Norm Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 If I was a bit more cynical, I'd think they were trying to thin out the number of Scots. Higher drink drive limit, bring back smoking in pubs and bring back air guns too. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-scottish-manifesto-drink-drive-limits-smoking-pubs-airguns-pubs-farage-a6973336.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Beale Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Nigel is a great man . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted April 7, 2016 Share Posted April 7, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSTR Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of their policies are very sound tbf. Shame some are utter lunacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 I find them fairly opportunist, a bit like the lib dumbs in many ways, with better lad policies ofc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glottis Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 He's not an idiot. Knows the type of voters to aim for to get his foot in the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 That's reminds me. Bog roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 If I was a bit more cynical, I'd think they were trying to thin out the number of Scots. Higher drink drive limit, bring back smoking in pubs and bring back air guns too. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-scottish-manifesto-drink-drive-limits-smoking-pubs-airguns-pubs-farage-a6973336.html It's a belated April Fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is targeting a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is TARGETING a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! No voters and migrantists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is TARGETING a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! No voters and migrantists. Awww, dee Cannae drink and drive anymore. Only a fool would drive after a drink anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is TARGETING a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! No voters and migrantists. Awww, dee Cannae drink and drive anymore. Only a fool would drive after a drink anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcap Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is targeting a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! Personally, anyone who thinks they have the right to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol needs a slap. I'd have the limit as close to 0 as medical science allows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Personally, anyone who thinks they have the right to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol needs a slap. I'd have the limit as close to 0 as medical science allows. Yeah, this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah O Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is targeting a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! Nippy Drink Driving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! Because all Heads of School are paedos? Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychocAndy Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Personally, anyone who thinks they have the right to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol needs a slap. I'd have the limit as close to 0 as medical science allows. 100% right. If you drive anywhere and can't go without a pint, then you have a problem, and every other poor ***** that is in your way on your drive home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XB52 Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Because all Heads of School are paedos? Wow! it really is amazing what people will type to have a go at the SNP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 it really is amazing what people will type to have a go at the SNPI heard that it was the SNP who were behind the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only that, but they stole Nazi scientists during ww2 so they could design intercontinental nuclear missiles. What else? Eh, AIDS. They invented that Bloody Natz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcap Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 British institutions on the other hand, a genuine paedos paradise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgoJambo Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is targeting a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! Aye cos it's only parents knowing their daughters are on the pill which stops paedo head teachers as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 it really is amazing what people will type to have a go at the SNP It's all a bit Hibernianesque in the aftermath of the Cup Final. I'm not 100% about this state guardian thing, but all the nonsense spouted about one party states etc is bizarre. Despite winning the referendum, it seems that certain sections on the NO side seem unwilling to get over it, as if the fact NO won the referendum should never lead to the SNP obliterating the Scottish Westminster political landscape. Or that a party whose raison d'etre is independence should not harbour any pretensions to that end. You see it with the Tory Party in Scotland. Already they admit that they are losers, after all, their PPB the other night is about them being a "strong opposition", but again "vote for us and we will make sure there is not another referendum". But what if the peopleof Scotland want one? Rounded up, 50% of those who cast their vote at the Westminster GE, voted for the SNP. So it may not be too far away. And for the record, I shall not be voting SNP at Holyrood, but I'd certainly vote YES if there was another referendum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loveofthegame Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Smoking in pubs - that alone is enough for me to vote against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcap Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Smoking in pubs - that alone is enough for me to vote against them. As a smoker, I agree. As far as I can tell, UKIP only seems to pander to the selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawdust Caesar Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Smoking in pubs - that alone is enough for me to vote against them. And their argument which states that due to the smoking ban more children are at risk now from passive smoking as their parents smoke in front of them is the fault of the Govt is laughable. No blame attached at all to the selfish parents who subjected their kids to the smoke in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweegy Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 Smoking in pubs - that alone is enough for me to vote against them. Another smoker who agrees with you. It's my vice, others shouldn't suffer for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Muddie Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 It's so laughable it's hardly worth giving notice to. Just like UKIP in general Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted April 8, 2016 Share Posted April 8, 2016 The basic problem with the " Named person" legislation is that it assumes the state has more concern for a child's welfare than its parent. Its is fundamental flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabienleclerq Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 100% right. If you drive anywhere and can't go without a pint, then you have a problem, and every other poor ***** that is in your way on your drive home. Not sure what's wrong with having one pint and driving tbh. I now don't bother as it's not worth the consequences just to have a beer but to suggest someone has a problem because they fancy a beer watching the football or having dinner somewhere is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabienleclerq Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 The basic problem with the " Named person" legislation is that it assumes the state has more concern for a child's welfare than its parent. Its is fundamental flaw. The states "childcare" is awful. They fail children constantly. My cousin is a teacher, one of the other teachers in the school felt sorry for a wee boy (parents are junkies) he'd come in unwashed and in dirty clothes etc. she bought him clothes showed him how to clean, brush his teeth etc. Eventually the social decide his mums not fit to look after him, teacher offers to adopt him. Social said no and put him into foster care. Bairns going to be in homes all his life when he had a women ready to save him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Not sure what's wrong with having one pint and driving tbh. I now don't bother as it's not worth the consequences just to have a beer but to suggest someone has a problem because they fancy a beer watching the football or having dinner somewhere is just stupid. What could possibly go wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaw Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 The states "childcare" is awful. They fail children constantly. My cousin is a teacher, one of the other teachers in the school felt sorry for a wee boy (parents are junkies) he'd come in unwashed and in dirty clothes etc. she bought him clothes showed him how to clean, brush his teeth etc. Eventually the social decide his mums not fit to look after him, teacher offers to adopt him. Social said no and put him into foster care. Bairns going to be in homes all his life when he had a women ready to save him. You mean they didn't allow your cousin to be an exception to the process every other person who wants to adopt has to follow? Highly surprising. Also, if he's in foster care, he's not in a 'home' (assuming you meant to imply an institution) any more than he would be with his teacher. And he may well be adopted by someone who has gone through the proper adoption process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 I wasn't advocating drink driving, I was pointing out that the law in Scotland is claimed to be aligned to Europe. It isn't. And as most named persons are expected by default by the SNP to be HeAd Teachers, there is a risk that they use children's sexual activity records to their advantage. Both sets of legislation are flawed and should be revised But hey, let's pile on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 I wasn't advocating drink driving, I was pointing out that the law in Scotland is claimed to be aligned to Europe. It isn't. And as most named persons are expected by default by the SNP to be HeAd Teachers, there is a risk that they use children's sexual activity records to their advantage. Both sets of legislation are flawed and should be revised But hey, let's pile on with it. I'd argue that if there's a head teacher who wants to tamperfere with pupils, not knowing their sexual activity isn't going to stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabienleclerq Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 You mean they didn't allow your cousin to be an exception to the process every other person who wants to adopt has to follow? Highly surprising. Also, if he's in foster care, he's not in a 'home' (assuming you meant to imply an institution) any more than he would be with his teacher. And he may well be adopted by someone who has gone through the proper adoption process. So you never read my post correctly. You can't tell me there was anyone better placed than a teacher who already had a relationship with the kid already. You bash on being a penis though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaw Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Same argument applies: if I was a prospective adopter who had been through intense screening, not allowed to leave the country for years, etc., I wouldn't be happy if I knew his teacher had been allowed to snap him up. I'd also suggest it isn't ideal for a child to be looked after and taught by the same person - yes, it must happen (although probably a lot less than in the past) but there's a difference between dealing professionally with a situation you've been put in, and actively creating that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Findlay Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Because all Heads of School are paedos? Wow! Come on Boris you know fine well that is not what he meant. I vote SNP but I don't agree with this named person legislation. I can see a whole can of worms being opened with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabienleclerq Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Same argument applies: if I was a prospective adopter who had been through intense screening, not allowed to leave the country for years, etc., I wouldn't be happy if I knew his teacher had been allowed to snap him up. I'd also suggest it isn't ideal for a child to be looked after and taught by the same person - yes, it must happen (although probably a lot less than in the past) but there's a difference between dealing professionally with a situation you've been put in, and actively creating that situation. It's a kid not a pair of trainers. There was a good home available with an adult he trusted and they said no. It's not right imo. Anyway I'm taking the thread off topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 The states "childcare" is awful. They fail children constantly. My cousin is a teacher, one of the other teachers in the school felt sorry for a wee boy (parents are junkies) he'd come in unwashed and in dirty clothes etc. she bought him clothes showed him how to clean, brush his teeth etc. Eventually the social decide his mums not fit to look after him, teacher offers to adopt him. Social said no and put him into foster care. Bairns going to be in homes all his life when he had a women ready to save him. It's horrible seeing the kids of drug addicted parents. It breaks my heart. Recent experience with a young family in my street. Honestly I'm choking up a wee bit thinking about them. So the teacher you spoke of I can well understand how it touched her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabienleclerq Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 It's horrible seeing the kids of drug addicted parents. It breaks my heart. Recent experience with a young family in my street. Honestly I'm choking up a wee bit thinking about them. So the teacher you spoke of I can well understand how it touched her. I was listening to some stories and basically social services are so stretched the kid has to be in proper danger before they look at it. They just don't have the staff/funds. My cousin is teaching kids to wash and brush their teeth, they bought one wee girl school clothes as hers were manky. Mother sold the new clothes and the kid came back in the same unwashed clothes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousset1 Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 That's reminds me. Bog roll. Your posts typed on foolscap reminds me. Bog roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Come on Boris you know fine well that is not what he meant. I vote SNP but I don't agree with this named person legislation. I can see a whole can of worms being opened with this. What did he mean then? He said that Head Teachers would more than likely be the named person, then followed up with "paedo's dream". I don't necessarily agree with this legislation either, but I'll not attack it with spurious innuendo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 What did he mean then? He said that Head Teachers would more than likely be the named person, then followed up with "paedo's dream". I don't necessarily agree with this legislation either, but I'll not attack it with spurious innuendo. I did not say all Head Teachers are paedos. I said this legislation is a paedos dream. Anyway I can see how it can be interpreted that way so I'll be clearer next time. And, for information of all, in case people think Named Persons using their positions for means of sexual predation "wont happen", it already has................ http://no2np.org/named-person-child-sex-offender-struck-teaching-council/ The fact remains - Named Persons are Mandatory, not optional Named Persons will get access to confidential medical records of children. Those records will not be accessible by the childs parents. Once those records are in the hands of the Named Person, there is no Legislation which prohibits them from passing that information to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 I did not say all Head Teachers are paedos. I said this legislation is a paedos dream. Anyway I can see how it can be interpreted that way so I'll be clearer next time. And, for information of all, in case people think Named Persons using their positions for means of sexual predation "wont happen", it already has................ http://no2np.org/named-person-child-sex-offender-struck-teaching-council/ The fact remains - Named Persons are Mandatory, not optional Named Persons will get access to confidential medical records of children. Those records will not be accessible by the childs parents. Once those records are in the hands of the Named Person, there is no Legislation which prohibits them from passing that information to others. Data Protection Act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Data Protection Act? No its different - Doctors are bound by Patient Confidentiality rules. I may not get this 100% correct but if a 16-year old girl, for example is on the pill, or is otherwise known by a Doctor to be sexually active, a Doctor is bound not to inform parents and if parents ask, the Doctor cannot divulge this information. However the Named person Act went a few weeks ago through the Supreme Court, where this was uncovered. In fact better to read the Court stuff here. http://no2np.org/gps-must-tell-named-person-teenage-girls-prescribed-pill-says-qc/ In fact there is quite a lot of stuff about Named persons in this protest website that the Govt would rather nobody knew about. Of coursr its a protest website so it is making the case to bin it, so peeps should read this along with the Govt spiel and decide. While I'm at it - does anyone know what the other parties positions are on the NP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 All named persons = paedos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Some of them seem totally bonkers but I think he is targeting a portion of the population that he thinks can make an impact. but he is righ ton the Named person and also the Drink-Driving limits The Scottish population has been fooled by the notion that we are now aligned to Europe and the rest of the world by lowering the limits. That is patently false. It is correct that elsewhere the limits are lower than 80mg, but the fact is - so are the consequences. Elsewhere, if you are done for, say 40mg, the penalty may be either a fine and/or Licence points. It is certainly not disqualification from driving. So elsewhere the punishment for having one pint is not disqualification. Most other countries have a progressive system of penalties which make sense. MacAskill and wee nippy didn't even consider that when they concocted their "right-on" law. The upshot is a significant number of country hotels and pubs are now closed due to lack of business and Scotland is completely out of step with the rest, not aligned as MacAskill may have you think. As for the Named Person - it is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court but it has become apparent that, unlike Nippys statements, there is no opt-out for parents in the legislation at all, and we are now in a situation where a school headmaster will be informed of which girls at school are on the pill, but the parents of said girl will not be permitted to know. Paedos dream! Come on down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 I heard that it was the SNP who were behind the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only that, but they stole Nazi scientists during ww2 so they could design intercontinental nuclear missiles. What else? Eh, AIDS. They invented that Bloody Natz British institutions on the other hand, a genuine paedos paradise.These^^^And anybody who uses things like "Nippy" is clearly a bigger arse than ten bums. Despite any points they might make its lost immiediately at "Nippy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notorious BIG Posted April 27, 2016 Share Posted April 27, 2016 Personally, anyone who thinks they have the right to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol needs a slap. I'd have the limit as close to 0 as medical science allows. Im sure it is in Scotland now, Its higher than 0 incase mouthwash or chocolate liqueurs sets it off. Dont see any reason why it needs to be higher or lower tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.