Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Bairnardo]

Bob calling folk childish.

The same bob calling folk "Bolsonaro"

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

1 minute ago, Dave and Anna Snow said:

I'm not interested in the UK.  

Scotland should be a normal sovereign country spending less than 1% of the big pot on defence spending.  

Scotland should have had full control of things like control of our airports. 

All of that is academic.  

This was a chance for the SG to shine and they really haven't, and Sturgeon's approach to this suggests at an overly totalitarian leadership should we continue to return her.   

For his flaws Salmond is was and always will be 10 times the politician Sturgeon is.

I don't want to head down a different path here, but you can't say that you're 'nor interested in the UK', because the fact that the UK controls 75% of Scotland's economy, plus 100% of defence spending, plus 100% of border control DIRECTLY influences decisions that Sturgeon has had to make. 

I'm not going to argue with you about Salmond, but you're wrong to say that Sturgeon is 'totalitarian'...that's ridiculous. She's a more conservative (small 'c') politician than Salmond......but ask Scottish voters who they would prefer to be First Minister, and I seriously doubt if the majority would say Salmond. 

 

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

At this point, I would once again like to introduce the suggestion that the Uk government absolutely fvck off with spending over 66 billion pounds.....I'll repeat that, 66 billion pounds...per year, on Trident and on 'defence' spending, in a desperate need to prove that this rancid UK is somehow a military super power. 

Take some of that money. No, take all of it, and invest in in the NHS to build a health service that is fit to cope whatever the 21st century can throw at it. 

Then we wouldn't have to introduce restrictions for every variant. 

I'm sure that we all agree with this. 

Forget about new aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons, and build a fvcking health service that is fit for purpose. 

 

The Ministry of Defence spent £54.5 billion in 2019-20. Your figure is nonsense.

Even if we spent the same proportion of our GDP on the military as Germany (an equivalently sized European country) we would still be spending about £35 billion.

If we spent what France spends on the military as a proportion of GDP we'd still be spending £52 billion.

[s_dog]

47 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

If this imposition of restrictions is so desperately needed, why are idiots like Drakeford waiting two weeks to implement anything when we're being told the 'tsunami' is here now?

Drakeford is saying fairly similar stuff to Sturgeon, but Wales have by far the least Omicron cases in the UK. Like the rest of us their cases have been high for a while but still flat for now whereas the numbers are going up for the rest of us. Maybe they're just delaying it to the 27th to get past Christmas.  
 

25 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Not sure you need to take advice on how to read a graph or table that shows the number of people in hospital because of covid is dropping and so the NHS is under less and less stress as the days pass.

Got to wait a week or two before hospital numbers will go up, if indeed they do go up. There is some hope in the data from South Africa but at the same time, Norway appears a bit ahead of us with Omicron and their hospital numbers are beginning to climb higher than in their last big wave. I think the likes of Sturgeon and Drakeford are just terrified of getting it wrong and would rather be cautious when their advisors are telling them even if it's milder, the possibility of there being so many cases will still lead to lots of hospitalisations. 

If they're right, I'm hoping it will be a short, sharp, spike because that's what its beginning to look like in South Africa. Because I've got to say, I was utterly convinced we'd never see another lockdown, but France shutting the UK out, Netherlands in lockdown, I think a short spike is the best we can hope for.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

1 minute ago, Ron Aldo said:

18 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

At this point, I would once again like to introduce the suggestion that the Uk government absolutely fvck off with spending over 66 billion pounds.....I'll repeat that, 66 billion pounds...per year, on Trident and on 'defence' spending, in a desperate need to prove that this rancid UK is somehow a military super power. 
Take some of that money. No, take all of it, and invest in in the NHS to build a health service that is fit to cope whatever the 21st century can throw at it. 
Then we wouldn't have to introduce restrictions for every variant. 
I'm sure that we all agree with this. 
Forget about new aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons, and build a fvcking health service that is fit for purpose. 
 

That's a fair point re Trident. However, by the same token, the money that governments seem happy to put towards furlough could be put to the NHS instead which would also prevent the need for further restrictions?

Absolutely. 

We all want a restriction free life, but if this clusterfuck has taught us anything it is that our NHS has been under-funded for generations....at UK and at Scottish level. 

I haven't seen anywhere, someone raise the question as to why we spend so much on defence, and so little on the NHS. 

As I said somewhere earlier, if the Tories were to stand up and say we're scrapping Trident and investing another 50 billion in the NHS and care services, they would get my vote for evermore. 

 

 

[Left Back]

1 minute ago, Ron Aldo said:

17 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

At this point, I would once again like to introduce the suggestion that the Uk government absolutely fvck off with spending over 66 billion pounds.....I'll repeat that, 66 billion pounds...per year, on Trident and on 'defence' spending, in a desperate need to prove that this rancid UK is somehow a military super power. 
Take some of that money. No, take all of it, and invest in in the NHS to build a health service that is fit to cope whatever the 21st century can throw at it. 
Then we wouldn't have to introduce restrictions for every variant. 
I'm sure that we all agree with this. 
Forget about new aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons, and build a fvcking health service that is fit for purpose. 
 

That's a fair point re Trident. However, by the same token, the money that governments seem happy to put towards furlough could be put to the NHS instead which would also prevent the need for further restrictions?

Trident costs nothing like £66bn per year.  It’s a fraction of that, and a pathetic fraction of the NHS budget.

It’s trotted out as a panacea that could fix the NHS but it wouldn’t scratch the surface.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The Ministry of Defence spent £54.5 billion in 2019-20. Your figure is nonsense.

Even if we spent the same proportion of our GDP on the military as Germany (an equivalently sized European country) we would still be spending about £35 billion.

If we spent what France spends on the military as a proportion of GDP we'd still be spending £52 billion.

Wow. Nonsense ? But what's a few billion between friends, eh ? 

So if we spent the same proportion on defence as Germany, we would have an extra 19 billion which could be invested in the NHS. 

Hardly worth doing, is it ? 

 

[Binos]

22 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

At this point, I would once again like to introduce the suggestion that the Uk government absolutely fvck off with spending over 66 billion pounds.....I'll repeat that, 66 billion pounds...per year, on Trident and on 'defence' spending, in a desperate need to prove that this rancid UK is somehow a military super power. 

Take some of that money. No, take all of it, and invest in in the NHS to build a health service that is fit to cope whatever the 21st century can throw at it. 

Then we wouldn't have to introduce restrictions for every variant. 

I'm sure that we all agree with this. 

Forget about new aircraft carriers, and nuclear weapons, and build a fvcking health service that is fit for purpose. 

 

We spend 83b a year on payouts further to the NHS being sued, half the NHS budget 

Just make it illegal to sue the NHS as a royal charter did that existed in the nineties 

No need to scrap  our nuclear deterrent that has contributed to relative peace for many decades 

[Left Back]

2 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Absolutely. 

We all want a restriction free life, but if this clusterfuck has taught us anything it is that our NHS has been under-funded for generations....at UK and at Scottish level. 

I haven't seen anywhere, someone raise the question as to why we spend so much on defence, and so little on the NHS. 

As I said somewhere earlier, if the Tories were to stand up and say we're scrapping Trident and investing another 50 billion in the NHS and care services, they would get my vote for evermore. 

 

 

NHS budget this year is something like £175bn.  More than 3 times the MoD budget.  As I said previously Trident is a fraction of that.  Around £2bn per year.

You’re so far off the mark you could be a modeller.

[Dawson Park Boy]

5 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

Absolutely. 

We all want a restriction free life, but if this clusterfuck has taught us anything it is that our NHS has been under-funded for generations....at UK and at Scottish level. 

I haven't seen anywhere, someone raise the question as to why we spend so much on defence, and so little on the NHS. 

As I said somewhere earlier, if the Tories were to stand up and say we're scrapping Trident and investing another 50 billion in the NHS and care services, they would get my vote for evermore. 

 

 

I haven’t looked it up but I thought Trident was about £5bn per annum

[Ad Lib]

Just now, Bob Mahelp said:

Wow. Nonsense ? But what's a few billion between friends, eh ?

Yes, nonsense. You were overstating military expenditure by £12 billion, or almost a quarter of the entire budget.

Just now, Bob Mahelp said:

So if we spent the same proportion on defence as Germany, we would have an extra 19 billion which could be invested in the NHS. 

Hardly worth doing, is it ? 

No, not really, not if it meant dismantling a significant part of Western Europe's defence infrastructure and made it materially easier for the Russians to undermine the continued independent existence of Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

[Elixir]

21 minutes ago, PedroMoutinho said:

Still very little public support for a lockdown

Yep. In the mud. Probably something to do with telling the population that getting vaccinated would mean an end to restrictions. Who could have thought?

 

[pozbaird]

Still pondering, as a Scottish voter, the answer to the question ‘Sturgeon or Salmond as First Minister’. Absolute cnut of a question. That’s like being asked, would you prefer St Mirren to be pumped 7-0 by Celtic or The Rangers.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Just now, pozbaird said:

Still pondering, as a Scottish voter, the answer to the question ‘Sturgeon or Salmond as First Minister’. Absolute cnut of a question. That’s like being asked, would you prefer St Mirren to be pumped 7-0 by Celtic or The Rangers.

No, it isn't. 

 

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

I haven’t looked it up but I thought Trident was about £5bn per annum

In-service costs for Trident are about 6% of the defence budget (so about £2.5 billion).

 

There are additional costs associated with the project to renew the nuclear deterrent but, since 2015, that has averaged about £1 billion per year. Most of that is front-loaded, however, and the ongoing cost for the deterrent is expected to remain about 6% of the overall defence budget.

[pozbaird]

Just now, Bob Mahelp said:

No, it isn't. 

 

Maybe not to you, but it is to me, and seeing as how I’m offering my opinion, and my opinion alone to the question you said Scottish voters should be asked, then as a Scottish voter, that’s exactly how I feel about the question.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Just now, pozbaird said:

Maybe not to you, but it is to me, and seeing as how I’m offering my opinion, and my opinion alone to the question you said Scottish voters should be asked, then as a Scottish voter, that’s exactly how I feel about the question.

Who would you prefer to have as First Minister ? 

 

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

Just now, Dave and Anna Snow said:

Germany is 23% larger.   It's therefore perfectly possible to take your 35 million and reduce it by 23%.....or indeed whatever we want to. 

Health and defence spending are fiscal choices for the government. 




Anna. 

 

Yeah. But, Lithuania...

 

 

[pozbaird]

Just now, Bob Mahelp said:

Who would you prefer to have as First Minister ? 

 

That isn’t the question. The question was Sturgeon or Salmond. 

[Mark Connolly]

6 minutes ago, pozbaird said:

Still pondering, as a Scottish voter, the answer to the question ‘Sturgeon or Salmond as First Minister’. Absolute cnut of a question. That’s like being asked, would you prefer St Mirren to be pumped 7-0 by Celtic or The Rangers.

The answer to the second question is "Yes"