Scottlish Elections

[Woodstock Jag]

I got chatting with one of the Registrars from our oncology department an hour so ago, after a meeting, and he was at pains to tell me that it's no more than a Torygraph-led myth that cancer screening is any more extensive down here than it is in Scotland; similarly with after care. He'd worked at hospitals in Edinburgh and Glasgow in the last three years and seemed to know what he was talking about.

 

Hmmm... pretty sure that Salmond himself acknowledged that they'd chosen to prioritise free prescriptions and personal care for the elderly ahead of certain cancer screening and drugs projects that they'd opted for down south. He was rebutting the idea that Scotland "get it all free off the English taxpayer" so I'd have been surprised if he was deliberately talking down the cancer provisions.

[Woodstock Jag]

Re TDP's post...

 

There are plenty of sound reasons to oppose the minimum pricing bill (at least in the form put forward by the SNP) and indeed the similar scheme down south coming in, but none of them were well articulated by just about anyone in the SP. It's punitive on low earners, doesn't actually direct any more money into alcohol rehabilitation schemes and ignores the point that, actually, a lot of drink related problems aren't linked simply to the accessibility of alcohol in large quantities.

 

What would have been a better idea is to get a better grip on both on and off licensing hours, reduce the duty on alcohol served in pubs and clubs to reduce the relative financial attraction of buying a carry out, increase duty on off-license booze, introduce an all ages ID policy condition of licensing and consider an additional levy on producers, which is ring-fenced towards the treatment of alcohol related illnesses and education (possibly tie it in with Drink Aware).

[The Devil's Point]

Re TDP's post...

 

There are plenty of sound reasons to oppose the minimum pricing bill (at least in the form put forward by the SNP) and indeed the similar scheme down south coming in, but none of them were well articulated by just about anyone in the SP. It's punitive on low earners, doesn't actually direct any more money into alcohol rehabilitation schemes and ignores the point that, actually, a lot of drink related problems aren't linked simply to the accessibility of alcohol in large quantities.

 

What would have been a better idea is to get a better grip on both on and off licensing hours, reduce the duty on alcohol served in pubs and clubs to reduce the relative financial attraction of buying a carry out, increase duty on off-license booze, introduce an all ages ID policy condition of licensing and consider an additional levy on producers, which is ring-fenced towards the treatment of alcohol related illnesses and education (possibly tie it in with Drink Aware).

 

Agree with all of the second paragraph although I still think the SNP's Bill was at least an attempt to do something about the issue.

 

As you say though, the relevant arguments were poorly articulated by the other parties and we ended up with nothing done at all when the bill (even very heavily amended) should have provided an opportunity to find some sort of way forward.

[alx]

Like many people, I do not have a closed mind to Independence but I will take a lot of persuasion that it would be economically viable any time soon. Wasn't long ago the SNP were talking about the "arc of prosperity". Unfortunately this actually turned out to be an arc of insolvency, but that all seems to have been conveniently forgotten. I thought we were supposed to be so proud of our Scottish banks as well

 

The banks are an embarrassment, no doubt about it. On the general issue of economics... the Scottish people have been given lies and propaganda by the unionists for decades. I'm REALLY confident that in a referendum campaign we can win this one easily. As a Telegraph reader it's really poor how big the disconnect is between (as I understand it) between the facts and the common opinion in England and Scotland.

 

Edited for spelling yet again, aaaargh.

Edited May 11, 2011 by alx

[alx]

There are plenty of sound reasons to oppose the minimum pricing bill (at least in the form put forward by the SNP) and indeed the similar scheme down south coming in, but none of them were well articulated by just about anyone in the SP. It's punitive on low earners, doesn't actually direct any more money into alcohol rehabilitation schemes and ignores the point that, actually, a lot of drink related problems aren't linked simply to the accessibility of alcohol in large quantities.

 

I know what you mean. I don't like the middle classes lecturing the poor on their simple pleasures. But there's a new dynamic on this; namely huge bottles of industrial alcohol, that have never seen an apple but called 'cider'. You can be on the dole and steaming all week on industrial 'cider'. This is a social menace and causing real trouble in Scotland.

[The Devil's Point]

On the general issue of economics... the Scottish people have been given lies and propaganda by the unionists for decades

 

Are we really still being given "propaganda"? Surely everyone who ever watches the news is now aware that the UK is up to its ears in debt, and wasting an absolute fortune every day on paying debt interest.

[alx]

Are we really still being given "propaganda"? Surely everyone who ever watches the news is now aware that the UK is up to its ears in debt, and wasting an absolute fortune every day on paying debt interest.

 

It's a Nationalist electoral gift though. Westminster have been barking mad in recent years. Gordon Brown can't even add up (I'm fairly sure he did History at uni or some other non-numeric field). They've wrecked the economy and spent billions. We should (as a starting point at least) say that's your problem you weirdos and have none of it.

[Woodstock Jag]

I don't even think there's a question as to whether Scotland would "survive" or even "prosper" economically while independent. I just can't see that survival or prosperity being noticeably better than it is just now or would be with proper fiscal autonomy.

[yoda-jag]

Some can't see the wood for the trees.

[Steven H]

I don't even think there's a question as to whether Scotland would "survive" or even "prosper" economically while independent. I just can't see that survival or prosperity being noticeably better than it is just now or would be with proper fiscal autonomy.

 

Do you think we would 'survive' economically? If the answer to that is yes then surely independence allows us to make our own decisions and live or die by those decisions. I'd much rather tread water having made our own choices than carry on with a unified UK with powers devolved to Scotland by decision of politicians at Westminster. I realised that is a polarised view of the debate but it answers many Scots questions in a nutshell.

 

Now if we could 'prosper' economically as an independent country then that would put the seal on a YES vote from me in a referendum. Scottish oil, water and renewable energies...how financially beneficial are those to the UK as things stand at the moment? How much do we put into the UK pot and how much do we get out of it? Those are other key questions that I for one would need answers to before I can make a decision. Another consideration is why Cameron is so strong on his views that 'keeping' Scotland would be of benefit to the UK as a whole while at the same time being of more benefit to Scotland.

 

What remains to be seen is whether the SNP can answer these questions accurately and honestly.

[honved]

Do you think we would 'survive' economically? If the answer to that is yes then surely independence allows us to make our own decisions and live or die by those decisions. I'd much rather tread water having made our own choices than carry on with a unified UK with powers devolved to Scotland by decision of politicians at Westminster. I realised that is a polarised view of the debate but it answers many Scots questions in a nutshell.

 

Now if we could 'prosper' economically as an independent country then that would put the seal on a YES vote from me in a referendum. Scottish oil, water and renewable energies...how financially beneficial are those to the UK as things stand at the moment? How much do we put into the UK pot and how much do we get out of it? Those are other key questions that I for one would need answers to before I can make a decision. Another consideration is why Cameron is so strong on his views that 'keeping' Scotland would be of benefit to the UK as a whole while at the same time being of more benefit to Scotland.

 

What remains to be seen is whether the SNP can answer these questions accurately and honestly.

 

Accurately? Most definitely, allowing for some leeway on sources cited and methods of calculation. Honestly? See previous answer.

 

The propaganda campaign is already in full swing, with Paxman snapping at Nicola's heels on Newsnight and the faux indignation of political lightweight Hugh Henry at the fact that he failed to get his comfy wee job as Presiding Officer, conveniently ignoring the fact that previous administrations had their own members in the same position.

 

But hey, don't get me started, we'll be here till 2014.

[Jaggernaut]

Accurately? Most definitely, allowing for some leeway on sources cited and methods of calculation. Honestly? See previous answer.

 

The propaganda campaign is already in full swing, with Paxman snapping at Nicola's heels on Newsnight and the faux indignation of political lightweight Hugh Henry at the fact that he failed to get his comfy wee job as Presiding Officer, conveniently ignoring the fact that previous administrations had their own members in the same position.

 

But hey, don't get me started, we'll be here till 2014.

Paxman wasn't happy last night because wee Nicola wasn't for letting him bully her the way he feels is his right with other politicians. All he could do was the to continue the perpetual sneer on his face, which was accentuated even more than normal because he was seething. He probably realises that not only do the Scots now not automatically get him for a full hour every night, in the not-too-distant future we might be saying cheerio to him for ever.

[Steven H]

Accurately? Most definitely, allowing for some leeway on sources cited and methods of calculation. Honestly? See previous answer.

 

The propaganda campaign is already in full swing, with Paxman snapping at Nicola's heels on Newsnight and the faux indignation of political lightweight Hugh Henry at the fact that he failed to get his comfy wee job as Presiding Officer, conveniently ignoring the fact that previous administrations had their own members in the same position.

 

But hey, don't get me started, we'll be here till 2014.

 

I think this is correct (and can see my 'accurately and honestly' bit is actually the same thing) but in the world of politics words and actions can often be 2 completely different things, just hope this trend does not continue with an SNP majority government.

 

On your other point Paxman is a scandel monger and Nicola Sturgeon is fit for him...Henry is just a sore loser.

[alx]

But hey, don't get me started, we'll be here till 2014.

 

2014.... the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn. Salmond is a genius!

[policemans whistle]

Considering that Mr Paxman is of Scottish blood, in 2014, I can see him the head of the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation!

[honved]

Considering that Mr Paxman is of Scottish blood, in 2014, I can see him the head of the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation!

 

I wouldn't go that far, but he can have a passport, along with Blair, Cameron, Trump and numerous others of Scottish descent.

[Allan Heron]

Accurately? Most definitely, allowing for some leeway on sources cited and methods of calculation. Honestly? See previous answer.

 

The propaganda campaign is already in full swing, with Paxman snapping at Nicola's heels on Newsnight and the faux indignation of political lightweight Hugh Henry at the fact that he failed to get his comfy wee job as Presiding Officer, conveniently ignoring the fact that previous administrations had their own members in the same position.

 

But hey, don't get me started, we'll be here till 2014.

 

Or that the Welsh Labour Party put their own guy as speaker of the Welsh Assembly last week. I'm sure there'll be some different principle in place to explain that.

 

I'd also suggest that your description of Hugh Henry is a gross insult to many political lightweight. Henry boxes in the non-entity division. Difficult to believe this man was once a bellowing advocate of Militant back in the day.

 

(Funnily enough, I had someone recently trying to convince me that Derek Hatton was now a member of the Conservative Party. Haven't found anything that begins to remotely corroborate this. Having said that, I could see Del doing this - just couldn't see the Tories accepting his money under any circumstances)

[Allan Heron]

I wouldn't go that far, but he can have a passport, along with Blair, Cameron, Trump and numerous others of Scottish descent.

 

SNP supports plummets at this realisation

 

(Might be worth mentioning that Salmond's arse-licking of Trump has been the major black mark against him for the previous four years.)

Edited May 14, 2011 by Allan Heron

[honved]

SNP supports plummets at this realisation

 

(Might be worth mentioning that Salmond's arse-licking of Trump has been the major black mark against him for the previous four years.)

 

Deeply regrettable. Martin Ford of Aberdeenshire Council (a Green) tried heroically to stop him, but for some strange reason, the government rushed to Trump's support.

 

Still don't understand that...maybe there was oil industry related pressure from other quarters.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

It's not about "the Scottish people" making their own decisions it's about another set of politicians making the decisions. The UK is a stable, strong and democratic country. Nationalists talk as if we are repressed by the mythical English as if they are an exotic and different bunch of people. Already the SNP are changing their talk from independence to conferderalism. It's a power grab by people who are not good enough to get elected into Westminster.

[jaggybunnet]

It's not about "the Scottish people" making their own decisions it's about another set of politicians making the decisions. The UK is a stable, strong and democratic country. Nationalists talk as if we are repressed by the mythical English as if they are an exotic and different bunch of people. Already the SNP are changing their talk from independence to conferderalism. It's a power grab by people who are not good enough to get elected into Westminster.

 

 

 

at last a bit of sense get a bit fed up listening to the propaganda puppets for independence and the snp

[Steven H]

It's not about "the Scottish people" making their own decisions it's about another set of politicians making the decisions. The UK is a stable, strong and democratic country. Nationalists talk as if we are repressed by the mythical English as if they are an exotic and different bunch of people. Already the SNP are changing their talk from independence to conferderalism. It's a power grab by people who are not good enough to get elected into Westminster.

 

Yes coz the Tories won how many seats in Scotland in the last Westminster election? We never chose them yet they call the shots for us. The UK is not a country and imo it is neither stable strong or democratic...no more so than an independent Scotland could be anyway.

 

So the Labour MP elected in Scotland can influence things in the interests of Scotland in Westminster can he/she? To a greater degree than MSPs can influence things in the interests of Scotland if we were independent? Bottom line can we survive economically if we were independent? If the answer to that is yes then let's do it...much of a muchness in terms of politicians? Maybe so, but Id rather a much of a muchness that can actually promote the interests of a Scotland that elected them.

[Blackpool Jags]

A big carrot to those wavering on whether to vote for independence, come the referendum, will be the virtual open declaration by the Tories that the NHS WILL be privatised under plans currently going through Parliament.

 

Just for the benefit of the comprehensionally disadvantaged (last time I checked on here there was one):

 

"A senior adviser to David Cameron says the NHS could be improved by charging patients and will be transformed into a "state insurance provider, not a state deliverer" of care.

 

Mark Britnell, who was appointed to a "kitchen cabinet" advising the prime minister on reforming the NHS, told a conference of executives from the private sector that future reforms would show "no mercy" to the NHS and offer a "big opportunity" to the for-profit sector."

 

Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/david-cameron-adviser-health-reform

 

I think everyone in this country, whether resident North or South of the border, owes it to themselves and their families to grasp just what's at stake in all of this. With the exception of a few ruthless fat cats who stand to gain financially from this rotten set of reforms - oh, and Britain's five or six deranged libertarians - the NHS is held dearly by the population of the UK and those of the devolved nations virtually without exception.

 

Surely surely surely a piece of legislation as controversial and as universally opposed as this one, and for which not one single member of the public voted, should be consigned to the bin until the Tories have themselves a whopping majority in the Commons. But of course those rats pay no heed to popular opinion, and will do whatever it takes to please the voracious private healthcare providers who are lined up in the wings ready to swoop for a piece of the £80billion healthcare cake that will be unleashed for them to get stuck into.

 

I won't have a vote in the referendum, but if I did, I would be sorely tempted to tick the YES box just to get myself and my family the fcuk away from the most right wing party since centuries before Thatcher. I'm sure Scottish residents appreciate that they have a choice.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Blackpool Jags

[Woodstock Jag]

Just out of interest, Blackpool Jag, would you consider the SDP in Germany to be "more right wing than Thatcher"? Only in Germany the state for many years has been mostly an insurance rather than services provider in the health service, and they seem to be doing absolutely fine.

 

Edit: and anyway, weren't these comments from Mark Britnell made over a year ago, before he was invited to assist with the Bill as a policy adviser? And he is just that: a policy adviser. There are several others like crossbencher Nigel Crisp and Sir Ian Carruthers, the former who has done a lot of work in global development and aid in the health sector, and the other who has been an NHS employee of about 40 years standing.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[Blackpool Jags]

Just out of interest, Blackpool Jag, would you consider the SDP in Germany to be "more right wing than Thatcher"? Only in Germany the state for many years has been mostly an insurance rather than services provider in the health service, and they seem to be doing absolutely fine.

 

Edit: and anyway, weren't these comments from Mark Britnell made over a year ago, before he was invited to assist with the Bill as a policy adviser?

 

Britnell and other dirt bags have been making noises like this for a good while now, but I think this particular foul uttering is fairly contemporaneous and has been picked up on by other sections of the media recently.

 

Looking at the German SDP, holistically, they're not more right wing than the Maggon, few are, however, Thatcher didn't decline to attempt privatisation of the NHS, or the Post Office for that matter on grounds of ideology; she simply knew she'd never get away with it at that time. Most progressive European nations have varying versions of mixed healthcare provision systems, yet, and at the same time, would like to have a system like ours were it not for the prohibitive set-up costs which would be incurred in the transition. We established our own NHS at precisely the right time and, notably, when we were skint and recovering from the huge cost of participating in WWII - itself a good cause, I might add.

 

Every Trade Union counterpart and other citizens I've ever spoken to from France, Germany, Holland, Spain and others describe our NHS as something they aspire to. The same applies to professionals from the USA, Canada and Australia, each having their own models but none as equitable and properly principled as our health service.

 

This thing is something to cherish and, in the words of its founding father, Aneurin Bevan: "The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it".

 

And fight for it we will. Time to drive the Tories and their dangerous advisers out of power.