Is the FRB being decommissioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It's just been tarted up for public transport and emergency vehicles as well as being a back up for the Queensferry Crossing.
Printable View
Is the FRB being decommissioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It's just been tarted up for public transport and emergency vehicles as well as being a back up for the Queensferry Crossing.
I'm unsure but thought it only had 20 years or something, might be prolonged with Queensferry coming inQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
14 years since the upgrade problem was identified as being required. Read second para of link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Geological problems can be overcome, they’ve built freeways and flyovers over the San Andreas fault in the US.
Also needed for pedestrians and cyclists (plenty of both) crossing the Forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
There you go, Planning takes time, take it from someone with experience of the A9. Identify the problem, do studies of the possible solutions and routes, decide on the solution, go to the magic money tree and build it!! Glad we know how things work, just not in the timescales you think are possible!
Here’s another time scale problem.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nicola-stu...SQ8v9HdeFk9egU
Sturgeon invited last November to appear before a Scottish affairs committee at Wesrminister by her fellow Nat committee chairman Peter Wishart.
Took until April for her to reply she was too busy :rolleyes:
Not a lie as such...ScotGov coming under pressure from the STUC and Opposition to role out free school meals to all Secondary school pupils. This should have been happening from the off imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
That's the sort of language that poster uses.
Sometimes people maybe post something not 100% accurate, or they maybe make a mistake. Heaven forbid.
Rest assured he'll be here to call you a liar though. Impossible to have a civil conversation with him if he disagrees with you.
Quite hard to keep up with that one, it doesn't seem so long ago that the opposition were against free school mealsQuote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Policy started in 2015 for children in p1-3.
This is an extension to the previous policy of offering free school meals to children and young people aged from five to 18 whose families are on low incomes and/or receiving in receipt of qualifying certain benefits.
Not sure Labour got onboard until 2019. Might be wrong on that one though.
If they're wanting it extended again, they'll have to tell us where the money is coming from.
Would be great if all school kids got dinner (if it was healthy). Depressing seeing the hoards of school kids outside Greggs and chippies.
Submit your Census in today if you need to, or potentially get a fine. Will it reach the 94% target I wonder?
'Scotland's Census has failed'Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/solo-scotland-has-failed-on-census-mppq96p2q
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scotlan...mes-into-force
That's not a lie. 😉
Congratulations. You will be delighted that the narrative that it was an SNP census rather than a government one has worked with the harder of thinking. Gives you another chance to say the SNP are bad. Never before has a census in Scotland or England as far as I can see has ever been badged as a certain parties census.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
The areas with the lowest response rates were the area with the highest Yes votes so I don't think it can purely be put down to people not doing it because it's seen as an SNP Census.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Detaching it from the UK one looks like a mistake in hindsight, but I am sure there will be an inquiry and lessons will be learned.
Why would a Scotland only census be a mistake? We have powers, nowhere near enough in my view but that's another matter, to allocate funding etc on a Scottish level so makes sense to ask questions directly to the people who live here. High profile Tories and Labour Murdo Fraser, Jackie Baillie etc were all having a poke about it being SNP and anti British. Total BS but obviously had an impact. Pretty sad and even sadder when you see some glorying in the fact that it was 90%.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
Scotland has always had it's own Census, we have managed to have a successful Census for literally decades when we did it all together at the same time, questions surely need to be asked why the one time we did it a bit differently it has failed to reach the same response rates as the rest of the UK. It was extended at a cost of about £30M and the total cost is about £150M, if they find this one is of no use because of the low response rate and they need to spend another £100M+ then as taxpayers we should understand why.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Politicians are all the same, no different to the SNP ones moaning about something or another. If they see a failure they will make political gain from it, or try to. That's kind of their jobs, to hold a government to account for perceived failure. That's Scottish politics these days though, everything seen from the lense of the constitution.
I'm sorry but this is nothing to do with holding government to account. There were elected members of both parliaments who were encouraging non completion, ably assisted by the msm. I am am SNP member and have been critical of the government where appropriate. I just don't think it needs to be done on every issue on every occasion by the same culprits every time. Again, assisted by the media. There are people within our Parliament who never talk Scotland up, want to run the country down and never want to discuss Scotlands positives. For example inward investment in Scotland has far outstripped the UK and European numbers. I didn't see any member of the opposition parties talk about it and it was on the BBC website very brieflyQuote:
Originally Posted by James310
Who were the mps who asked people not to fill out the census, would that not be illegal?Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
Did a politician really say don't complete the Census, I would doubt that seeing as it's a legal requirement and can't imagine anyone encouraging people to break the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
On your other point how often do you see Labour or the Lib Dems etc in Westminster talking how great the UK is and "talking the UK up" and all the positives that the Tory's have overseen? You don't because that's not how a parliament works.
Criticism of the SNP is not criticism of Scotland, the SNP are not Scotland so if someone has a go at the SNP they are not having a go at Scotland they are having a go at the SNP.
Well put. You can be anti-Scottish nationalism without being anti-Scottish.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
I remember reading a survey that found half of SNP supporters agreed with the statement "when people criticise my party, it feels like a personal insult”. The figure was twice the average of other parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
read it and weep!!Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...finds/?ref=rss
apologies, that's behind a paywall.
Same story.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19...scots-england/
Why would we read that and weep? They are both behind a pay wall as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Has it anything to do with a criticism of the SNP not being a criticism of Scotland?
It's nothing to do with the snp. But people would be lying to themselves to say their aren't a number of anti English in Scotland. Every nation has its areseholes though, so why should we be any different. Show me a nation without bigots
Because you have read too many Herald and National articles :wink: and can't access them let me summarise.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
As a result of Brexit, since 2016 people with scottish accents living and working in england faced the same kind of racisism as west indians in the 60s with people being told to 'go home'
And I'll show you paradise!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Ok, so that's obviously a bad thing and nobody would say otherwise. Your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
As Stairway said, it is happening in every country in some form, so get of your anti-english horse and realise that we should do better at calling it out regardless of where you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
And also, as Stairway said, this has nothing to do with the SNP or Labour, or Tory. It's endemic in the whole of the UK in various forms!
Maybe some crossed wires on your part, but all good and I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
:faint::hug:Quote:
Originally Posted by James310
So it’s a good thing the Yes movement and the SNP is calling it out? Good to see all you guys give them the thumbs up.[emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agreed. It's a non story as you would expect in the telegraph. My wife's English and she's went from always labour to verging on militant snp. I doubt she would if it was anti English. She likes nothing more when were down south, feigning surprise and pity that they pay for prescriptions and university ect when talking to peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
For me its not about nationality. Its about having a chance at making a fairer society, away from the corrupt and self serving Westminster
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I'm unclear how that relates to being Scottish but not buying into Scottish nationalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...less-6h5wscltl
Minimum alcohol price means drinkers ‘eat less and heat less’
That's the (biased) Times take on things. The author of the report was interviewed on GMS today and he was uncritical of minimum alcohol pricing, despite Laura Maxwell twice trying to get him to say as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Not really got an opinion on it. Sure people still drink, probably just spend more. I wouldn't mind that as a tax. The only problem I have with it I suppose is it shouldn't be giving money to rich supermarkets. The money should have been spent on alcohol education or treatment
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61710564
Bigger article about it here
Actually have some sympathy for the Scottish Government over this, although I still believe minimum pricing is not the answer, as people with addiction will still purchase regardlessly. I cannot see any other alternative to reduce alcohol related illnesses. Damned if you do Damned if you don’t.
Alcohol specific deaths were up 17% last year. I'm all for them doing something but only if it works. Alcoholics aren't going to stop because it's a bit dearer, that's just fn daft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Addiction is a medical problem and needs treated as such
I'm guessing, but isn't the minimum price aimed at discouraging people who are not yet alcoholics in an attempt to reduce alcoholism rather than those who are already addicted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
It's actually pretty good for the Scottish distilling and brewing industry as well. If the price between a bottle of beer, whisky or whatever and supermarket own label is 100% then a lot of people will just buy the cheaper stuff. If it's 30-50%, more people will go for the smaller company who produces a higher quality product.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Defo has its benefits.
I don't think alcoholism works like that. Your not not going to have the illness because the price. People will still become one because alcohol is everywhereQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
To an extent. But sadly most people get their drink from supermarkets. Most in their are from larger companies, they have also pushed up the price of premium brands. Supermarkets are definitely the biggest winnerQuote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
Yes, I think that's right. It only really affects very strong and/or (what would be) very cheap drink.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
eg. 70cl 40% spirit MUP is £14
75cl 14% wine MUP is £5.25
50cl 5% beer MUP is £1.25
You'd struggle to find much you could describe as pleasurable to drink below those prices, imo.
Last year's Newcastle Uni survey found an overall drop of 8% alcohol consumption in Scotland. This new report shows it's not really making much difference to alcoholics but surely the overall drop in a country with widespread alcohol problems is a good thing?
Entirely anecdotally, I think my kids (early 20s) and their friends have a healthier attitude to alcohol than I and mine did at the same age. Whether that's real and if MUP has anything to do with it, I don't know.
MUP would have been much better as a tax, btw, but beyond the powers of our region.
Is Scotland not allowed to raise tax on alcohol that's brutal.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Do you know how alcoholism works?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
As much as most I suppose. Have a close relative blighted by the horrible disease. Its a medical condition and only medical help can prevent it. I'm all for anything that works to stop Scotlands alcohol crisis. It would be banned if it was introduced to the world now. We pretend to ourselves it can be classy with fine wines and real ales. I'm glad scot gov sees it for what it isQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Movement is more towards less prohibition rather than more. For most substances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I’m against prohibition but minimum pricing does seemed to have worked and the biggest criticism seems to be that they have not raised the minimum price since it was first planned over ten years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It shouldn't be banned but alcohol should be seen for what it is. Its much more harmful to you and others than most drugsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Saw this chart. Shows the unbelievable harm to others alcohol causes per 100k, compared to other drugs
Attachment 25920
You think minimum pricing does work, Universities of Sheffield and Newcastle (Aus) have completed extensive research into Scottish alcohol minimum pricing. Both independantly published the same results...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
There is no benefit whatsoever to minimum alcohol pricing. Drinkers continue to drink but do not eat or heat their homes instead. Alcohol sales remain constant but general heath and welfare standards dropped substantially
I tip my hat at the Government for a good try to improve health and I do not have the answer.. but this was no success
https://arc-nenc.nihr.ac.uk/news/mup-50p-impact-study/Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57293223.amp
8% drop in alcohol consumption is surely having a beneficial effect on the nations health?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But this was not the findings of the Sheffield study:Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-61710564Quote:
The study, by the University of Sheffield, the University of Newcastle (Australia) and Figure 8 Consultancy Services, looked at the "hard to reach" population of people who drank alcohol at harmful levels, including those dependent on alcohol and those accessing treatment services.
So, regardless how tempting it is to make sweeping generalisations about the effectiveness of a particular SG policy, this study released today should not be used to support those sweeping statements. IMO.
Not if you need to catch a ferry it's not! :grr:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Over the last few years I've seen more youngsters in pubs having soft drinks when out with friends, some at my work seem happy to go somewhere for a coffee or 2 rather than go to the pub.
Don't think minimum pricing will ever stop me carrying on drinking but in my unscientific view maybe a few folks don't get into it in the 1st place.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61679080Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Bigger scandal than the ferries but never gets a mention on BBC Scotland news? Or GMS on Radio Scotland? Or the Nine?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
£2.5 billion spent so far with nothing operational delivered and they're considering scrapping it! JeezQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Alcoholism is an addiction that starts with a habit, if you can discourage people becoming habitual drinkers then you can stop them becoming alcoholics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The MoD negotiated a fixed price contract for the delivery of the vehicles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Obviously something the Scottish Government never considered when ordering their ferries.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Kids today are definitely more switched on to the pitfalls of addiction than my generation. Education and pricing young kids out of the market will definitely have a positive effect going forward.
The idea that the policy was going to have substantial positive effects within a few years is nonsense IMO. This was always, like most social issues, going to take a generation to work its way through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Continued review and adjustment are necessary, of course, but the notion that the scheme has failed or should be binned is short-sighted and dangerous.
But the habit hasn't gone away. Im not sure why people are saying it dropped by 8% it was 2%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
You could say alcohol sales are very much flat if a little down since 2013. There was a really big drop from 2009 to 2013 not sure why. That certainly made a difference. Look at the graph here
Attachment 25921
The report often reported says it worked because Scotland fell faster than North East England by 8% in one year, in purchases in 35,000 homes. Its a comparison against one region in one year. It says the biggest drops were in houses who bought the most alcohol. Although the study out yesterday said the opposite. That can only be but down to its too close to register
Look at the trends and its flat, although it actually rose during covid.
England has been pretty flat for 10 years and bellow Scotland. Statistically insignificant falls and rises of a few percent.
So Scotland had a big fall in 2009 then stagnated really, although deaths have been creeping up
Kind of like New Zealand's health policy, banning purchasing cigarettes for anyone born after 2008, and reducing the amount of shops that can sell cigarettes to discourage others. Will take time, but the benefits and lives saved over time will be there for all too see. Would love to see that happen here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Fixed price for delivering nothing costing billions sounds a good deal right enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Ahem!!!
https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60837254.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKA FQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=1654 6344030152&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
They’ve spent £3bn and have no vehicles.[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not only do we have nothing, we also have 310 injured service men and women thanks to the project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I totally agree with your explanation….I was not having a dig at the Scottish Government, MUP has not been a success but at least there has been an attempt to reduce Alcohol related illness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I agree it's brill they are trying. It might have worked slightly but we just need a conversation if it's worth the 270 million it's cost the public so far, probably is. I'm being po faced but I like a bevvy myself, but realise it's no good for us. Would love it if the young team were put off, but there is no regular drop like there is with smoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Scot gov know there is a problem though and are obviously trying
Similar for me two kids 18 and 20 and both them and their friends certainly not drinking to same extent as when I was their age.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Underage drinking has dropped massively in the last 20 years in the uk. In 2005 a real sharp decline started and its now around half of what it was. Not sure if there was a focus around this time but it really worked. It's flattened out the last few years but still a lot lower than it was
Attachment 25922
What is the driver there, do you reckon?Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Is it cost? Or are you influencing their choices through “don’t do what I did”? Or school education programmes?
So many parents of our generation are quite happy to encourage drinking including under age drinking of their offspring- Scotlands unhealthy relationship with alcohol and its perceived vital role in social activities by people of all backgrounds. Sometimes parents wanting to be cool parents other times the old rite of passage stuff. I’ve even had a mate worry his kid won’t fit in if he doesn’t drink…mind blowing tbh from someone who is educated himself otherwise.
Is it other things that have generally replaced alcohol as the high of choice, too. The white marching stuff is definitely more prevalent at football in the young.
I think it’s lots of things. Education is part of it but there are other factors. Until they are 18, it is a lot more difficult to get served in a pub than it was when we were younger. So habits are forming at a later stage. There are also more choices open to them for meeting up. They can go out and meet in Nando’s for a couple of hours midweek where as we would never have been able to eat out cheaply and so would have went to a pub.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
IMHO the young ones today are behaving much better and making far better choices than our generation (I’m 51) were making.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A whole load of factors I think peer group depends entirely their friendship group etc parental influences definitely a factor we certainly didn't directly encourage our kids to drink eg a parent we know dropped her daughter off to meet her mates in a park with a bottle of wine at 14. Pubs being much stricter though appreciate there can be ways round it. Imagine cost a factor also. Daughter now 18 was 17 when started uni so couldn't drink in the union. They do drink but seem to be more selective and sensible up until now though obviously that can fundamentally change.Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Must be something to do with education as 15 year old weren't getting served when I was that age in 2000. But in about 2005 the number of 15 year olds that had drunk started to plummet to now where it halved
Attachment 25941
One thing is there was only a few people of colour in my secondary. But my nephew goes now and they are probably about a third. A big numbers parent are from Muslim nations in Asia and Africa. I had a bbq for my daughters pals last week and had to get some halal stuff. She says most of her Muslim pals had drunk but only a couple of times and they are 17/18.
Same with her she drinks but rarely, we've not drummed it in one way or the other as they all seem clued up. I was out clubbing 4 times a week at 18 but it was much cheaper, prices are mental now up town. Uni next year so it might go tits up
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Also, going for a coffee is a thing, which it wasn't in our day (I'm 52).
I think young people now generally are a bit more caring about their health in general. Smoking rates have plummeted.
It might be something to do with Love Island or these rank shows that show the "beautiful" people flaunting themselves. It might be **** TV but it may be that case that people have been inspired to make positive changes and be more healthy.
Love Island and social media thing might tie in with why there is an explosion on steroid use in uk youths unfortunatelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Jones28
I’d say it’s due to everyone carrying around a video camera and being able to share the results with an unlimited number of people immediately. I’m sure they have all watched videos of steaming folk and have been put off.
It's interesting the trends. I've two kids in their 20s. You're probably younger than me at 50 but not too much I guess. Parenting in the days we were growing up was less tolerant and there was more tough love. You'd get the back of my dad's hand in our house if we were caught underage drinking and even as adults the old dear would fret over messier behaviours. I don't think I'm remotely soft as a parent but I'm not like them in this respect. I reckon most parents would have been like mine when I was growing up and I definitely think most parents these days are far more tolerant. Some to the point of indulgent like the wine providing mum you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBHibees
Some parents seem to want to be their kids mates and that's where the boundary blurs.
But against a back drop of more liberal parenting apparently fewer teens are getting smashed. I wonder how that breaks down - is their a demographic bias at play? Multiculturalism?
Or are the kids making good choices just wiser and ignoring the patterns of their previous generations?
Whatever the case let's hope it's real, sustainable and improves because by Sauzee our country, our NHS and our children need it
There are so many different things that could be at play. Is it possible that parents these days are sometimes about 15 years older than their own parents? I often think if I had had kids in my 20’s I would have been nowhere near as good at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysGot2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting angle. I don't think every sector of society is having children older than their parents did - some are doing it just as young or even younger. It's probably fair to say folk who go into further or higher education and/or who want a career will. Those trapped in a cycle of poverty and lack of ambition/opportunity not so much...and this probably only emphasises the gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is Patrick Grady going to get sacked or the whip removed for being a creepy sex pest? Or just a two day suspension
I don't think theres any question there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
The Broken record that is Sturgeon has played the same divisive tune for long enough. We really are in a bad way when we have clowns like Sturgeon and Boris leading the way
Isn't that kind of the point of her leadership of the SNP? She supports division of the UK, of course she's going to be divisive!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokesy's on fire
Which clowns would you rather have in charge? 😉Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokesy's on fire
:aok: AbsolutelyQuote:
Originally Posted by Stokesy's on fire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stokesy's on fire
Who would you suggest in her place? Or instead of Johnson?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Who I want is Dugdale and Burnham… who we get will be Bozo and NippyQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Dugdale has left politics and Burnham is not in the position to become leader, so, realistically what clowns do you want to replace Johnson and sturgeon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
I gave my suggestions…. The pool of talent in every party is so poor that I believe we will be lumbered with the current incumbents for a while longerQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Think it's more to do with division within Scotland. Regardless of any Referendum outcome, the division caused will be irreparable. At least when we had the Thatcher Gov, we were mostly united as a country. That's not the case now and possibly the saddest part of current day politics in Scotland imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
What I'm asking is, because neither of your suggestions are actually available, realistically, based on the shallow pool of talent in the Labour Party, who would be your preferred leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
I presume you mean Scotland rather than the UK. But even then, 25% cheered her on while 75% were united in a mixture of utter hopelessness and anger. Brilliant. :rolleyes:
Now 25% are cheering on ****face, and the other 75% are split between hopelessness and actually wanting to do something about it.
I think we're every bit as united as a country as we were in Thatcher's day. The difference now is that those who don't want Scotland to succeed are sowing doubt and talking up division. They are making more noise, but I believe most Scots want the country to do well. And most Scots do not want Tories or Tory policies involved in our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
Instructive post. Proper names for your choices, derogatory nicknames for those you oppose. You talk about division in politics but you can't even give your opponents the courtesy of using their real names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby