Of course they wouldn't just stand by and watch. They'd get involved right enough.Gordon Brown asking whether people really believed Labour would stand by and watch the NHS in Scotland being privatised. On the World at One just now.
Gordon Brown asking whether people really believed Labour would stand by and watch the NHS in Scotland being privatised. On the World at One just now.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=912913145403345&id=100000540032989We just had Channel 4 news pop into our Yes Shop on Dunbar High Street. Their Political journo Michael Crick was telling us (off camera) how he had been travelling all over Scotland covering the campaign. We asked him what was his take on who he would win. He said, "Don't quote me, but it will be a Yes". I then joked, I would put this on social media. He then said, "to be honest, I have no problem with that". So here you are Michael...
The question is will people believe him?thats some bare face cheek from a man who was blairs right hand man while they handed over loads of nhs services to crapita and other inept vultures
Aw, poor Alistair Carmichael. The smearing, lying wanker.Here's a bit of a surprise: Shetland News comes out for Yes
Just heard this on the radio, along with some utterly rubbish and instantly forgettable soundbite from EM. (So instantly forgettable, I couldn't remember what he was saying while he was still saying it.)
Twitter and FB are so fruitful just now, can't keep up.
If you need a little break I came across this little gem posted by Eddi Reader (and by little I obviously mean 11 minutes long), a bit off-topic but wonderful to look at.
So we now have a situation where it's a choice between an independence settlement or something, maybe, we don't know what or, actually (despite the "timetable"), when.
The Guardian and Indy (the two papers I've looked at in the last week or so) have been transparently and disgracefully in step with the Westminster/City of London line.
Is it really too much for you to imagine that a considered opinion cannot be influenced by or formed from sympathy and agreement with westminister and the city of london? That a series of close relationships from the professional to the personal, from the political to the economic - that network of shared interests is precisely what lies behind that considered opinion?Maybe their official stance is no because that reflects the editor's considered opinion?
Or is that a completely bonkers idea?
This whole event is starting to veer ever more into conspiraloon territory. If Scotland does become independent and if the post-independence settlement causes Scotland's economy to tank in the short to medium term, as seems likely from the economic analysis that I've looked at, what are the chances that that is blamed on a London/Westminster conspiracy by the political leaders who pushed for independence north of the border?