Scottish life expectancy is several years shorter than the UK average, and it also compares appallingly to other countries in western Europe.
But why is that the fault of the Union? Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement? It's not just a case of the English living longer than everyone else in the UK, the Northern Irish and the Welsh also outlive the Scots; while in England there are significant differences between various regions and classes.
SO there are huge differences with Scotland as well. Surprise surprise the wealthy areas have similar life spans to southern England. The short life spans are predominantly deprived areas in Glasgow and central belt. It is not hard to link it to Westminster policies.
Dear god, the tea party tories think railing against those limited areas of Devolution is somehow going to help them. Laughably out of touch as usual. They never learn.
No one is railing against devolution.
Most people on this thread are arguing that economics and lifestyle choices are the main drivers of health outcomes. JamesKelly believes that constitutional structure causes Scots to die young (if they haven't killed themselves first).
I think that a further factor is that healthier Scots are more likely to migrate.
But dying young is not all bad. At least Scotland will be able to afford its pensions!
Alex " Five bellies " Salmond will retire with six pensions ;
Scottish life expectancy is several years shorter than the UK average, and it also compares appallingly to other countries in western Europe.
But why is that the fault of the Union? Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement? It's not just a case of the English living longer than everyone else in the UK, the Northern Irish and the Welsh also outlive the Scots; while in England there are significant differences between various regions and classes.
SO there are huge differences with Scotland as well. Surprise surprise the wealthy areas have similar life spans to southern England. The short life spans are predominantly deprived areas in Glasgow and central belt. It is not hard to link it to Westminster policies.
err how ? The issues are diet, drink and exercise.
"Can lifestyle choices really be blamed on a country's constitutional settlement?"
Why do people have such poor lifestyle choices, SO? Are you seriously suggesting that the way we've been governed over recent decades (you identified the 1950s as the turning-point) is not having a major impact?
I don't know, it was a genuine question.
It's interesting, though, that the change began to occur around the time of the establishment of the NHS; while the real acceleration seems to have begun at the start of the 1980s and the end of heavy industry.
SO , you are getting there slowly, taking away all the jobs, causing mass deprivation , hey presto depression , ill health and lowering of life expectancy. No surprise.
So nothing to do with idiot westminster chancellors like Brown, Darling and Osbrowne then?
Glad that's been cleared up.
Two of those were Scottish? But obviously not Andy Murray "Scottish"
Liam Fox was born in East Kilbride, Iain Duncan Smith was born in Edinburgh, care to explain how that makes Defence or Welfare any more or less non-devolved areas of policy than the economy?
Or are you pretending to be a kipper again today Sunny?
I thought you were talking about Chancellors, Micky Mouse
I am Sunny and you still haven't answered why your fatuous 'point' makes a blind bit of difference to which areas of policy are devolved and which are not.
Come on Sunny, put some thought into it for a change.
Come on Micky Mouse! You were trying to pass off two out of those three Chancellors as "westminster"
If you don't even know that westminster refers to the body politic where those areas of undevolved power are decided, then I fear you should go back to your trainspotting, or "foaming" as it is also called.
Who cares what you think, Micky Mouse?! We can all rejoice in the news that our British tennis ace Andy Murray won at Wimbledon today!!!
"The Glasgow effect refers to the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. The hypothesis among epidemiologists is that poverty alone does not appear to account for the disparity. Equally deprived areas of the UK such as Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies, and the wealthiest ten percent of the Glasgow population have a lower life expectancy than the same group in other cities.
never heard so much tosh in my life.. The policies coming from Westminster, where there a large number of Scottish MP's, cause scots to die earlier than most people in the British Isles, nothing to do ,whatsoever, with the shit diet and huge appetite for booze then.
So nothing to do with idiot westminster chancellors like Brown, Darling and Osbrowne then?
Glad that's been cleared up.
Two of those were Scottish? But obviously not Andy Murray "Scottish"
Liam Fox was born in East Kilbride, Iain Duncan Smith was born in Edinburgh, care to explain how that makes Defence or Welfare any more or less non-devolved areas of policy than the economy?
Or are you pretending to be a kipper again today Sunny?
I thought you were talking about Chancellors, Micky Mouse
I am Sunny and you still haven't answered why your fatuous 'point' makes a blind bit of difference to which areas of policy are devolved and which are not.
Come on Sunny, put some thought into it for a change.
Come on Micky Mouse! You were trying to pass off two out of those three Chancellors as "westminster"
If you don't even know that westminster refers to the body politic where those areas of undevolved power are decided, then I fear you should go back to your trainspotting, or "foaming" as it is also called.
Who cares what you think
Try not to get too upset Sunny. It wouldn't do for any more of the PB right wingers to flounce off in the huff, hilarious habit as that always is.
"The Glasgow effect refers to the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. The hypothesis among epidemiologists is that poverty alone does not appear to account for the disparity. Equally deprived areas of the UK such as Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies, and the wealthiest ten percent of the Glasgow population have a lower life expectancy than the same group in other cities.
According to the Nats, Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies because they are not subject to Westminster rule.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim here, Charles. If you seriously think that the way Scotland is governed from London has no effect on people's life chances and health outcomes, please explain to me where the line of causation mysteriously ended.
Isn't it more a case of "how" rather than "because"? There does not seem to have been a problem before the 1950s, then something began to happen and got more intense in the 1980s.
Perhaps it is a case of the NHS being a better proposition for England, Wales and NI than it has been for Scotland; with the failure to deal with deindustrialisation in the 1980s exacerbating the problem. If that is so, you probably have a point; and the Scottish government - whether devolved or independent - should be looking to create an alternative to the present NHS.
That may be correct, although it would need some research.
As far as I can tell, Scottish GDP per head exceeds that of Wales, Northern Ireland, and all English regions except the South East, and Greater London, so it's hard to attribute low life expectancy to economic fortunes.
In the end this is all about economics - deprived, urban areas of the UK, wherever they are, have much lower life expectancy rates than reasonably wealthy ones. People tend to smoke more, drink more and lead more inactive lives in places where housing is poor and employment is relatively low. That's why in London you see such disparities in longevity rates. It is not a huge stretch to claim that a Scottish government is better placed to deal specifically with what is happening in Scotland than a UK government. My concern is with the claim that in and of itself the Union has caused Scots to have lower life expectancy rates. As there was no discernible differences in rates before the 50s that cannot be the case. But the way that Scotland has been governed clearly can have had an effect and perhaps a major one/.
Yes, economics is very significant. It's just that Scotland - as a whole - is better off economically than Wales, Northern Ireland, and England, apart from Greater London and the South East. Yet, health outcomes are worse.
You may very well be correct in your supposition that the creation of the NHS was much more beneficial to the inhabitants of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland than it was to the inhabitants of Scotland. But, it would be interesting to know what the NHS got right in the first three countries that it didn't get right in Scotland.
In Northern Ireland heart disease etc. runs pretty similar to Scotland. Same genes, same shit diet and exercise, same outcome - they all blame the English.
Alan, they cannot all be wrong, at some point if everybody points at you , you have to realise you are the problem.
I would add another potential factor for consideration: pollution.
Most of Glasgow's water supply is from Katrine - so paranoid are they about water purity they control the type of engines used by boats on the loch. I doubt if any of Glasgow's groundwater is used for domestic purposes.
Sorry, missed the end of the last thread. Mrs J's got the week off work and I was forced to go shopping for the afternoon. FX: shudder...
It doesn't just have to be drinking water; pollution can travel in dust off such sites as well. IANAE, but ISTR that some pollutants at low levels can somewhat inhibit the body. In someone who eats healthily and has a good lifestyle, they shrug it off. In others, or those with underlying conditions, it can cause problems.
Just a wild guess, but I'm a bit of a tinfoil-hatter when it comes to ground- and air-pollution.
Years ago I saw some reports on ground pollution at ex-industrial sites and it was truly frightening. It is also not cheap to clean up, witness the Olympic site or Beckton gasworks.
"The Glasgow effect refers to the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. The hypothesis among epidemiologists is that poverty alone does not appear to account for the disparity. Equally deprived areas of the UK such as Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies, and the wealthiest ten percent of the Glasgow population have a lower life expectancy than the same group in other cities.
You missed a bit.
'Various hypotheses have been proposed to account for the effect, including vitamin D deficiency, cold winters, higher levels of poverty than the figures suggest, high levels of stress, and a culture of alienation and pessimism.'
You're the one making the extraordinary claim here, Charles. If you seriously think that the way Scotland is governed from London has no effect on people's life chances and health outcomes, please explain to me where the line of causation mysteriously ended.
Isn't it more a case of "how" rather than "because"? There does not seem to have been a problem before the 1950s, then something began to happen and got more intense in the 1980s.
Perhaps it is a case of the NHS being a better proposition for England, Wales and NI than it has been for Scotland; with the failure to deal with deindustrialisation in the 1980s exacerbating the problem. If that is so, you probably have a point; and the Scottish government - whether devolved or independent - should be looking to create an alternative to the present NHS.
That may be correct, although it would need some research.
As far as I can tell, Scottish GDP per head exceeds that of Wales, Northern Ireland, and all English regions except the South East, and Greater London, so it's hard to attribute low life expectancy to economic fortunes.
In the end this is all about economics - deprived, urban areas of the UK, wherever they are, have much lower life expectancy rates than reasonably wealthy ones. People tend to smoke more, drink more and lead more inactive lives in places where housing is poor and employment is relatively low. That's why in London you see such disparities in longevity rates. It is not a huge stretch to claim that a Scottish government is better placed to deal specifically with what is happening in Scotland than a UK government. My concern is with the claim that in and of itself the Union has caused Scots to have lower life expectancy rates. As there was no discernible differences in rates before the 50s that cannot be the case. But the way that Scotland has been governed clearly can have had an effect and perhaps a major one/.
Yes, economics is very significant. It's just that Scotland - as a whole - is better off economically than Wales, Northern Ireland, and England, apart from Greater London and the South East. Yet, health outcomes are worse.
You may very well be correct in your supposition that the creation of the NHS was much more beneficial to the inhabitants of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland than it was to the inhabitants of Scotland. But, it would be interesting to know what the NHS got right in the first three countries that it didn't get right in Scotland.
In Northern Ireland heart disease etc. runs pretty similar to Scotland. Same genes, same shit diet and exercise, same outcome - they all blame the English.
Alan, they cannot all be wrong, at some point if everybody points at you , you have to realise you are the problem.
The problem is malc heavy industry has died and people haven't changed their diets and drinking. Heavy industry has disappeared across most of W Europe it's not just a scottish phenomenon. The problem lies with a culture of fried food, fags and booze and the only people who can change it are the people who do it. It's got bugger all to do with the type and system of government, some bloke stuck in an office 5, 50 or 500 miles away isn't going to make you lose weight and live longer, you have to do it for yourself.
You think Eck and his cronies relentless campaign telling them to abandon the most successful Union in history is having a negative effect on their health?
"The Glasgow effect refers to the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. The hypothesis among epidemiologists is that poverty alone does not appear to account for the disparity. Equally deprived areas of the UK such as Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies, and the wealthiest ten percent of the Glasgow population have a lower life expectancy than the same group in other cities.
'Various hypotheses have been proposed to account for the effect, including vitamin D deficiency, cold winters, higher levels of poverty than the figures suggest, high levels of stress, and a culture of alienation and pessimism.'
All well within the remit of devolved powers.
Why has life expectancy declined relatively since devolution?
The argument made was that independence would improve life expectancy.
Germany, Austria and Italy are stood together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria’s pint.
Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.
Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view.
Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.
Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria’s trousers.
Russia and Serbia look at Austria.
Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at.
Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.
Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.
Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.
Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?
Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.
Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.
Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.
Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.
France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.
Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.
Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.
France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.
Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.
America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.
By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.
And when Germany wakes up, it goes out to its car, gets the gun out of the glovebox and heads back inside...
10/10
Germany : youse lookin at a faceful of heid...c. E Joyce.
Russia: you looking at my bird - does your mother like sewing?
"The Glasgow effect refers to the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. The hypothesis among epidemiologists is that poverty alone does not appear to account for the disparity. Equally deprived areas of the UK such as Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies, and the wealthiest ten percent of the Glasgow population have a lower life expectancy than the same group in other cities.
'Various hypotheses have been proposed to account for the effect, including vitamin D deficiency, cold winters, higher levels of poverty than the figures suggest, high levels of stress, and a culture of alienation and pessimism.'
All well within the remit of devolved powers.
Why has life expectancy declined relatively since devolution?
The argument made was that independence would improve life expectancy.
The data on devolution contradicts that.
Would an independent Scotland re-open the shipyards? I must have missed that bit of socialist planning.
The Scots have really cheered me up this evening with their amusing posts.
In the immortal words of McPorkster : unspoofable.
The people who designed, built, paid and maintained such system needs congratulating; the old water companies were not exactly fit for purpose, and similar schemes were done all over the country. Perhaps the most impressive is the Birmingham scheme, which gets its water from the Elan Valley Reservoirs in mid-Wales, by Mayor Joseph Chamberlain.
Part of the problem is that such schemes are hardly noteworthy nowadays. In Victorian times a relatively small investment could cause massive improvements; now they are just incremental and at massive cost. Besides, the public are not interested in such grand works any more.
Hence the amazing (*) Thames Water Ring Main (currently being extended) remains virtually unknown.
"The Glasgow effect refers to the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. The hypothesis among epidemiologists is that poverty alone does not appear to account for the disparity. Equally deprived areas of the UK such as Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies, and the wealthiest ten percent of the Glasgow population have a lower life expectancy than the same group in other cities.
'Various hypotheses have been proposed to account for the effect, including vitamin D deficiency, cold winters, higher levels of poverty than the figures suggest, high levels of stress, and a culture of alienation and pessimism.'
All well within the remit of devolved powers.
Why has life expectancy declined relatively since devolution?
The argument made was that independence would improve life expectancy.
The data on devolution contradicts that.
Would an independent Scotland re-open the shipyards?
More likely they'll be closing them as rUK builds its own warships on home turf....
I think you'd need to break down the mortality rate by cause of death to figure it out.
I did read somewhere that the countries around the Baltic had a similarly high rate of heart attacks to Scotland and a theory it might be connected to the combination of spirits and cold winters - but that's just one thing.
James: you made a point that pensions were more affordable in Scotland.
When people pointed out that it was due to life expectancy being lower in Scotland you made a trite remark (several times - it wasn't funny the first time) about it being a dividend from the union.
It's completely unconnected to the unioon - probably diet, lifestyle, possibly genetics, possibly weather.
But either way it's pointless to debate with you if that's your approach to a discussion.
Given , the poverty, economy , etc is due to the Westminster policies I believe you can lay it directly at the door of Westminster. Considering it is only occurred in the last 50 years I think we can ignore genetics and the weather.
If that is what James had argued he might have had a case. But he didn't: he blamed the constitutional setup
Germany, Austria and Italy are stood together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria’s pint.
Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit, because there are splashes on its trouser leg.
Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view.
Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.
Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for cleaning Austria’s trousers.
Russia and Serbia look at Austria.
Austria asks Serbia who it’s looking at.
Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.
Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so.
Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene.
Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?
Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action.
Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.
Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.
Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.
France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.
Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.
Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings, because Britain made Australia do it.
France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.
Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.
America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.
By now all the chairs are broken, and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.
And when Germany wakes up, it goes out to its car, gets the gun out of the glovebox and heads back inside...
10/10
Germany : youse lookin at a faceful of heid...c. E Joyce.
Russia: you looking at my bird - does your mother like sewing?
So the Isle of Dogs is an offshore tax-haven too? Bloody Cockneys draining the life blood from Scotland and reducing their life expectancy. Making them eat and drink too much.
The lack of light and Vitamin D deficiency might explain some of it. The Scandinavian suicide rate used to be high too.
The people who designed, built, paid and maintained such system needs congratulating; the old water companies were not exactly fit for purpose, and similar schemes were done all over the country. Perhaps the most impressive is the Birmingham scheme, which gets its water from the Elan Valley Reservoirs in mid-Wales, by Mayor Joseph Chamberlain.
Part of the problem is that such schemes are hardly noteworthy nowadays. In Victorian times a relatively small investment could cause massive improvements; now they are just incremental and at massive cost. Besides, the public are not interested in such grand works any more.
Hence the amazing (*) Thames Water Ring Main (currently being extended) remains virtually unknown.
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
The people who designed, built, paid and maintained such system needs congratulating; the old water companies were not exactly fit for purpose, and similar schemes were done all over the country. Perhaps the most impressive is the Birmingham scheme, which gets its water from the Elan Valley Reservoirs in mid-Wales, by Mayor Joseph Chamberlain.
Part of the problem is that such schemes are hardly noteworthy nowadays. In Victorian times a relatively small investment could cause massive improvements; now they are just incremental and at massive cost. Besides, the public are not interested in such grand works any more.
Hence the amazing (*) Thames Water Ring Main (currently being extended) remains virtually unknown.
When will the Scots stop blaming everyone anywhere for their life expectancy shortfall..when will they actually take some responsibilty for their lifestyle which almost guarantees an early death.Totally pathetic.
When will the Scots stop blaming everyone anywhere for their life expectancy shortfall..when will they actually take some responsibilty for their lifestyle which almost guarantees an early death.Totally pathetic.
Its'all the big boys fault. He made me do it!
It is quite possible for a country with high rates of heart disease to ge it down. In the 1960's Finland was the worst in the world for heart disease. This is what they did:
What will the difference be between devolved health and independent health - and how will independence reverse devolution 's failure?
Control of the economy, welfare, benefits, tax, and those in control directly answerable to those affected by their decisions. You don't turn a tanker round over night, but you have to be at the wheel in the first place.
From a sometime PB favourite:
'Whether Venice in the Middle Ages, or England or Scotland in 2013, there are three things small nations need to grow great.
First, independence. You won't be as well governed if you are ruled over by men and women who do not live amongst you. Second, dispersed power. Those who do make the rules amongst you, need to be accountable to you. Third, you need to be part of a global network. Venice benefited from its connections to Byzantium and a Greek speaking eastern Mediterranean world. England and Scotland today are each part of the Anglo sphere - that network of the most prosperous and innovative people on the planet. And of course even the tiniest states today are on broadband .....
Small can be beautiful, rich, innovative and strong.'
One of the biggest weight loss aids is a full length mirror in the bedroom. It is possible to walk past a pie shop It is possible to walk past a pub.. it is possible to have one less pint of heavy a day' It is possible to take responsibility even for a Scot
When will the Scots stop blaming everyone anywhere for their life expectancy shortfall..when will they actually take some responsibilty for their lifestyle which almost guarantees an early death.Totally pathetic.
Its'all the big boys fault. He made me do it!
It is quite possible for a country with high rates of heart disease to ge it down. In the 1960's Finland was the worst in the world for heart disease. This is what they did:
When will the Scots stop blaming everyone anywhere for their life expectancy shortfall..when will they actually take some responsibilty for their lifestyle which almost guarantees an early death.Totally pathetic.
Its'all the big boys fault. He made me do it!
It is quite possible for a country with high rates of heart disease to ge it down. In the 1960's Finland was the worst in the world for heart disease. This is what they did:
More recently Poland has done much the same, having had its rate of heart disease plummet from a peak in 1991.
I cannot see any reason that being independent is a requirement for this.
Imagine the moaning about a nanny state on here if the UK followed that Finnish programme,or even parts of it.
the article says it was prmarily based on persuasion and motivation. In the UK we get nagging and legislation - big difference. Furthermore the task was handed down to local communities and run by them, something our monolith system would struggle to cope with.
It is quite possible for a country with high rates of heart disease to ge it down. In the 1960's Finland was the worst in the world for heart disease. This is what they did:
When will the Scots stop blaming everyone anywhere for their life expectancy shortfall..when will they actually take some responsibilty for their lifestyle which almost guarantees an early death.Totally pathetic.
Its'all the big boys fault. He made me do it!
It is quite possible for a country with high rates of heart disease to ge it down. In the 1960's Finland was the worst in the world for heart disease. This is what they did:
In the Sterling Zone, with interest rates set in London?
Temporarily, on the way to our own currency. Still a 100% improvement on what we have now (and please don't trot out the standard PB ethnic nationalist bollox about 'Scottish' chancellors).
In the Sterling Zone, with interest rates set in London?
Temporarily on the way to our own currency. Still a 100% improvement on what we have now (and please don't trot out that standard PB ethnic nationalist bollox about 'Scottish' chancellors).
You can have your own currency day one. There's not even a note problem scottish bank notes are clearly marked, mint a few coins and it's done. Why the delay, a currency union with the UK serves neither party.
It is quite possible for a country with high rates of heart disease to ge it down. In the 1960's Finland was the worst in the world for heart disease. This is what they did:
Cutting through the political dross on here about lifespans in Scotland and the effect of Westminster policies on that subject, surely it is the responsibility of every single person to take care of their own health, no matter if you are a Scot, Englishman,Welshman or an Irishman..Only an idiot would argue against that principle.Why therefore are the Scots on PB blaming Westminster. Only a fool pays any attention to most of the rubbish that emanates from that place.
So nothing to do with idiot westminster chancellors like Brown, Darling and Osbrowne then?
Glad that's been cleared up.
Two of those were Scottish? But obviously not Andy Murray "Scottish"
Liam Fox was born in East Kilbride, Iain Duncan Smith was born in Edinburgh, care to explain how that makes Defence or Welfare any more or less non-devolved areas of policy than the economy?
Or are you pretending to be a kipper again today Sunny?
I thought you were talking about Chancellors, Micky Mouse
I am Sunny and you still haven't answered why your fatuous 'point' makes a blind bit of difference to which areas of policy are devolved and which are not.
Come on Sunny, put some thought into it for a change.
Come on Micky Mouse! You were trying to pass off two out of those three Chancellors as "westminster"
If you don't even know that westminster refers to the body politic where those areas of undevolved power are decided, then I fear you should go back to your trainspotting, or "foaming" as it is also called.
Who cares what you think, Micky Mouse?!
Try not to get too upset Sunny. It wouldn't do for any more of the PB right wingers to flounce off in the huff, hilarious habit as that always is.
A Micky Mouse post from PB's resident Micky Mouse cybernat LOL
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Policies imposed on a nation against their will by an unaccountable external authority are indeed a product of the system. Think Tory Euroscepticism, you'll be on the right track.
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Policies imposed on a nation against their will by an unaccountable external authority are indeed a product of the system. Think Tory Euroscepticism, you'll be on the right track.
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
The best Nat poster on here was Oldnat who sadly no longer posts. James posts lack coherence and half the time he's only on for a wind-up followed by a sulk when he's wound up himself.
Good evening, been fairly busy lately. UKIP are standing in all the by-elections below, except Newark & Sherwood. It should be an interesting night in that we will see if UKIP voters keep on turning out in respectable numbers.
When will the Scots stop blaming everyone anywhere for their life expectancy shortfall..when will they actually take some responsibilty for their lifestyle which almost guarantees an early death.Totally pathetic.
Its'all the big boys fault. He made me do it!
It is quite possible for a country with high rates of heart disease to ge it down. In the 1960's Finland was the worst in the world for heart disease. This is what they did:
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Policies imposed on a nation against their will by an unaccountable external authority are indeed a product of the system. Think Tory Euroscepticism, you'll be on the right track.
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
Personally I take the view is Scotland wants independence that's up to them whereas devolution is a matter for the entire of the UK population.
However, until such time as the Scots choose independence the status quo is the legitimate system and any policies chosen by the government are the product of the Scots electoral choices, even if they are only a component of the whole.
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Policies imposed on a nation against their will by an unaccountable external authority are indeed a product of the system. Think Tory Euroscepticism, you'll be on the right track.
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
The best Nat poster on here was Oldnat who sadly no longer posts. James posts lack coherence and half the time he's only on for a wind-up followed by a sulk when he's wound up himself.
On balance, I am in favour of Scottish independence. It would be good for Scotland to grow up and start taking responsibility for its own problems, and there are plenty of those.
I expect the first decade or so to be a learning curve of Hollande like socialist policies that crash the economy, followed by Scotland developing a more mature political mindest and prospering.
Indeed, Mr. Charles. If a member wishes to leave a club that's their business, but it is clearly unreasonable for them to remain a member and rewrite the rules to suit themselves.
Labour's short-sighted idiocy over Scottish devolution also created an unstable and probably untenable situation in England (thankfully their disgraceful efforts to rip up the kingdom of Alfred the Great into pathetic regional assemblies failed utterly).
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Policies imposed on a nation against their will by an unaccountable external authority are indeed a product of the system. Think Tory Euroscepticism, you'll be on the right track.
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
until such time as the Scots choose independence the status quo is the legitimate system and any policies chosen by the government are the product of the Scots electoral choices
Those in favour of independence do not feel the system is legitimate.
unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
"Vote Yes, or kill yourself"
Aye, James articulated the case for separation brilliantly there. I'm convinced.
He never said that. You made it up.
He said the consequence of a No vote was higher rates of suicide.
No he didn't. You made that up.
Here is what was said
JamesKelly said: I doubt if we're going to be able to resolve the suicide crisis in young Scottish men for as long as we remain part of the United Kingdom
JamesKelly said: I doubt if we're going to be able to resolve the suicide crisis in young Scottish men for as long as we remain part of the United Kingdom
The consequence of a No vote is higher rates of suicide.
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Policies imposed on a nation against their will by an unaccountable external authority are indeed a product of the system. Think Tory Euroscepticism, you'll be on the right track.
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
The best Nat poster on here was Oldnat who sadly no longer posts. James posts lack coherence and half the time he's only on for a wind-up followed by a sulk when he's wound up himself.
On balance, I am in favour of Scottish independence. It would be good for Scotland to grow up and start taking responsibility for its own problems, and there are plenty of those.
I expect the first decade or so to be a learning curve of Hollande like socialist policies that crash the economy, followed by Scotland developing a more mature political mindest and prospering.
English optimism never ceases to amaze me. If you seriously think independence will stop complaints about how the english short changed the celts maybe it's time to readjust your expectations. It won't happen in your lifetime; and I write that as a celt.
Would you listen to yourself, Charles? Westminster government policies are directly attributable to the constitutional setup. We didn't win the Thatcher government in a game of cards.
I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
Policies imposed on a nation against their will by an unaccountable external authority are indeed a product of the system. Think Tory Euroscepticism, you'll be on the right track.
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
The best Nat poster on here was Oldnat who sadly no longer posts. James posts lack coherence and half the time he's only on for a wind-up followed by a sulk when he's wound up himself.
On balance, I am in favour of Scottish independence. It would be good for Scotland to grow up and start taking responsibility for its own problems, and there are plenty of those.
I expect the first decade or so to be a learning curve of Hollande like socialist policies that crash the economy, followed by Scotland developing a more mature political mindest and prospering.
English optimism never ceases to amaze me. If you seriously think independence will stop complaints about how the english short changed the celts maybe it's time to readjust your expectations. It won't happen in your lifetime; and I write that as a celt.
Oh, I do expect the moaning and whingeing to continue, but it will be as background noise. The reality would be that Scots would have to face up to the realities of self government.
"James posts lack coherence and half the time he's only on for a wind-up followed by a sulk when he's wound up himself."
Cheers, Alan. Incoherence is a step up from your charge of last week that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
I'm happy to return the compliment by saying you've recently gone up in my estimation from the 178th to the 177th best PB Tory. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that you may overtake Richard Dodd one day.
"I do listen to myself. To other people as well, which I sometimes doubt you do."
I've seen precious little evidence of you listening to a word I say today, Charles. It's easy to wax lyrical about how much you appreciate your ability to "listen to others" when you post on a website where 80% of posters agree with you.
Comments
Good point other than that!
But that is what life is for! Eat drink and be merry, for tommorow we may die!
You think Scott_P bet that much on his fabled scottish tory surge?
Conservative MP Mark Harper has fallen off a table while dancing in a bar in Soho and broken his foot.
A spokesman for Mr Harper's office confirmed the 43-year-old MP for the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire had suffered the injury.
Mr Harper is now recovering and his foot is in a plaster cast, the spokesman added.
"My wife Margaret was with me but thankfully she's a far better dancer so didn't fall off," Mr Harper said.
"The Glasgow effect refers to the poor health and low life expectancy of Glaswegians compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. The hypothesis among epidemiologists is that poverty alone does not appear to account for the disparity. Equally deprived areas of the UK such as Liverpool and Manchester have higher life expectancies, and the wealthiest ten percent of the Glasgow population have a lower life expectancy than the same group in other cities.
Salmond's mantra is " Eat , drink and be merry because it's on expenses ."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5299733/Alex-Salmond-claimed-800-for-food-on-MPs-expenses-during-recess.html
Try not to get too upset Sunny. It wouldn't do for any more of the PB right wingers to flounce off in the huff, hilarious habit as that always is.
Oh, wait...
It doesn't just have to be drinking water; pollution can travel in dust off such sites as well. IANAE, but ISTR that some pollutants at low levels can somewhat inhibit the body. In someone who eats healthily and has a good lifestyle, they shrug it off. In others, or those with underlying conditions, it can cause problems.
Just a wild guess, but I'm a bit of a tinfoil-hatter when it comes to ground- and air-pollution.
Years ago I saw some reports on ground pollution at ex-industrial sites and it was truly frightening. It is also not cheap to clean up, witness the Olympic site or Beckton gasworks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/12/toxic-waste-clean-up-olympic
And just for you, some information on the Loch Katrine scheme:
http://www.hiddenglasgow.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9427
'Various hypotheses have been proposed to account for the effect, including vitamin D deficiency, cold winters, higher levels of poverty than the figures suggest, high levels of stress, and a culture of alienation and pessimism.'
Could be.
Brilliant. No need for the history books.
Why has life expectancy declined relatively since devolution?
The argument made was that independence would improve life expectancy.
The data on devolution contradicts that.
They complain, endlessly, that the "Yoonyoonists" are being negative.
Has there ever, in the history of politics, been a message as negative as "Vote Yes, or kill yourself"?
Russia: you looking at my bird - does your mother like sewing?
The Scots have really cheered me up this evening with their amusing posts.
In the immortal words of McPorkster : unspoofable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_Valley_Reservoirs
Part of the problem is that such schemes are hardly noteworthy nowadays. In Victorian times a relatively small investment could cause massive improvements; now they are just incremental and at massive cost. Besides, the public are not interested in such grand works any more.
Hence the amazing (*) Thames Water Ring Main (currently being extended) remains virtually unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Water_Ring_Main
(*) Am I sad to think of this as being amazing?
Oh yes. Barack Obama Singing Get Lucky by Daft Punk: http://youtu.be/A6PEboTpcfI (grateful h/t to @TimGattITV)
I did read somewhere that the countries around the Baltic had a similarly high rate of heart attacks to Scotland and a theory it might be connected to the combination of spirits and cold winters - but that's just one thing.
So the Isle of Dogs is an offshore tax-haven too? Bloody Cockneys draining the life blood from Scotland and reducing their life expectancy. Making them eat and drink too much.
The lack of light and Vitamin D deficiency might explain some of it. The Scandinavian suicide rate used to be high too.
Peter Bazalgette - Channel 4 Big Brother...backwards not forwards.
+1.
From a sometime PB favourite:
'Whether Venice in the Middle Ages, or England or Scotland in 2013, there are three things small nations need to grow great.
First, independence. You won't be as well governed if you are ruled over by men and women who do not live amongst you.
Second, dispersed power. Those who do make the rules amongst you, need to be accountable to you.
Third, you need to be part of a global network. Venice benefited from its connections to Byzantium and a Greek speaking eastern Mediterranean world. England and Scotland today are each part of the Anglo sphere - that network of the most prosperous and innovative people on the planet. And of course even the tiniest states today are on broadband .....
Small can be beautiful, rich, innovative and strong.'
It is possible to walk past a pie shop
It is possible to walk past a pub..
it is possible to have one less pint of heavy a day'
It is possible to take responsibility
even for a Scot
I think you'll have to find a semi-devolved region for that leaky analogy to hold water.
http://www.eatingwell.com/nutrition_health/nutrition_news_information/miracle_up_north
what bits are impossible under present constitutional arrangements?
If the currency being run in Westminster is so bad, why prolong it?
Yet another in the growing list of questions to which the numpties SNP have no credible answer.
Policies adopted by a government are not a product of the system. You need to distinguish between cause and effect.
All you are saying is: I didn't like the result, therefore the game is illegitimate. It's like a kid screaming when she loses at Monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
I think, on balance, I'm against independence. But unionists really should at least try to understand the case for independence, which James Kelly articulates well on here.
Aye, James articulated the case for separation brilliantly there. I'm convinced.
Vote Yes, or kill yourself.
If it was made up, its not as ridiculous as suggesting that lower life expectancy can be blamed on Westminster.
8 COUNCIL BY ELECTIONS 27th JUNE 2013
WORCESTERSHIRE - STOURPORT ON SEVERN
SOUTH TYNESIDE - PRIMROSE
SOUTH TYNESIDE - CLEADON & EAST BOLDON
RUTLAND - KETTON
PLYMOUTH - SOUTHWAY
NEWARK & SHERWOOD - FARNSFIELD & BILSTHORPE
DARTFORD = NEWTOWN
BASILDON - BILLERICAY EAST
However, until such time as the Scots choose independence the status quo is the legitimate system and any policies chosen by the government are the product of the Scots electoral choices, even if they are only a component of the whole.
Otherwise you are proposing an atomised society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p6FLflRYYE&feature=player_embedded
I expect the first decade or so to be a learning curve of Hollande like socialist policies that crash the economy, followed by Scotland developing a more mature political mindest and prospering.
Labour's short-sighted idiocy over Scottish devolution also created an unstable and probably untenable situation in England (thankfully their disgraceful efforts to rip up the kingdom of Alfred the Great into pathetic regional assemblies failed utterly).
That's the (obvious, I would've thought?) point.
JamesKelly said:
I doubt if we're going to be able to resolve the suicide crisis in young Scottish men for as long as we remain part of the United Kingdom
Vote Yes, or kill yourself.
What would the Dignitas doctors advise?
New ComRes phone poll for Indy just out
CON-nc, 30 LAB+2, 36 LD-nc, 10 UKIP-3, 14,
See http://goo.gl/R7DIB
LOL
Cheers, Alan. Incoherence is a step up from your charge of last week that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
I'm happy to return the compliment by saying you've recently gone up in my estimation from the 178th to the 177th best PB Tory. It's possible, albeit unlikely, that you may overtake Richard Dodd one day.
I've seen precious little evidence of you listening to a word I say today, Charles. It's easy to wax lyrical about how much you appreciate your ability to "listen to others" when you post on a website where 80% of posters agree with you.