THE EVIL EMPIRE STRIKES BACK!

Union Hijacked has some devastating news for Alex Salmond this morning.  It looks like the rise in support for Scottish independence is about to come to an abrupt halt as Britain First launches its “Scotland says no!” campaign.

Who are they, do we hear you ask?  Well, it’s basically the English Defence League with a bit of tartan glued over the top.  Their campaign is based on ultra right wing ideology, and whilst regular Unionists harp on about the Barnett Formula etc, this mob are more concerned with influx of eastern European immigrants leading to “many of our towns and cities starting to resemble a foreign land.”

We bet Lamont, Rennie and that other one will be delighted to have their support:

 

‘SCOTLAND SAYS NO!’ CAMPAIGN ACTION CENTRE

Back to the mainstream media, and putting the ‘British’ into BBC we have our old chums at Pacific Quay, failing once more to put forward anything positive about independence, just the standard scares:

 

Keeping pound ‘has restrictions’

Not to be outdone, The Scotsman once again proudly hoists the Butcher’s Apron as it pulls out all the stops in order to gerrymander yet more non-stories.  This must surely now be the quisling’s reading material of choice:

 

Scottish independence: support falls 8% with different question

Ex-adviser condemns SNP ‘spin’ in official documents

Agree with me or you’re anti-Scottish, says Michael Russell

Salmond is branded ‘Goodwin of politics’

The good old Daily Express isn’t far behind mind you as it somehow managed to spin this beauty from nothing:

 

SNP SNUB TO SCOTTISH STEEL JOBS

Once more, Labour’s Daily Record attempts to stick a rubber knife into Alex Salmond’s back as it howls in protest about the Scottish Government not accepting bids from a Scottish steel mill, despite the fact they never even tendered for the contract in the first place:

 

Scottish company misses out on contract to supply steel for new Forth Bridge

And lastly let’s not forget The Sun which somehow manages to attach some blame to the Scottish independence movement for the protests in Argentina caused by the arrival of some German royalty on a set of stolen islands thousands of miles away:

 

The battle of Wills

WHAT ARE THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SCOTLAND AND LIBYA?

A man in need of a good shave

Are there any lessons to be learnt for Scotland in the Libyan affair?

Well Gaddafi was obviously a bastard, we all knew that.  But, when he came to power he got rid of the previous administration who were seen as even bigger bastards at the time.  Whilst the Libyans welcomed his military coup, in Scotland in 1707, when the Scottish people were sold down the river by their 'betters', the nobility, who only had their own interests at heart and had been bribed by English money to push Scotland towards the Union, there were public protests in the streets.  But times change.  They have changed in Libya as they also have in Scotland, although it is obviously a shorter time span in the Arab country.

Some would say of course that the Union has been good for Scotland.  Since 1707, the UK economy and Empire grew exponentially, thanks to the enslavement of the common people who worked in the mills and factories to produce the wealth which flowed from their efforts.  The common soldier, convinced that he was fighting for the defence of Britain died in their millions to conquer the lands of other peoples, although they would say they were 'explorers' who brought enlightenment to the heathen.  It seems to me that we have failed in many ways to civilise those heathens if some of the facts we are fed by a biased media are to be believed.  That being the case, the enlightenment would appear to have been for the benefit of the power brokers who really reaped the rewards and whose children rarely appear in foreign fields to be shot at and killed.  How many of our MPs and even more importantly the PTB, have sons fighting for an pipeline in Afghanistan?

It struck me tonight when I heard an article on the news at the  EBC, that said that the future of the Libyan people was ensured because they had huge supplies of oil, that there was a huge similarity with Scotland.  I'm not saying that we have had a 'mad-dog' in charge for the last 30 years, although some in Scotland might say that Maggie was of a similar ilk, but I do believe that the time has come for Scotland to go it's own way and take control of it's own affairs.  The Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, said today, with Unionist pride in his voice, that an independent Scotland would have been unable to intervene in another Libyan, like the UK has over the last ten months.  He completely misses the point.  No one in Scotland, or at least very few, people think we should be interfering in another country's politics.  What about Saudi Arabia or Bahrain?  Why aren't we carpet bombing their leaders?  We all know the answer to that!

No, let's remain friends with England, we have a shared history of sorts, but many in England think we are a drain on their economy, although that has been proved to be false many times and after all we wouldn't want to outstay our welcome!

SCOTLAND HAS MORE HEALTH PROFESSIONALS PER HEAD THAN ENGLAND

Scottish patients benefit from twice the number of nurses per person as those in England - despite paying far less tax, (according to the mail!) 

The massive subsidy they (ALLEGEDLY) receive from taxpayers south of the border also enables NHS Trusts there to employ nearly 50 per cent more doctors and dentists, according to a new report.


The disparity is a legacy of the controversial 30-year-old Barnett Formula, which sees Scotland get more public spending than other parts of the UK because it has greater levels of deprivation. It is said to have created 'medical apartheid'.


The Nuffield Trust charity found that about £1,800 per head is spent on health in Scotland, but in England it is just £1,500. (i.e. 20% MORE) 


This allows Scotland to have more than 80 per cent more nurses, midwives and health visitors, with 11 per 1,000 people compared to just six in England.


It also has 2.5 doctors and dentists per 1,000 people - 47 percent higher than the 1.7 England can manage. This includes both hospital doctors and GPs.

This report is the biggest load of SHITE that I have read for a while.  HOW, going by the Mail's figures can spending be 20% higher per head in Scotland and yet we have 80% more health professionals?  (WE MUST HAVE A VERY EFFICIENT NHS IN SCOTLAND!)

Point 1.  Scotland has 40% of the land mass of the UK and 8% of the population.  Therefore HEALTH facilities have to be spread thinner.  For instance if the average GP in England has say 5,000 patients because of the sparser population and bigger area covered in Scotland that figure would be nearer 3,000.  So therefore on a like for like basis the costs are higher.

Point 2.  Health is devolved in Scotland along with some other matters.  Scotland is given a BLOCK-GRANT (sometimes called pocket-money) from the UK treasury.  The SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT then has to devise a budget which it can be passed in the SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT with the agreement of some of the other partties because it is a minority Government.  If the Government decides to spend more on HEALTH because that is important to them and less on something else for instance Transport or the Police, THAT IS THE PEROGATIVE OF THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT.  So if your health is important to you, MOVE TO SCOTLAND.  You'll be made very welcome.