not difficult since the EU have already legislated maximum wattage ratings for vacuum cleaners, kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units.
The EU maximum wattage ratings for kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units exist only on the fevered imaginations of Eurosceptics. The limits on vacuum cleaner power had no effect on cleaning performance as the best performing ones were already below the limit.
No, but in England and Wales, “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court.”
At which point have I ever commented on whether No campaigners were misbehaving? Are you suggesting that justifies the violence, intimidation and lies from the Yes campaign that you find it so hard to acknowledge did take place?
I was contrasting the well documented thuggery from the No campaigners which has resulted in action by police, with the smears against Yes campaigners which you have been completely unable to substantiate.
He was egged by in irate local resident not a yes campaigner. Jim Sillars got egged, he suggested that he hand it in to a food bank next time and carried on.
Fucking Google the other 400 references yourself you lazy bigoted blinkered twat.
The militant yes voters physically attacking no campaigners are a figment of your imagination
See, you've just demonstrated perfectly why the 'yes' campaign failed: A personal attack on someone because they made a statement you disagreed with, while pretending the evidence that proves them correct doesn't exist - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
A pro-union newspaper claiming one unnamed person was attacked but the police have no record of the incident. That is not evidence.
We saw the ugly side of nationalism finally shine through, and we saw the impact that was having.
You see dear rapiddescent, all those yes flags, all those events, coupled with the things you'd probably rather not hear about or deny ever happened such as militant yes voters physically attacking no campaigners and even splitting up families and neighbourhoods, telling people they weren't true scotsmen if they voted no
Yes we did see the ugly side of nationalism finally shine through but it was British nationalism, not Scottish. Just compare the peaceful crowds of "Yes" supporters in George Square on the eve of poll with the the terrorist supporting "No" thugs tonight. The militant yes voters physically attacking no campaigners are a figment of your imagination, unfortunately the assaults by "No" campaigners are real and several have been arrested and charged.
Salmond should rightly have been savaged by the media for repeated seemingly untrue claims he has made and the allegations of bullying, but he has certainly not been by the BBC, they've been fawning over him in half the interviews I've seen. Every claim he has made about EU membership and currency has been rebutted by everyone else involved.
Just because you chose not to believe something does not make it untrue. There were plenty of experts who supported the SNP's position on EU membership and currency. The BBC have certainly not been fawning over him, they made plenty of attempts to savage him which often backfire as with his demolition of Nick Robinson earlier this week which they cut from the broadcast.
He even implied the Queen supported Scottish independence, which is a low thing to do to someone who isn't really able to come out and express her true opinions on the matter.
He merely repeated the Queen's official position, that she was happy with either result. There have been plenty of claims in the unionist media that the Queen opposed Scottish independence.
I followed the BBC's coverage quite carefully and did not see any bias.
You missed the BBC editing out Alex Salmond spending 5 minutes answering their question then accusing him of not answering?
You didn't see the way they interviewed anyone who supported independence much more aggressively, continually interrupting anyone who supported independence but allowing others to speak freely?
The problem with have with giving 16 year olds the right to vote is that it was a one time thing. If Scottish government had come out and said that 16 is an appropriate voting age, and kept that age for all votes then that is okay.
The SNP has said that 16 is an appropriate voting age and supports keeping that age for all votes but it has no power to implement it as all other elections are covered by reserved powers.
The SNP has a long standing commitment to votes at 16 for all elections, this is the first time they have had the power to do so and they delivered on that promise. The lib dems officially support votes at 16 too but opposed it for this referendum as they tried to rig the game in their favour.
The unionist parties blocked the minority SNP government from passing legislation to hold a vote which would have taken place 4 years ago. It was only when they were re-elected with a majority they could get it through parliament so the timing is the unionists fault.
The difference is the Scottish independence movement was supported by people living in Scotland whereas the petition was created and largely signed by people living outside Shetland and Orkney.
They've said that they will move their Registered Office, not their headquarters. Lloyds currently has them in different places, so there is no problem in doing that.
There is no sensible site in the rest of the UK. They were all ruled out in the 1960s for Polaris and over the years have been encroached on by development whilst Coulport has tripled in size for Trident.
Now that is pure scaremongering. There is absolutely no support from the residents of the Islands for leaving Scotland. Bernard Ingham has admitted he made it up in the 1970s.
There are only 520 jobs in Scotland that depend on trident according to MOD figures. Most of the rest of the 5000 jobs would stay as Faslane will be the headquarters of the new Scottish Navy.
Why? Under what treaty or agreement would the EU not be able to claim those oilfields? They are British oil fields, hence part of the EU at the moment. What law means that Scotland receives them if it chooses independence?
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
The EU hasn't actually said anything. Barroso has said a lot but his term of office is up and he has been contradicted by multiple experts.
There is no queue to jump, countries are admitted to EU membership when they satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey applied in 1987, numerous countries that applied after them have become EU members while Turkish membership is likely a decade away.
Devolution, perhaps, but the asymmetry could have been corrected by Scotland's MPs. Before devolution, English MPs abstained from voting on things that concern only Scotland, so why do Scottish MPs not abstain from things that only affect England (cf. West Lothian question)?
English MPs did not abstain from voting on things that concerned only Scotland, they regularly outvoted the Scottish MPs on Scottish legislation. The Poll Tax was the most infamous example.
I'm not an AGW denier, but I can't tolerate the scare tactics. And I'm still pretty mad at East Anglia -- you just don't do science by gathering data, adjusting that data, and then throwing the original data out and not allowing (or even recording) the methods by which you adjusted that data. They could have just fucking made it all up, it's non-verifiable UNLESS someone else was keeping track of those weather stations that oh, no, all the records were kept at one place and then thrown out 20 years ago. Bad science. Heck, it could be accidentally bad science, but FUCKING OWN UP TO IT! Cannot stand people who talk their way around unsubstantiated data and try to pass it off as fucking immutable gospel.
Perhaps you should get your information somewhere other than denier blogs, your version of what happened at UEA is pure fantasy. They didn't collect any original data of their own, the data came from the organisations that ran the weather stations who have their own records. They deleted THEIR copy of the data not the originals which still exist. Their results have been confirmed by three separate organisations including one funded by deniers to disprove it.
Slashdot Mirror
What has this got to do with the NHS? You know that most pharmacies in the UK (and always have been) private businesses, right?
20% of P2U is owned by EMIS and the CEO of EMIS is a director of P2U.
EMIS provide the Electronic patient record systems for over half of the NHS in England
not difficult since the EU have already legislated maximum wattage ratings for vacuum cleaners, kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units.
The EU maximum wattage ratings for kettles, space heaters, boilers, immersion heaters and shower units exist only on the fevered imaginations of Eurosceptics. The limits on vacuum cleaner power had no effect on cleaning performance as the best performing ones were already below the limit.
No, but in England and Wales, “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court.”
At which point have I ever commented on whether No campaigners were misbehaving? Are you suggesting that justifies the violence, intimidation and lies from the Yes campaign that you find it so hard to acknowledge did take place?
I was contrasting the well documented thuggery from the No campaigners which has resulted in action by police, with the smears against Yes campaigners which you have been completely unable to substantiate.
Fine, here's another: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
He was egged by in irate local resident not a yes campaigner. Jim Sillars got egged, he suggested that he hand it in to a food bank next time and carried on.
Fucking Google the other 400 references yourself you lazy bigoted blinkered twat.
Ok, i tried Google and I got
Here's a No campaigner arrested for kicking a woman in the stomach
80 year old Yes campaigner had his arm broken
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
What was that you were saying about personal attacks. You epitomise the No campaign, playing the victim when it is you who are the aggressor.
The militant yes voters physically attacking no campaigners are a figment of your imagination
See, you've just demonstrated perfectly why the 'yes' campaign failed: A personal attack on someone because they made a statement you disagreed with, while pretending the evidence that proves them correct doesn't exist - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
A pro-union newspaper claiming one unnamed person was attacked but the police have no record of the incident. That is not evidence.
We saw the ugly side of nationalism finally shine through, and we saw the impact that was having.
You see dear rapiddescent, all those yes flags, all those events, coupled with the things you'd probably rather not hear about or deny ever happened such as militant yes voters physically attacking no campaigners and even splitting up families and neighbourhoods, telling people they weren't true scotsmen if they voted no
Yes we did see the ugly side of nationalism finally shine through but it was British nationalism, not Scottish. Just compare the peaceful crowds of "Yes" supporters in George Square on the eve of poll with the the terrorist supporting "No" thugs tonight. The militant yes voters physically attacking no campaigners are a figment of your imagination, unfortunately the assaults by "No" campaigners are real and several have been arrested and charged.
Salmond should rightly have been savaged by the media for repeated seemingly untrue claims he has made and the allegations of bullying, but he has certainly not been by the BBC, they've been fawning over him in half the interviews I've seen. Every claim he has made about EU membership and currency has been rebutted by everyone else involved.
Just because you chose not to believe something does not make it untrue. There were plenty of experts who supported the SNP's position on EU membership and currency. The BBC have certainly not been fawning over him, they made plenty of attempts to savage him which often backfire as with his demolition of Nick Robinson earlier this week which they cut from the broadcast.
He even implied the Queen supported Scottish independence, which is a low thing to do to someone who isn't really able to come out and express her true opinions on the matter.
He merely repeated the Queen's official position, that she was happy with either result. There have been plenty of claims in the unionist media that the Queen opposed Scottish independence.
I followed the BBC's coverage quite carefully and did not see any bias.
You missed the BBC editing out Alex Salmond spending 5 minutes answering their question then accusing him of not answering?
You didn't see the way they interviewed anyone who supported independence much more aggressively, continually interrupting anyone who supported independence but allowing others to speak freely?
The problem with have with giving 16 year olds the right to vote is that it was a one time thing. If Scottish government had come out and said that 16 is an appropriate voting age, and kept that age for all votes then that is okay.
The SNP has said that 16 is an appropriate voting age and supports keeping that age for all votes but it has no power to implement it as all other elections are covered by reserved powers.
The SNP has a long standing commitment to votes at 16 for all elections, this is the first time they have had the power to do so and they delivered on that promise. The lib dems officially support votes at 16 too but opposed it for this referendum as they tried to rig the game in their favour. The unionist parties blocked the minority SNP government from passing legislation to hold a vote which would have taken place 4 years ago. It was only when they were re-elected with a majority they could get it through parliament so the timing is the unionists fault.
Not really (at least in Scotland anyway). The Crown Estate owns a lot of land and the sea bed but that's not part of their personal property.
The numpty was one of the Sky reporters who claimed that the pile of unsorted ballot papers were 'No' votes.
Not just conspiracy theorists, the police are investigating a number of cases. It's unlikely to be widespread enough to affect the result.
The difference is the Scottish independence movement was supported by people living in Scotland whereas the petition was created and largely signed by people living outside Shetland and Orkney.
They've said that they will move their Registered Office, not their headquarters. Lloyds currently has them in different places, so there is no problem in doing that.
There is no sensible site in the rest of the UK. They were all ruled out in the 1960s for Polaris and over the years have been encroached on by development whilst Coulport has tripled in size for Trident.
Now that is pure scaremongering. There is absolutely no support from the residents of the Islands for leaving Scotland. Bernard Ingham has admitted he made it up in the 1970s.
There are only 520 jobs in Scotland that depend on trident according to MOD figures. Most of the rest of the 5000 jobs would stay as Faslane will be the headquarters of the new Scottish Navy.
Why? Under what treaty or agreement would the EU not be able to claim those oilfields? They are British oil fields, hence part of the EU at the moment. What law means that Scotland receives them if it chooses independence?
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
The EU hasn't actually said anything. Barroso has said a lot but his term of office is up and he has been contradicted by multiple experts.
There is no queue to jump, countries are admitted to EU membership when they satisfy the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey applied in 1987, numerous countries that applied after them have become EU members while Turkish membership is likely a decade away.
Devolution, perhaps, but the asymmetry could have been corrected by Scotland's MPs. Before devolution, English MPs abstained from voting on things that concern only Scotland, so why do Scottish MPs not abstain from things that only affect England (cf. West Lothian question)?
English MPs did not abstain from voting on things that concerned only Scotland, they regularly outvoted the Scottish MPs on Scottish legislation. The Poll Tax was the most infamous example.
No, in the UK chips are what what you call French Fries
Except for this fact.
The *rate* at which temps have gone up over the last 17 years is 0.
Actual fact
He said nothing of the sort.
I'm not an AGW denier, but I can't tolerate the scare tactics. And I'm still pretty mad at East Anglia -- you just don't do science by gathering data, adjusting that data, and then throwing the original data out and not allowing (or even recording) the methods by which you adjusted that data. They could have just fucking made it all up, it's non-verifiable UNLESS someone else was keeping track of those weather stations that oh, no, all the records were kept at one place and then thrown out 20 years ago. Bad science. Heck, it could be accidentally bad science, but FUCKING OWN UP TO IT! Cannot stand people who talk their way around unsubstantiated data and try to pass it off as fucking immutable gospel.
Perhaps you should get your information somewhere other than denier blogs, your version of what happened at UEA is pure fantasy. They didn't collect any original data of their own, the data came from the organisations that ran the weather stations who have their own records. They deleted THEIR copy of the data not the originals which still exist. Their results have been confirmed by three separate organisations including one funded by deniers to disprove it.