Scots 'drink 46 bottles of vodka'

Biohazard said:
England voted for Blair and got then also Brown, again.. you are mistaken. Your problem.
:)
Click to expand...

Two things.

Firstly, Britain voted for Labour, not England, yet England do not get to vote for Scottish MP's. Hence the issue of the West Lothian question.See the difference, my mistaken friend?

Secondly, Brown has no mandate as you well know. Has one person cast one vote for him? No, but you seem to insinuate that we vote for politicians instead of parties. You can't have it both ways. :confused:

Maybe it is time for the rest of the UK to cut Scotland loose to fend for itself so we don't all end up subsidising it any longer? You can then see what an unimportant lone figure that tub of lard Salmond cuts around the world. Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
SlugForAButt said:
Two things.

Firstly, Britain voted for Labour, not England, yet England do not get to vote for Scottish MP's. Hence the issue of the West Lothian question.See the difference, my mistaken friend?
Click to expand...

Scotland voted SNP, completely decimated Labour in places made large gains and the conservatives will have to wait 300 years to get back into Scotland. So, as much as you go on about the bias of the WLQ, popular opinion and vote in Scotland does not relate to what happens in westminster which has ultimate governorship.

The UK, with the majority being English, voted Labour.

I'm not mistaken, at no point have I ever misunderstood the WLQ.

the rest of your tripe, I don't actually have an answer for.. (except brown having no mandate, I agree.. but the conservatives set the precedence.. and the irony of them moaning about it.. and I don't really care for I hope Scotland to be rid of westminster regardless of the mood or reason)
 
Last edited:
SlugForAButt said:
Maybe it is time for the rest of the UK to cut Scotland loose to fend for itself so we don't all end up subsidising it any longer? You can then see what an unimportant lone figure that tub of lard Salmond cuts around the world. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
Scotland is subsidised to the same degree that the rest of the UK is, remember the UK has run a tax deficit for pretty much all of the last 10 years. Scotlands deficit is largely proportional to it's proportion of the population. But yeah, lets not let the facts get in the way of some good old Scot's bashing.
 
SlugForAButt said:
Two things.

Firstly, Britain voted for Labour, not England, yet England do not get to vote for Scottish MP's. Hence the issue of the West Lothian question.See the difference, my mistaken friend?

Secondly, Brown has no mandate as you well know. Has one person cast one vote for him? No, but you seem to insinuate that we vote for politicians instead of parties. You can't have it both ways. :confused:

Maybe it is time for the rest of the UK to cut Scotland loose to fend for itself so we don't all end up subsidising it any longer? You can then see what an unimportant lone figure that tub of lard Salmond cuts around the world. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Scotland voted for the SNP (coalition with Lib Dems), so Scotland did not vote for Labour in the General Election. Scotland have never voted for Conservative but we ended up with them too. People say all the time that their vote won't change anything, we can't change anything - imagine what a whole country feels like knowing they can't make the big changes it wants? Part of the reason we have our own Parliament.

The rest of the UK will never "Cut Scotland loose" as we have an act of union made up between Scotland and England with NI, and Wales thrown in as a token gesture. The act of Union was a Scottish idea, the Union flag was the idea of and designed originally by a Scottish King. The whole idea of the Union was so that Scotland could be seen on a level and just playing field with the rest of the European nations.

There have been studies published which suggest Scotland would be in budget surplus (pre-recession). So the whole idea of being subsidised is not true.
 
Last edited:
SlugForAButt said:
You can then see what an unimportant lone figure that tub of lard Salmond cuts around the world. Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Physical appearance aside (should that matter for a politician? I think not) Alex Salmond is a very shrewd politician and a very good public speaker, while I may not agree with all his policies or even his parties main raison d'etre I can't help but respect what he has achieved.

bibalasvegas said:
:eek: How do you know! I was gonna go there this evening but couldn't be bothered. :p
Click to expand...

My location is a lie, I'm really back in Dundee stalking you. :p Or I lived there for probably too long and know what that pub is like, if you go in there often you might notice that quite a few of the old boys have a particular route through the town pubs and will always be in there at the same time each day, often visiting Caws and The Town House on the way too.

I do prefer the pubs up the Perth Road though, a little bit more expensive but a better atmosphere most of the time. :)
 
46 bottles of voddy a year is not actually a lot.

46 x 700ml x 0.4 = 12880ml of pure alcohol per year.

12880 / 52 weeks = 247.69 ml of pure alcohol a week.

Stella, for instance contains 31.24ml of pure alcohol per pint.

So it is only about a pint of Stella a day, on average. (actual answer is 7.928 p/w)
 
ripperOFflesh said:
its up to them how much they drink, people know the risks to there health 2 many interfering busybodies about these days
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't worry about the tens of thousands that die each year due to alcohol related illness, the hundreds of thousands that are subjected to alcohol related violence, the £3.5BILLION that it costs NHS Scotland to deal with alcohol related illnesses and treatment, and the cost to police the city centres. People should be able to do whatever they like.

:rolleyes:
 
Guy in my office decimates those figures. he has a bottle of wine every night with dinner, except on Sundays.

Firghtening.
 
jamief said:
People should be able to do whatever they like.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Absolutely they should!

And the Government should make it illegal if they view it as such a threat to society and finances. Let's be honest, this Government isn't shy when in comes to bringing in punitive legislation
Wonder why they don't? Same reason they don't make smoking illegal.
£3.5 billion probably still puts them in in the black compared to the costs. Unfortunately, that's how Governments work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom