharing so what the hell!!
-
Is the accuser not still legally a minor and this is the reason she can't be named??
Yes, and this is part of the problem in Scottish (and other) law. The complainer is currently 17, so benefits from a cloak of anonymity that doesn't take into account any personal maturity, immaturity, intention, naivity, recklessness or responsibility. In our country (with varying levels of responsibility attached), you can write a will at 12, have sex at 16, be criminally responsible at 8, be prosecuted at 12, go to college at 15, drive at 17, get married at 16, get a (proper) job at 15, yet NOT take any responsibility and have a complete get out if you make a false accusation in spite of being deemed legally able to do all of this at the age of 17 - ONLY because you are 17. I'm NOT saying that this is what has happened here, but I AM trying to illustrate that an age based approach to law as opposed to a capacity based one is highly flawed.
Grangemouth
in General Nonsense
Posted
This is interesting to read, and I would expand on that by saying that I know for a fact that at least some (I don't know how many - could be only certain workers, could be all) workers at the plant had communicated to them a couple of weeks ago by senior management, that when discussing the strike situation in public they should only discuss facts, give no opinion that may be deemed to be negative or defamatory, and that action may be taken against those who didn't adere to this 'order' (I'm paraphrasing as I didn't commit the whole thing to memory, but you get the idea). I saw the communication with my own eyes. At the most flexible end of the scale that could be argued as trying to avoid widespread panic that might affect share prices, local community etc. and at the other end of the scale it could be viewed purely as a gagging order. Up to others how they choose to interpret it, depends on your perspective I suppose.