Scottlish Elections

[jaggybunnet]

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.

 

 

 

ahh but that would mean BJ admitting he was wrong and as he is a labour man thats not going to happen.

[jaggybunnet]

 

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.

 

 

the majority of Germans I know wouldn't touch the nhs with a barge poll as the standard of service is very poor compaired to what they expect.

[B.C.G. JAG]

ahh but that would mean BJ admitting he was wrong and as he is a labour man thats not going to happen.

The future of the NHS has got very little to do with political tribalism. As BJ rightly points out, we may never be able to get it back if we allow the Tory scum, who promised no top down meddling with the NHS, to get away with it. It's profits for their pals, and private clinics that wont's treat patients without an insurance cert for us.

[Woodstock Jag]

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.

 

I ask because I already know the answer. The direct quotes the Guardian, among others, have been picking up on are a direct quote from Britnell when addressing the Apax Healthcare Conference in October 2010. He was appointed as a policy adviser earlier this month. The policy panel represents a cross-section of views (albeit not necessarily "representative") of those in the healthcare industry in this country.

 

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.

 

No, BJ, the answer is "they are not". And the conclusion to draw is that the provision of healthcare isn't what makes you "progressive" at all. It's the way it's funded. Health insurance schemes are not, in themselves, any more or less progressive than a predominantly state provided system. Indeed in Germany they work off a statutory minimum provision scheme alongside supplementary optional insurance.

 

FWIW, the privatisation of the Post Office is the best thing to have happened to it. It's been dying on its arse for years and the capital injection and competition from other providers has led to a far superior (for one) courier market.

 

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.

 

Correlation is not causation. Just because the most "progressive" European nations have mixed healthcare provision systems and just because lots of people "want" to be like us (I'd personally like to see more than just anecdotal evidence on that front) doesn't mean that our system is the best possible, or that insurance systems cannot be better.

 

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.

 

That's probably your problem right there. It's not necessarily about what people think is best. Healthcare isn't about principles; it's about doctors, nurses, surgeons and patients. How it's delivered doesn't matter: the issue is how well it's delivered.

 

For all that these citizens and comrades seem to spend all their days waxing lyrical about our national health service when many of them probably haven't even ever used it, the UK still has a number of huge health issues, which are more acute than countries like Germany. Higher infant mortality rate. Higher obesity rate. Greater problems with alcohol and drug related abuse... the list goes on.

 

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".

 

Enough of the sycophancy. Bevan is dead. The politics of the Keynesian consensus is dead. The N in NHS has always been a deceit. It's time for people to be more fundamentally honest: if you want a health service that can produce better outcomes without making it the second black hole after the defence budget in the public finances, non-state for and not for profit providers are going to have an increased role in that.

 

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

 

There's nothing "dangerous" about this adviser.

[Woodstock Jag]

The future of the NHS has got very little to do with political tribalism. As BJ rightly points out, we may never be able to get it back if we allow the Tory scum, who promised no top down meddling with the NHS, to get away with it. It's profits for their pals, and private clinics that wont's treat patients without an insurance cert for us.

 

Just to correct this (it's a myth people keep perpetuating).

 

Both Tory and Lib Dem manifestos pledged to get rid of PCTs and replace them with something else. The only difference was that the Lib Dems wanted more accountability to regulatory health boards whilst the Tories championed GP Commissioning.

[Blackpool Jags]

Beggar me, an academically bright young chap like yourself, WJ, totally intellectually hijacked by some oddities spouting off about an ideology so off the wall that less than 0.00003% of the population wouldn't pish themselves laughing at it; about as popular as a star spangled banner in a radical mosque.

 

The N-H-S is cherished by the people of this country and IS NOT responsible for the state of poor health of the nation. People don't get admitted with fractures and come out with cancer; they don't go in for vascular surgery and come out morbidly obese.

 

Mr and Mrs Schmidt, just like the Fontaines do like and covet our health service; their own is reasonably ok and the funding aspect is mitigated, by and large, by a better standard of living. If they had our system they wouldn't thank you for letting a few Tory ned advisors near it and would have them sent to jail or the guillotine for their audacity.

 

JB, you tickle me - metaphorically, naturally. Oh, by the way, JB, do you want to see the US-style privatisation of the NHS or not? A simple yes or no will suffice thank you very much.

[jaggybunnet]

Beggar me, an academically bright young chap like yourself, WJ, totally intellectually hijacked by some oddities spouting off about an ideology so off the wall that less than 0.00003% of the population wouldn't pish themselves laughing at it; about as popular as a star spangled banner in a radical mosque.

 

The N-H-S is cherished by the people of this country and IS NOT responsible for the state of poor health of the nation. People don't get admitted with fractures and come out with cancer; they don't go in for vascular surgery and come out morbidly obese.

 

Mr and Mrs Schmidt, just like the Fontaines do like and covet our health service; their own is reasonably ok and the funding aspect is mitigated, by and large, by a better standard of living. If they had our system they wouldn't thank you for letting a few Tory ned advisors near it and would have them sent to jail or the guillotine for their audacity.

 

JB, you tickle me - metaphorically, naturally. Oh, by the way, JB, do you want to see the US-style privatisation of the NHS or not? A simple yes or no will suffice thank you very much.

 

no i would like something similer to the german system which I have seen first hand and is far cleaner and more effeciant than the nhs.

 

the nhs is a bloated moster that sometimes gives the care that peopl need, this has very little to do with the staff but more to do with it being a black hole for public funds with little of that money going to where it is needed.

[Woodstock Jag]

Beggar me, an academically bright young chap like yourself, WJ, totally intellectually hijacked by some oddities spouting off about an ideology so off the wall that less than 0.00003% of the population wouldn't pish themselves laughing at it; about as popular as a star spangled banner in a radical mosque.

 

Finished with the melodrama yet?

 

The N-H-S is cherished by the people of this country and IS NOT responsible for the state of poor health of the nation. People don't get admitted with fractures and come out with cancer; they don't go in for vascular surgery and come out morbidly obese.

 

I didn't say it was "responsible for the poor health of the nation", but it is responsible for the... er... "response" to it. And if it's not doing a good enough job, it's thoroughly reasonable to find ways that it can be improved, including re-organisation of the provision of healthcare. The issue here is getting more bang for the buck. Labour spunked billions into the NHS, paying for a greater increase in managers than doctors or nurses, and all for a relatively modest improvement.

 

Mr and Mrs Schmidt, just like the Fontaines do like and covet our health service; their own is reasonably ok and the funding aspect is mitigated, by and large, by a better standard of living. If they had our system they wouldn't thank you for letting a few Tory ned advisors near it and would have them sent to jail or the guillotine for their audacity.

 

Hysteria rockets at full blast, mission control.

 

JB, you tickle me - metaphorically, naturally. Oh, by the way, JB, do you want to see the US-style privatisation of the NHS or not? A simple yes or no will suffice thank you very much.

 

Straw man. That's not happening.

[yoda-jag]

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.

 

 

Poppycock

[Lambies Lost Doo]

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.

 

The Tories do not call the shots. There is a coalition of Conservative and Liberal Democrat which makes up the Westminster government and there is cross party work and private members bills. The SNP are in charge of the devolved areas so they need to stop blaming Westminster for these issues. They are very good at deflecting blame by blaming evil London - that multicultural, liberal, international city one hour away on a plane. I didn't choose the SNP yet they call the shots for me. The UK is stable and democratic. Watch the news and you see turmoil in places close to us like Greece. Look into the growing support for far right parties in surprising places like Denmark and Sweden. A politician is looking after their constituents but mostly their own back to climb the greasy poll in the party. Look at the history of Alex Salmond with the '79 group and his hard left policies and now he sucks up the business and dodges any real questions on independence.

 

I am Scottish because I was born in Scotland but what do I have in common with a fisherman from Peterhead, a crofter from Skye, a privately educated lawyer from Edinburgh and a farmer from the borders? A Nationalist cannot answer this because they are obsessed with geography, national borders and "us and them". I can answer it. F all. I have more in common with mates from Belfast, Manchester, Cambridge and London. We live on a small island, it's better to work together.

[Blackpool Jags]

Oh dear, how tiresome can it get from the microscopic band of NHS oppositionists?

 

Can anybody from the gang of two please tell me how many British citizens rate NHS reform high on their list of political priorities? For that matter, can either of them tell us how many times they've actually been out door-knocking to actually ask people what they want from their elected representatives at all?

 

The FACT is that more people are happy with the NHS as it is and are infinitely more interested in seeing changes to the economy, anti-social behaviour, unemployment, pay and conditions, etc etc.

 

Nobody would claim that a service as big as the NHS cannot be improved, but increased spending on it since 1997 HAS seen more doctors, nurses and healthcare specialists. There is some scope to reduce the amount of bureacrats - as you might say of any industry or major service - but that does not entail nor in any way justify the dangerous proposals of a forlorn, yet unrepentantly ideologically driven party of government.

 

Interestingly, and due to copious avenues of criticism of Nicky Clegg opening up recently, his coalition contingent now look to be telling Cameron and his mad dog henchman, Lansley, to fcuk off over the NHS reform plans. Nicky boy knows it's a chance - and possibly a final chance - to recover much needed electoral credibility. When asked by Andrew Marr last week whether the NHS bill was "now dead in the water", he was strikingly reticent and you got the feeling that he knew it was probably his one last Get Out Of Jail card.

 

Go on Nick, tell them you won't be pushed around, you know you want to.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

BJ - I think with your union activities and political ideals you are not going to change your opinions but I think the NHS is more pish poor than good. So many times I've had relatives, mostly elderly, get poor treatment by people with worrying levels of empathy. Only because they had relatives there to stick up for them did they have to provide the basic care they were expected. Extra money does not mean better service. Also a good part of money would be freed up if people ate better, exercised and layed off the drink and drugs. A social contract should be signed by every citizen and every piece of treatment that could have been avoided takes money away from services such as maternity and childrens cancer treatment.

[Steven H]

The Tories do not call the shots. There is a coalition of Conservative and Liberal Democrat which makes up the Westminster government and there is cross party work and private members bills.

 

That's either a poor piece of spin or an incredibly niave view of the current situation

 

The SNP are in charge of the devolved areas so they need to stop blaming Westminster for these issues. They are very good at deflecting blame by blaming evil London - that multicultural, liberal, international city one hour away on a plane.

 

The devolved issues? The ones Westminster were prepared to give up? Thank god they are in charge of those devolved issues given the current Tory led initiative to privatise the NHS. How much has London cut the Scottish budget by? That's where they call the shots. Deflecting blame, or stating fact? That's a question yet to be fully answered and time will tell on that one, until then I'll happily settle for asking the same question...how much do Scotland put into the UK pot compared to how much it gets out of it?

 

I didn't choose the SNP yet they call the shots for me. The UK is stable and democratic. Watch the news and you see turmoil in places close to us like Greece. Look into the growing support for far right parties in surprising places like Denmark and Sweden.

 

You say you didnt choose the SNP but that's not the point....Scotland DID, while SCOTLAND rejected the Tories in the Westminster elections and all but removed the Lib Dems from Hollyrood. It's about the voice of a nation and in the Hollyrood election the nation spoke and got what they wanted, in the Westminster election the nation also spoke but ended up with a Tory led coalition. How's that democratic? So because we are less troubled than countries in the Euro we are somehow stable? Have you seen the massive cuts currently being forced on us..cuts that I believe are too deep too quick. We are in recession, but hey, we're stable

 

A politician is looking after their constituents but mostly their own back to climb the greasy poll in the party. Look at the history of Alex Salmond with the '79 group and his hard left policies and now he sucks up the business and dodges any real questions on independence.

 

Dodges questions or playing his cards close to his chest until the time is right? With the Scotland Bill currently going through Westminster we shall see what amendments go in there and how much influence the SNP have on that...I expect some serious answers to be given after that Bill is passed and a date for the referendum is set. Incidentally the 'climbing the greasy pole' analogy you offer? I give you Nick Clegg and David Cameron who have each pushed issues through, or allowed things through, that THEIR VOTERS did not vote for (NHS privatisation and massive increases in student fees).

 

I am Scottish because I was born in Scotland but what do I have in common with a fisherman from Peterhead, a crofter from Skye, a privately educated lawyer from Edinburgh and a farmer from the borders? A Nationalist cannot answer this because they are obsessed with geography, national borders and "us and them". I can answer it. F all. I have more in common with mates from Belfast, Manchester, Cambridge and London. We live on a small island, it's better to work together.

 

More in common with mates from Belfast etc? Maybe because they are your mates. Lets not polarise this into an unfounded idea that we hate England therefore we want rid, that's not what this is about and the fact you see it that way says more about you than it does about Nationalists. Take the blinkers off and open your mind to the fact his is not a 'them and us' debate...it's simply about the 'us' part and providing the chance for Scotland to make its own decisions and so far we have done that pretty well with the powers that have been devolved, would you agree?

[Jaggernaut]

That's a good set of replies by Steven H. It seems to me that many "British nationalists" (i.e. unionists) are not too far off openly declaring a deep anti-Scottishness; there's even a kind self-loathing of Scotland by some Scots that is now starting to surface because the unthinkable (for them) might just happen, i.e. Scotland might actually become a country, instead of a region.

[Woodstock Jag]

Oh dear, how tiresome can it get from the microscopic band of NHS oppositionists?

 

Can anybody from the gang of two please tell me how many British citizens rate NHS reform high on their list of political priorities? For that matter, can either of them tell us how many times they've actually been out door-knocking to actually ask people what they want from their elected representatives at all?

 

Relevance of this = 0

 

The FACT is that more people are happy with the NHS as it is and are infinitely more interested in seeing changes to the economy, anti-social behaviour, unemployment, pay and conditions, etc etc.

 

So what?

 

Nobody would claim that a service as big as the NHS cannot be improved, but increased spending on it since 1997 HAS seen more doctors, nurses and healthcare specialists. There is some scope to reduce the amount of bureacrats - as you might say of any industry or major service - but that does not entail nor in any way justify the dangerous proposals of a forlorn, yet unrepentantly ideologically driven party of government.

 

By some scope you mean "huge scope". These proposals are not "dangerous". They do not lessen the statutory requirement for universal healthcare. They are not "ideological". They introduce an internal market of providers whilst retaining the the state involvement both in provision and almost exclusively in funding.

 

Interestingly, and due to copious avenues of criticism of Nicky Clegg opening up recently, his coalition contingent now look to be telling Cameron and his mad dog henchman, Lansley, to fcuk off over the NHS reform plans. Nicky boy knows it's a chance - and possibly a final chance - to recover much needed electoral credibility. When asked by Andrew Marr last week whether the NHS bill was "now dead in the water", he was strikingly reticent and you got the feeling that he knew it was probably his one last Get Out Of Jail card.

 

Go on Nick, tell them you won't be pushed around, you know you want to.

 

Except what he's actually doing is fighting for greater accountability mechanisms. Lib Dems generally do not outright oppose the idea of involving the profit and not-for-profit sectors. What they oppose is public funds going towards cherry-pickers; hence the desire for local councillors and non-doctor medical representatives to be on the commissioning boards.

[B.C.G. JAG]

BJ - I think with your union activities and political ideals you are not going to change your opinions but I think the NHS is more pish poor than good. So many times I've had relatives, mostly elderly, get poor treatment by people with worrying levels of empathy. Only because they had relatives there to stick up for them did they have to provide the basic care they were expected. Extra money does not mean better service. Also a good part of money would be freed up if people ate better, exercised and layed off the drink and drugs. A social contract should be signed by every citizen and every piece of treatment that could have been avoided takes money away from services such as maternity and childrens cancer treatment.

for the main, I agree with quite a bit of what you say. I work in several hospitals and am often struck by how closely the care of older patients resembles actual abuse. However, let's remember that private companies will be looking to maximise their profits and it would be naive to suggest that will increase quality of service. Cheaper doesn't mean better.

 

The reason I highlighted that sentence is that it strikes me as being not too far off the statement Cameron came out with recently - that people expect their taxes to be used for the care of people who are incapacitated through no fault of their own. Choice is something we hear a lot about in the health service, the right to choose your doctor or hospital, the right to choose your own services - but does anyone choose to be obese or be an alcoholic? Cameron misses the point here and social contracts do too.

 

We need to look at public health properly. The Tories are taking advice from McDonalds and KFC on public health - again, protecting big businesses profits rather than taking real steps to address the horrendous diet we have in this country. Some stricter controls on what goes into fast and convenience food would help, but of course, that might affect the company's bottom lines. Labour similarly failed to grapple with public health with it's obstructionist approach to Scotland's drink problems.

 

Public health is something that comes from our shared culture and it could take generations to reverse some trends in behaviour, but let's not start saying to people that we won't treat them because they're overweight - let's ask why they are overweight. Are they depressed, have they addiction problems? What can we do to help them as an individual.

 

Free at the point of delivery, regardless of your ability to pay, but for how much longer? I thought we were all in this together?

 

edited for spelling

Edited May 16, 2011 by B.C.G. JAG

[Blackpool Jags]

Relevance of this = 0

 

 

 

So what?

 

 

 

By some scope you mean "huge scope". These proposals are not "dangerous". They do not lessen the statutory requirement for universal healthcare. They are not "ideological". They introduce an internal market of providers whilst retaining the the state involvement both in provision and almost exclusively in funding.

 

 

 

Except what he's actually doing is fighting for greater accountability mechanisms. Lib Dems generally do not outright oppose the idea of involving the profit and not-for-profit sectors. What they oppose is public funds going towards cherry-pickers; hence the desire for local councillors and non-doctor medical representatives to be on the commissioning boards.

 

Assessment as follows:

 

Consistent application of abject philosophy - 10/10

 

Tenacity - 10/10

 

Experience of door-knocking (actual, not virtual, politics) - unknown, but thought to be in the vicinity of 0/10

 

Affinity of ideas with 'the man in the street' - 0/10

 

Value of substance contribution to the 'debate' - 0/10

 

Overall assessment: clearly tenacious and admirably dogged, but must get out more and attempt to connect with real people. Astronomical potential for academic progress hindered by apparent inability to de-couple oneself from cripplingly irrelevant ideology.

 

Edited for spelling.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Blackpool Jags

[i@n]

 

Overall assessment: clearly tenacicious and admirably dogged, but must get out more and attempt to connect with real people. Astronomical potential for academic progress hindered by apparent inability to de-couple oneself from cripplingly irrelevant ideology.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

That's a good set of replies by Steven H. It seems to me that many "British nationalists" (i.e. unionists) are not too far off openly declaring a deep anti-Scottishness; there's even a kind self-loathing of Scotland by some Scots

 

You have been watching too much "Trainspotting". There are god and bad things about the place much like every other country. I do hate nationalism of any kind no matter how it gets dressed. It is not Scottish people making decisions, it is Scottish POLITICIANS making decisions in a land grab situation. If Scotland was separate from the UK then it would be lowland v highland or east v west. Scotland v London or the South is just the same "them and us" mentality. People are disappointed about their life so they look at a promising future which could never the attained. This feeling of disappointment is as much to do with society, celebrity debt laden I want rather than I need culture when looking back at history with rose tinted spectacles. Separatism is not the answer especially when the SNP are advocating keeping the pound, keeping British armed forces in Scotland, Bank of England setting interest rates and weakening our power in EU (who make so many decisions), G8, UN etc.

[B.C.G. JAG]

So what?

 

As Andrew Haldene of the Bank of England recently pointed out, our yearly implicit subsidy to the banks is equal to the entire NHS budget. I think most people would rather see some regulation of the banking sector that got us into this mess rather than the punitive draconian measures dreamt up by people with even less empathy than even you.

[Jaggernaut]

You have been watching too much "Trainspotting". There are god and bad things about the place much like every other country. I do hate nationalism of any kind no matter how it gets dressed. It is not Scottish people making decisions, it is Scottish POLITICIANS making decisions in a land grab situation. If Scotland was separate from the UK then it would be lowland v highland or east v west. Scotland v London or the South is just the same "them and us" mentality. People are disappointed about their life so they look at a promising future which could never the attained. This feeling of disappointment is as much to do with society, celebrity debt laden I want rather than I need culture when looking back at history with rose tinted spectacles. Separatism is not the answer especially when the SNP are advocating keeping the pound, keeping British armed forces in Scotland, Bank of England setting interest rates and weakening our power in EU (who make so many decisions), G8, UN etc.

So what do you propose? More of the same from another 300 years of being told by Westminster what we can do and what we can spend? Another 300 years of having no voice at the UN or in Europe other than the one that Westminster allows us to have? Another 300 years of having some of the worst health and lowest life expectancy among industrialized countries? Another 300 years of so hundreds of thousands of Scots experiencing "the benefits" of the union to the point that they prefer to abandon their country to settle somewhere else?

 

I think you've been watching listening to and reading too many british nationalists.

Edited May 16, 2011 by Jaggernaut

[Lambies Lost Doo]

So what do you propose? More of the same from another 300 years of being told by Westminster what we can do and what we can spend? Another 300 years of having no voice at the UN or in Europe other than the one that Westminster allows us to have? Another 300 years of having some of the worst health and lowest life expectancy among industrialized countries? Another 300 years of so hundreds of thousands of Scots experiencing "the benefits" of the union to the point that they prefer to abandon their country to settle somewhere else?

 

I think you've been watching listening to and reading too many british nationalists.

 

London, Brussels, Edinburgh. What's the difference? East coast good. Brussels good. London bad. Has our health and life expectancy improved during the SNP governance over the past 4 years? Health can be improved by social learning and promotion of better habits. A lot of our problems can be cured via families and people showing their children the right way to live. If people cut down on cigarettes, drink, ate less fatty foods and went and did some exercise then the stats would improve dramatically. You don't need politicians for that. As for people having to "abandon their country". What's wrong with moving, living a different culture, improving your job prospects or simply enjoying better weather? Sounds like your nationalism is showing through. People are individuals and can move if they want. Migration is used by politicians for political means. Germans and English moved to America in huge numbers but this is totally ignored by people for their own political hunger instead talking about poor Scots having to move to flee economic and political pain.

[Jaggernaut]

London, Brussels, Edinburgh. What's the difference? East coast good. Brussels good. London bad.

 

Who knows what the difference might be? If you never try, you'll never know. We've tried 300 years of London, and that's enough, thank you.

 

 

Has our health and life expectancy improved during the SNP governance over the past 4 years? Health can be improved by social learning and promotion of better habits. A lot of our problems can be cured via families and people showing their children the right way to live. If people cut down on cigarettes, drink, ate less fatty foods and went and did some exercise then the stats would improve dramatically. You don't need politicians for that.

 

You really expect health and life expectancy to have improved after 4 years of the SNP governing under the constraints imposed on them from Westminster, the same constraints that Scotland has had imposed for 300 years? Politicians can give guidance and leadership, and even take measures to try to facilitate the right way to live. Oh, I forgot, the unionists in Holyrood blocked the only serious attempt to address alcohol abuse.

 

 

As for people having to "abandon their country". What's wrong with moving, living a different culture, improving your job prospects or simply enjoying better weather?

 

Nothing.

 

Sounds like your nationalism is showing through.

 

Oh, I never thought of it like that.

 

People are individuals and can move if they want. Migration is used by politicians for political means. Germans and English moved to America in huge numbers but this is totally ignored by people for their own political hunger instead talking about poor Scots having to move to flee economic and political pain.

 

Yes, many people migrate, but it's usually because their economic and/or social situation makes their native country no longer attractive enough to keep them.

[Lambies Lost Doo]

Hi Jaggeraut the quote and reply is getting a bit messed up but in reply to yourself.

 

Who knows what the difference might be? If you never try, you'll never know. We've tried 300 years of London, and that's enough, thank you.

So you want to divide a stable democracy where there are about 500 000 English living in Scotland and the same if not more Scots in England to basically "give it a go"? Again you use London. Geography. In England. Despite it being one of only two really international global cities where people from all over the world are attracted to (the other being New York) somehow as it's based in that far away land of England then it's bad.

 

Oh, I forgot, the unionists in Holyrood blocked the only serious attempt to address alcohol abuse.

Minimum alcohol pricing is a tiny piece of what is needed. Culture needs to change. Moving away from "getting on the bevvy" plus councils and police already have huge powers to control drinking via current laws which are never used.

 

Yes, many people migrate, but it's usually because their economic and/or social situation makes their native country no longer attractive enough to keep them.

We live in a globalised world. Populations move all the time. 100 000 Poles came to Scotland at the peak and the majority all worked. Where did these jobs come from and why did native Scots not take them? There is a over reliance on the state and a work ethic that has been diminished in many parts. The left leaning SNP (when it suits them) wont help that. Entrepreneurship and getting off ones arse will help. Nationalism does not promote openness but inward looking and accusing fingers of not being Scottish enough and being a traitor wont attract people, keep them or open up investment. I think the main reasons people leave is the weather and the sense of adventure. That will never end.

 

Overall to me nationalism is a bizarre political viewpoint. By luck you are born in Scotland. If you were born in England would you be a supporter of the English Democrats? Would you want to give two fingers to people in Newcasle, Liverpool, Leeds etc and say I'm doing my own thing. Thanks for Welfare State, NHS, ability to bail ourselves out from the credit crunch but GTF anyway and look at Ireland and Iceland who were part of the once mythical "Arc of Prosperity".

Edited May 16, 2011 by Lambies Lost Doo

[Woodstock Jag]

Assessment as follows:

 

Consistent application of abject philosophy - 10/10

 

Tenacity - 10/10

 

Remove the word abject and absolutely correct.

 

Experience of door-knocking (actual, not virtual, politics) - unknown, but thought to be in the vicinity of 0/10

 

Fiction.

 

Affinity of ideas with 'the man in the street' - 0/10

 

Value of substance contribution to the 'debate' - 0/10

 

Both subjective and both incorrect.

 

Overall assessment: clearly tenacious and admirably dogged, but must get out more and attempt to connect with real people. Astronomical potential for academic progress hindered by apparent inability to de-couple oneself from cripplingly irrelevant ideology.

 

Return assessment: snarky, misguided, patronising, incapable of recognising that deviation from his own stance could possibly be correct, non-ideological, or capable of producing superior results.