Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sure, it was more in response to Meds first sentence, besides it's not a done deal that Scotland would be able to join the EU. Regardless, Sturgeon should at least be having an honest conversation about the prospect of a border if they did rejoin.

I'm not sure what she's frightened of, the anecdotal feedback I'm getting from friends up there is that a lot of people see independence just as much about escaping the clutches of an increasingly right wing english nationalist/populist government, as well as a means to rejoin the EU, and if that means ending up with a border, so be it...

How about a moat instead, with Gondolas on as an attraction.


Borders sound hostile, but a moat is softer. Maybe call it the Arrangement Moat.


Actually on second thoughts, it could easily freeze over into an ice strip. You could hold international distance skating events on it. People could drive all the way from Ireland Island (over Johnson?s new imaginary bridge) to compete.


Even the Welsh could come, over the sea in their longboats, after they too have dug a massive gully to separate them selves from www.disunitedkingdom.com


I?d say go for it!

In my defence I was assuming that EU membership would be on the cards for Scotland should they vote for independence. It would be gas (amusing)if they got independence and then voted against joining the EU because the majority didn't want a border with England. I'm assuming that there would have to be another referendum on joining the EU, assuming an application to join would be accepted. There's a lot of assumptions in this post.

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sure, it was more in response to Meds first

> sentence, besides it's not a done deal that

> Scotland would be able to join the EU. Regardless,

> Sturgeon should at least be having an honest

> conversation about the prospect of a border if

> they did rejoin.

> I'm not sure what she's frightened of, the

> anecdotal feedback I'm getting from friends up

> there is that a lot of people see independence

> just as much about escaping the clutches of an

> increasingly right wing english

> nationalist/populist government, as well as a

> means to rejoin the EU, and if that means ending

> up with a border, so be it...


Thats all fair enough....I hope they're also prepared for the crippling austerity which will need to be imposed to hit the EU's required Deficit to GDP ratios......even if the EU allows Scotland a transition period to achieve this....the pre-covid level was nearly 3x what the EU requires....


The EU let croatia in with a 5.3% current deficit to GDP ratio in 2013...and let them work it down to the 3% threshold....


But with scotland at ~8-9% pre-covid (and acutally about 22% in covid times - but thats not a sustainable number to be fair) thats quite a change in govt spending and/or taxation to hit the required levels.....

"I have to admit, although neutral on whether Scotland should ne independent or not, I'm enjoying seeing Brexit voters like Cat citing economic data as a reason why Scotland shouldn't leave the Union..."


The other sign of this coin of course is that Remainers have to be able to say why disruption of Brexit is awful when it's UK leaving EU, but not so bad when Scotland leaves UK


To my mind Scotland leaving the UK is not OK, objectively speaking. It will cause all manner of disruption and problems and had Brexit not happened the previous referendum had settled the matter


But Brexit changed everything - and I do understand why a country which voted to remain in EU by significant margin, can see the problems ahead for the UK, and has a chance to remain in the EU would choose to take that path. And people like me warned this would be a consequence of a Brexit but were dismissed as project fear - but here we are

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to admit, although neutral on whether

> Scotland should ne independent or not, I'm

> enjoying seeing Brexit voters like Cat citing

> economic data as a reason why Scotland shouldn't

> leave the Union...


I'm glad I can make you happy. I am similarly neutral, and simialrly enjoying seeing remainers talking about how despite an economic hit, it's justifiable on principle for Scots to want to get away from an English majority on political principle....


While similar - Brexit and Scexit/screjoin are very different in many fundamental ways, and to draw too many simplistic parallels as we both have above (I believe) is a fundamental mistake.

Given the ?simplism? (h/t

who has written far more eloquently on the subject than I can) so often found in the Brexit arguments, I?d say simplistic analysis will be about par for the course where Scottish independence is concerned.


Personal view, people involved should learn from the Brexit campaign and subsequent utter f?-ups wherein no one is getting what they want....but they probably won?t.

It's entirely possible that Scotland will vote to stay in Uk


but that won't prevent the Years and Decades of issues arising from Brexit continuously causing division


So until people start to reverse Brexit (in name or in practice - we all know it means aligning with SM and CU) the problems behind all of this will remain


The link posted by JA is from someone who was once an ardent Leaver and whilst no fan of the EU now, has come to realise just how fundamentally broken the very principle of Leave and it's proponents were. I still find him a little glib on occasion but at least he has admitted the mistake

  • 2 weeks later...

Gove saying that focus should be on Covid recovery not independence, while forgetting that his Gov ploughed on with Brexit and the TCA last year, refusing to ask for an extension so the Gov could focus on Covid and saving people's lives.

Another example of this Gov's Brexit tactics about to be thrown back at them...

It?s a stalemate. Both BoJo and Wee Nippy know they could both fail. They also know that people are not necessarily voting this time simply along yes/no lines ? it was an election and not a referendum so support for staying or leaving cannot be extrapolated. More votes went to unionist parties and certain parts of Scotland are very unlikely to support leaving thr UK, meaning a broken up Scotland itself could come about. I don?t think it (Scexit) will happen though I can see a referendum with much more emphasis on fact, not feeling. Sturgeon is a good politician but her supporters are in part just not willing to scrutinise the party?s claims because her (allegedly ?civic?) nationalism sings to their souls. 🤷‍♂️

''They also know that people are not necessarily voting this time simply along yes/no lines ? it was an election and not a referendum so support for staying or leaving cannot be extrapolated.''


I disagree, this election was very much a vote for or against another referendum, just like the last general election was whether you were for or against Brexit. The difference being the Scottish system is more proportional and representative.



''More votes went to unionist parties and certain parts of Scotland are very unlikely to support leaving the UK, meaning a broken up Scotland itself could come about.''


Do you mean more votes in total, i.e. > 50% of the total vote, or do you mean more votes than they achieved at the previous Scottish election?

I can't remember whether you were in favour of Brexit or not, but I've heard similar 'warnings' about the disunity independence would cause in Scotland by Brexity types, oblivious that it's Brexit* that has brought about division in the UK as a whole as well as an increase in support for an independent Scotland, and the possibility of a united Ireland too (the DUP are currently in the process of electing a new leader as a pre-cursor to a future border poll, something I'd never thought I'd be writing a few years ago).

This is yet another example for the Indies to turn around and say if Brexit was good enough for you, independence will be good enough for us despite the downsides.



''Sturgeon is a good politician but her supporters are in part just not willing to scrutinise the party?s claims because her (allegedly ?civic?) nationalism sings to their souls.''


This also equally applies to Brexit and it's supporters.

It's going to be very difficult to criticise Scottish nationalism when the UK itself has gone down the nationalist road by leaving the EU.



*I wasn't in favour of any form of Brexit, but it was possible to end up with a Brexit deal that didn't cause huge division within the UK, thus undermine the Union and further the nationalists' cause. But here we are...

A long Queens speech response by Ian Blackford wearing a Scottish White Rose saying that Scotland has had no support from England and is being treated badly.


The rose of all the world is not for me.

I want for my part

Only the little white rose of Scotland

That smells sharp and sweet?and breaks the heart.



Boris sitting there looking bored.


https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ian-blackford-warns-boris-johnson-scotland-is-on-a-different-path-ahead-of-queens-speech-3231547

Aww no Vaughan Gething has been moved from the Welsh Government health post to the economics post so we won't see him in the news so much.


New face of Welsh health is Eluned Morgan.


Nobody reporting as much on the Welsh Labour reshuffle as much as the one done by Sir Keir.

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Global Britain going well I see

>

> purely from a self-interested pov, Uk shouldn't be

> fostering bad-will like this?

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/13/e

> u-citizens-arriving-in-uk-being-locked-up-and-expe

> lled


You have to bear in mind, that there?s some people who like this kind of behaviour going on. Some of them even post on this forum.


Sending strong messages to those wishing to come here, kinda floats their boats.


It?s what they voted for, and it?s being delivered.

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Global Britain going well I see

>

> purely from a self-interested pov, Uk shouldn't be

> fostering bad-will like this?

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/13/e

> u-citizens-arriving-in-uk-being-locked-up-and-expe

> lled



When all the football fans arrive in Porto they should all be sent to a detention centre on the premise the Portuguese border force have no idea why they aren't in Istanbul and just to see their faces and the right wing press reaction.

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sephiroth Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Global Britain going well I see

> >

> > purely from a self-interested pov, Uk shouldn't

> be

> > fostering bad-will like this?

> >

> >

> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/13/e

>

> >

> u-citizens-arriving-in-uk-being-locked-up-and-expe

>

> > lled

>

> You have to bear in mind, that there?s some people

> who like this kind of behaviour going on. Some of

> them even post on this forum.

>

> Sending strong messages to those wishing to come

> here, kinda floats their boats.

>

> It?s what they voted for, and it?s being

> delivered.



This is clearly unacceptable, and needs to to be fixed asap.


But can we please move away from this narrative that the UK is the only one doing anything wrong or pushing the envelope, and no matter what transpires, apparently..'this is what they voted for'...(Everytime the EU makes a mis-step (and there have been many) I don't think it's always fair to claim that is what YOU voted for)


I mean, how about the French purposefully holding up the deal that was about to be announced for financial services becuase they want better access for their fisherman to UK waters. If this was the UK doing this, I'm sure you'd be on here saying that they shouldn't have signed the TCA on fishing if they weren't happy with it...and now they're trying to renegotiate, becuase they agreed to a rubbish deal...


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/no-10-government-eu-france-delay-city-deal-fishing-brexit-b934950.html%3famp

"I mean, how about the French purposefully holding up the deal that was about to be announced for financial services becuase they want better access for their fisherman to UK waters. If this was the UK doing this, "


this would not have been possible with UK as member of EU - but once again, only UK CHOSE THIS PATH!


People warned the UK they would be treated as a third country and were dismissed


The French are well within their rights to do this - they have not lied about the effects of Brexit to achieve it


EU citizens being treated like this in the UK was another worry for Remainers - again, dismissed


But both are a consequence of something that only the UK wanted - neither would be happening without Brexit. Brexit enables this

"becuase they want better access for their fisherman to UK waters."


and isn't this a misrepresentation of what's happening. Isn't what's happening the French are protesting because the UK broke the terms of the agreement, not because the French don't like the agreement

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...