Sign in to follow this  
Laurence

The Big Scottish Independence Debate

Recommended Posts

 

 

Scots get the chance to leave the EU

 

But the Yes proposal is to be in the EU, at any cost!

 

the chance to build a new constitution from scratch

 

Yes, with an English, unelected monarch as our head of state. Seriously, WTF!

 

the chance to slash the national debt

 

But we'll inherit our fair share of national debt, and then run at an annual deficit by spending like there's no tomoroow on the wish list of social measures whilst oil revenues continue to plummet.

 

the chance to stop being dictated to by arms and pharmaceutical conglomerates supplying government services

 

Don't see how anything will change in that respect, if Scotland still wants arms and pharmaceuticals.

 

the chance to regulate banking in such a way that they cant bet your mortgage on the derivatives market (among others) and get away with it

 

You don't have to look back far to find Salmond proclaiming how prudent and well run Scotland's banks are, hence they would only require, and I quote, "light touch" regulation!

 

 

Independence would offer the chance to do lots of things differently, but nobody is proposing to take those opportunities. Maybe your "spineless cowards" are the ones who are in a position to make a real difference but daren't do so!

 

 

No, the YES proposal is to start from where we are, which is as a member of the EU as part of the UK. There is nothing at all stopping any political party in 2016 overturning that decision, or offering a referendum on it..

 

The Monarch has as much Scottish Blood as she has English..and incidentally is the Queen of England, and the Queen of Scots.It looks as if she is now mostly of German blood, though. And again, a continuing monarchy is a situation which can be overturned post 2016, given the will.

 

Might do.but that would depend if a Scottish Government is as willfully spendthrift as a Westminster one. That's why a shortish-term currency union would, I suppose, be good for both countries, as it would, hopefully restrict the spending/borrowing propensity of both..until they get their ambitions related to the actualities of their economic positions on the ground. And our fair share of the National Debt is a negotiable instrument....as it would depend on what is considered National Debt..a figure with or without QE, for example. Oil revenues  aren't going to plummet, if you listen  to the oil and gas people and not the OBR. Sure it will fluctuate, but all income, wherever it comes from, fluctuates, because if that wasn't the case, Westminster might have managed to hit one budget target since 2010. The oil is not essential for Scotland to be a viable independent country, but it is a welcome bonus, as long as it lasts.

 

Arms for the MOD and pharmaceuticals etc for the NHS tend to be negotiated contracts. Westminster has shown itself particularly incompetent regarding procurement contracts, preferring to soak the taxpayer to profit private companies. Bound to be something we can put in a written constitution to control lobbying and also the relationship between Government and big businesses. It is ridiculous that about 70 MPs and 140 Lords with interests in private companies vying for NHS contracts were allowed to vote on back door privatising of the NHS via the Health and Social Security Bill, for example.  Might even, particularly in the IT for Government field, encourage SMEs to compete if the playing field was leveled a bit..and might even get us IT systems which work straight out of the box.

 

You do kinda have to look back until about 2007, though, don't you....before the banking crisis, which not even the BofE, far less any politician, foresaw?  (though if you can give me a link to anything on that lines he has said since, I'd be interested).  Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?  :wink:

 

We  don't know what the options offered post independence would be, over and above the information/policies from websites like RIC, Wealthy Nation, Common Weal, the Greens,.LFI, SDA etc.  The SNP is only charged with getting us to independence,if we vote for it,  in a form which is both viable and acceptable as a starting point. After that it will be up to us...and the policies of the Scottish political party/parties for which we vote..but on reading all of the above websites, it doesn't look as if there is any intention by any of them to become Westminster-lite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kicking myself.....because having written in a previous post about pensions, and me being logical......I failed to continue considering the implications to Scottish finances immediately post independence. However, a Wings reader has as discussed in a post here.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-pensioner-jackpot/

 

The ramifications of that are that if Scotland becomes independent, every pensioner in Scotland will effectively “emigrate” overnight. They’ll be living in a “foreign” country – as Labour in particular never tires of reminding us – but will still be entitled to their UK pension just like anyone who emigrates to Marbella is.

And what that means is that on day 1 of independence, Scotland will, to all intents and purposes, have no pensioners at all. Everyone of pension age will be the responsibility, pension-wise, of the UK government.

 

A real independence bonus of a few billion pounds a year.......reducing over maybe 20 or so years. :amazed:

 

Can't see it happening myself, tbh.....I'm sure there will be some negotiations and concessions to be made, as the payment of pensions in foreign countries was never intended to be applied to a whole population becoming citizens in a foreign country at one fell swoop......but an interesting idea, none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • If we aren't allowed to use sterling, what is Plan B?
  • If the EU insists on the Euro, is that acceptable?

 

 

No-one can stop us using Sterling

EU rules exclude use of the Euro unless qualified by a few years tied to the ERM

 

Must try harder  2/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see, I blocked pullmyfinger for his bad attitude but let's give him a second chance...

 

 

 

  • If we aren't allowed to use sterling, what is Plan B?
  • If the EU insists on the Euro, is that acceptable?

 

 

No-one can stop us using Sterling

EU rules exclude use of the Euro unless qualified by a few years tied to the ERM

 

 

Ah, so we can talk about, rather than conjecture or rumour, what Yes Scotland is actually saying in their white paper or other official information (after all, I'm not going to rely on information from football forums or blogs), then debate the likely future of an independent Scotland and whether simply using a currency they have no control over is the option Yes is proposing.  Then we could debate what Yes is actually saying regards EU membership and if that means, like other countries, a committment to go down the route of the Euro...except....

 

 

Must try harder  2/10

 

...yep, another little nasty comment.  They can't help themselves.  Despite the fact that it's completely unneccessary, doesn't help and turns people off.  Back to ignore and leave this thread with it's many pointless personal attacks.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But we'll inherit our fair share of national debt, and then run at an annual deficit by spending like there's no tomoroow on the wish list of social measures whilst oil revenues continue to plummet.

 

There is a misconception that oil prices are plummeting. This is not true even though the NO camp would like us to think it is. Revenues have dropped this year but there is good reason for that. There are a number of platforms shutdown at the moment for refurbishment etc so production is down. The Schiehallion FPSO has been moved of station to make way for a new ship. The Magnus platform has been shutdown for an extended period to carry out works that will see her produce more for longer.

On the plus side the Buzzard field is expanding as is Claire. The North Sea will yield oil and gas for at least thirty years more at the same outputs we've seen in the last few years. There and known vast reserves in the Atlantic margins that will be developed. There are also finds in the Irish Sea. There will be plenty of oil revenues to keep us subsidised for as long as it takes to establish an economy not dependant on oil.

 

The one thing that annoys me about the NO people is that they are very good at doom and gloom and twisting the truth. I wish they'd just tell the truth and I wish people would start asking the question everyone fears. Why is England so desperate to hang on to us? I think the answers pretty obvious. They are scared.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading who was going to be on the panel I thought it would not be worth watching! I hope it has turned a few more to the Yes camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex that was an interesting post, What I am concerned with is if there is an out and out victory fore the yes voters what will happen to my two small pensions.:

1. The One from the Royal Bank of Scotland --you know that once great establishment who were taken over up to 80% of the shareholding when they were on the downward slide to oblivion. I assume they will still pay me from Edinburgh in pounds but who knows. The last letter I received from them was from London, England.

Apparently their desire to save the banks' resources is so acute that they have removed telephones from

branches. This means that they must be the only bank now in the entire world who maroons overseas customers with absolutely no means of contacting their branch--no telephone, no fax, no email--nothing.

This is absolute truth --I can produce proof.

2. The DSS--will they pay in pounds and, if so, what will the rate of exchange be for clients like me?

Will the rate of exchange for Canadian Dollars be adjusted to pounds or to the new Scottish Fiduciary

bank issue of whatever they want to call the new independent currency? No one seems to have worked

anything out yet ?

That's odd isn't it Oddquine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scots get the chance to leave the EU

 

But the Yes proposal is to be in the EU, at any cost!

Its not up to the Yes campaign, it'll go to a vote at either parlimentary level or a national referendum. After the most recent round of European elections, you can be sure the negotiation postion wont be a begging bowl and a white flag.

 

the chance to build a new constitution from scratch

 

Yes, with an English, unelected monarch as our head of state. Seriously, WTF!

Voting No will result in.... an English, unelected monarch as our head of state. Awesome argument Yngwie. If youre a republican you'll have more hope of seeing a change with a Yes vote, a vote for Yes will see the queen appear on currency and thats about it, as things stand she has to sign every act of parliament and rubber stamp decisions that goes through Westminster, something she doesnt do from other commonwealth countries and she wouldn't do for Scotland.

the chance to slash the national debt

 

But we'll inherit our fair share of national debt, and then run at an annual deficit by spending like there's no tomoroow on the wish list of social measures whilst oil revenues continue to plummet.

In 2007 the UK national debt sat at 37% of GDP, now it is over 87% of GDP, there were 854 million+ of bailouts and money printing in that time. £124 billion of the money to bail out UK banks came from the UK treasury and the rest came from the Federal Reserve in the US, who we now owe. £65billion in total was used to bail out HBOS and RBS, adding to the national debt. These banks were only deemed 'to big to fail' because of their foreign interests around the world, the cost of settling up their bad debt in Scotland wouldve been less than 6 billion, these banks couldve been folded at no loss to Scottish customers. It might have miffed the yanks a bit, so the debt was piled up to keep things sweet there between the UK and US, as we are already heavily in debt to them.

A Scoialist-leaning Scottish Parliament would not have paid anything like the amount that was to 'secure' the banks.

the chance to stop being dictated to by arms and pharmaceutical conglomerates supplying government services

 

Don't see how anything will change in that respect, if Scotland still wants arms and pharmaceuticals.

I could name names from work but theres plenty of examples in the public sphere as is regarding who is involved at the top of big pharmaceutical companies and their links to government. There are over 20,000 different drugs bought by the NHS but are not price regulated by the NHS, of those 20,000 drugs, 18,000 are cheaper in other European countries due to NHS mismanagement and bending over backwards to feed money into big pharma and chemists.

The army is no different, dispatches did a program on the scams that went on between BAE and the buyers for the MOD, where the convinced top commanders to purchase sub standard weapons that kept failing for 3 times as much as the SAS was paying internationally for them (the SAS are apparently allowed to buy anything they want from anyone they want, so get the best market price).

In an independent Scotland, we wouldnt be bound by 19th century charters that demands military equipment is produced in our own country, meaning these firms that currently have us by the balls would be competing with the rest of the planet for our business.

the chance to regulate banking in such a way that they cant bet your mortgage on the derivatives market (among others) and get away with it

 

You don't have to look back far to find Salmond proclaiming how prudent and well run Scotland's banks are, hence they would only require, and I quote, "light touch" regulation!

Whats Salmonds opinion got to do with an Independent Scotland? Why not talk about Alistair Darlings record as Chancellor, where he more than doubles the UK's national debt for apparently nothing? Whats all the extra made-up money paid for in the past 6 years? Neither men are relevant to the scams carried out by banks and other trading bodies.

At the moment, banks and the stock exchanges in London regulate themselves, even when they were found guilty of manipulating the London Inter Bank Operating Rate(LIBOR) in their favor (manipulating trillions in securities), next to nothing happened. Unless my memory has failed me I think Barclays were fined 200million, which is chocolate sweeties to them.

Even after £26,000 per taxpayer was paid to bail the banks out, nothing has changed in terms of regulation.

The Scottish Parliament would have far more leeway in dealing with them, as they wouldnt need to be propping up the City of London, which generates a massively disproportionate amount of money for the government compared to the rest of the country.

 

Independence would offer the chance to do lots of things differently, but nobody is proposing to take those opportunities. Maybe your "spineless cowards" are the ones who are in a position to make a real difference but daren't do so!

The spineless cowards are those who are aware that changes CAN be made but don't want to risk their mediocre quality of life for something more. The ignorant masses who think its funny to vote no to wind up fat Salmond deserve everything they get in life.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to potentially change something, even if its very little and comes to nothing. Its an opportunity that cannot be passed up, as the worst case scenario for a failed independence is that life carries on just the same as before, rising debts, lowering living standards, lots of rain, crap football etc.

The vote has nothing to do with the SNP, if there was a yes vote the SNP would become irrelevant overnight in Scottish Politics, we will find ourselves with perpetual center-left governments until the end of the time.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex that was an interesting post, What I am concerned with is if there is an out and out victory fore the yes voters what will happen to my two small pensions.:

1. The One from the Royal Bank of Scotland --you know that once great establishment who were taken over up to 80% of the shareholding when they were on the downward slide to oblivion. I assume they will still pay me from Edinburgh in pounds but who knows. The last letter I received from them was from London, England.

Apparently their desire to save the banks' resources is so acute that they have removed telephones from

branches. This means that they must be the only bank now in the entire world who maroons overseas customers with absolutely no means of contacting their branch--no telephone, no fax, no email--nothing.

This is absolute truth --I can produce proof.

2. The DSS--will they pay in pounds and, if so, what will the rate of exchange be for clients like me?

Will the rate of exchange for Canadian Dollars be adjusted to pounds or to the new Scottish Fiduciary

bank issue of whatever they want to call the new independent currency? No one seems to have worked

anything out yet ?

That's odd isn't it Oddquine?

I'm quite sure you're pensions will continue to be paid as they are now. Bear in mind that all those living, working and paying NI in Scotland at the moment will be owed a pension from the UK treasury. At the point of independence Scotland will have no pensioners. I'm sure there will be negotiating on that point but as things stand we all pay to HM Revenue so we are entitled to pension from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who still think the MSM is not biased, particularly in Scotland, there was a good news story in the Sunday Times last weekend

 

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1431143.ece which was commented on in Wings, http://wingsoverscotland.com/when-day-doesnt-follow-night/  which found that,  The OBR forecast implies that an independent Scotland, on a geographical share (90%) of UK oil and gas revenue in 2016-17 and 2018-19, would receive £15.8bn in tax revenues.

‘Assuming DECC [Department of Energy and Climate Change] prices this would rise to £28.1bn,’ says Mackay. ‘Inserting the Oil & Gas UK production forecast raises this to £31.8bn.

If Danny [Alexander] looks at this he might conclude there is no hole in the Scottish government’s oil predictions but there is a mountain of black gold missing from his.’”

 

failed to reach any of the pro-Union media..any of them...nothing in the Sun, the Record, the Scotsman, the Express, the Mail, the Guardian etc all of which preferred to concentrate instead, on 5 businessmen out of 50 feeling there were "implicit" suggestions that they stay out of the referendum debate....... because it was more newsworthy or more pro-Union?

 

Yet, yesterday, http://wingsoverscotland.com/scottish-media-rediscovers-voice/   they did have an oil story..but not the good news one of earlier in the week....just the latest brainfart from the OBR.wjhich appears to have reacted to Professor Sir Donald Mackay's  Sunday Times article by revising their forecast downwards.....so, of our "unbiased" media, just one newspaper reported the story which was good news for Scotland......and twelve daily newspapers and both BBC and STV, with great glee, reported the OBR bad news for Scotland forecasts (as if the intelligent  believed the OBR anyway, given their track record.) and only two made a passing reference to the Times article..

 

Quote from Wings.(bolding is mine)

You’d think, from the most elementary journalistic perspective, that such remarks would be highly pertinent in the context of a new OBR forecast. Sir Donald is nobody’s idea of a nationalist or a stooge of Alex Salmond, and with an oil-industry background is extremely well qualified to express a view. Yet 12 out of 14 news outlets ignored his opinion as comprehensively as they had done on Sunday.

(Indeed, it’s slightly worse than that. Several of the reports were taken from the same Press Association newswire piece, which DID include the reference to Sir Donald’s article made by SNP MSP Jamie Hepburn, but edited it out.)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Savage apologize for saying all Yes voters are basically anti-English?

Saw plenty of reasons to dislike him but his nationality wasn't one of them.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Will Savage apologize for saying all Yes voters are basically anti-English?

Saw plenty of reasons to dislike him but his nationality wasn't one of them.

 

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C & P From the Sunday Herald via Wings

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/forget-the-latest-scare-story-the-real-threat-to-our-health-service-is-a-no-vote.24735142

and

http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-war-on-two-fronts/

 

 “The Scottish Parliament is responsible for health in Scotland but funding remains with Westminster through the Barnett Formula, which increases or decreases every year in line with health spending in England. The intention of the UK health reforms is to get private companies to take on more and more of the work of the NHS, reducing the contribution made by the taxpayer.

    This will inevitably reduce the funding that comes to Scotland, even assuming the Barnett Formula is retained. George Osborne has pencilled in a further £35 billion in cuts to health spending. As consultant surgeon Philippa Whitford has argued, this means the Scottish Government might be forced to go along the same privatisation route to fill the gap.

    But there is a further threat facing the NHS.”

    “The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is the fruit of long-running negotiations between the EU and the US over trade liberalisation. One of its fundamental principles is that services, including state services, should be open to private competition from American multinationals.


    According to Garcia Bercero, the EU Commission official with responsibility for TTIP, health services in Europe will be opened to private competition, but only where privatisation is already established. In other words, where there is an existing state monopoly, foreign companies cannot sue the government in question for unfair competition.

But the UK Health and Social Care Act opened the UK system to TTIP because it explicitly introduces a private market in health provision in England. After a No vote, private providers and insurance companies may argue that, since Scotland is not a sovereign state but a region of the UK, it cannot be exempted from competition for health provision.

We are a long way from that being tested in law, but what is beyond doubt is that the UK has made the NHS in England TTIP compliant. It seems highly likely that the Scottish system will be seen as an unacceptable anachronism in a unitary state.”

 

In the Record the other day. Phillipa Whitford said By 2020, it is estimated 50 per cent of the English NHS will be run privately unless there is a policy u-turn or the Tories are unseated. If we stay in the Union, Dr Whitford believes privatisation through the back door will inevitably come north too. Control of health is devolved to the Scottish Parliament.  But since Scotland gets a share of the Westminster public spending budget, she argues that when that shrinks, there will be no alternative but to bring in the private sector.

 

Now that prospect is a lot more scary than anything I've heard so far from the No Better Together Thanks/Project Fear side.......the distinct possibility that, if we stay in the Union,and even if not legally assumed to be a UK region, if we have to start to privatise in our NHS to compensate for reducing income, we will then be open to having American style private health care, to add to the American attitude to the support for disadvantaged which is so prevalent in the UK Government nowadays.

Edited by Oddquine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that "the prospect is a lot more scary than anything I've heard so far from the No Better Together Thanks/Project Fear side" yet seem to miss the point that it is you - a fervent supporter of the Yes campaign - who is shamelessly using the fear factor to push your case!  Not only that, but your whole argument is complete nonsense from start to finish.

 

Firstly, the Barnett formula is not just about health service funding.  If there is an overall decrease in funding coming to Scotland as a result of a reduction of public spending in the UK generally then it is a matter for the Scottish Government to decide how it wants to spend its allocation.  If it wants to spend proportionately more on the NHS then the Scottish Government currently has the power to do so.

 

Secondly, the Scottish Parliament also has devolved powers to increase the rate of income tax.  If the Scottish Government feels that the amount of funding received from the UK treasury via the Barnett formula is not enough to support public services here then it currently has the power to raise more money in order to carry out that public spending programme.

 

Thirdly, despite scare stories from the "Yes" campaign, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have all said that in the event of a no vote there are no plans to change the Barnett formula.

 

It is therefore clear that in the event of a "No" vote, any reduction in NHS funding will be a result of what the Scottish Parliament decides.  What happens to NHS funding in England is a completely unrelated issue.

 

But the real vitriol in Oddquine's post is about the prospect of privatisation impacting on the NHS.  It would appear that this is an evil to be avoided at all costs - but nothing could be further from the truth.  Oddquine talks about the prospect of American style healthcare being imposed upon us and I take this to mean that she fears we may increasingly replace our government funded NHS with Healthcare being provided through health insurance paid for by the individual.  This prospect is extrapolated from the TIPP consultations which might open up healthcare provision currently provide by the state to private companies.  But nowhere in this is there any suggestion that the fundamental basis of the NHS would change -  they would continue to be paid for by the state but the way the services are provided would change.

 

And why would that be a bad thing in any case?  Any provision of services would be open to a process which looked to award contracts to companies which provided cost effective services.  If current managed service providers were not awarded contracts it would be because private sector companies were either able to provide the same level of service cheaper or a better service for the same money.  Surely that is no bad thing!

 

The next point is that Oddquine's post implies we should not allow private sector provision to creep into the the NHS.  But it is here already and always has been!  Patients' most common contact with Healthcare providers is with GPs and Community Pharmacies, but with the exception of few salaried GPs, all of these services are provided by independent contractors.  We have homecare providers from the private sector providing services to patients in their own homes supporting patients who need injections and other aspects of care in a range of conditions from cancer, though inflammatory bowel disease, hepatitis and MS.  Private companies have these routine contracts because they are structured to deliver the specified level of service in a way which the non-profit making but over-bureaucratised NHS cannot match.  In addition many of the targets the Government sets the Health Boards are only met by the Boards contracting out work to the private sector.

 

A further irony here is that despite Oddquine's obvious abhorrence of American style Healthcare coming to Scotland, the NHS in Scotland has sent senior managers to private health care providers in the USA to learn about some of their patient safety and quality processes.  Some of the very best healthcare is provided in the USA simply because the providers have to provide a cost effective service in order to provide a return on investment capital and to attract business from the insurance companies.  It drives quality up and cuts out inefficiency.

 

The tragedy for the NHS in Scotland is that whilst there is a recognition that the best care will be provided by focusing on quality and reducing waste, the Government lacks the guts to take the political decisions necessary to address the massively cumbersome management structures which have developed over the years which actually hinder the delivery of cost effective high quality services.  It is actually quite extraordinary that the current SNP administration has a "no-redundancy" policy in place for the NHS.  This completely stifles meaningful organisational change as savings can't be generated because you still have to pay staff who are no longer required.  In some situations staff can be redeployed into other roles (with pay levels protected) but often they are not really suited to that role and the fact that they are put in those roles removes the opportunity for more able staff to move into the roles.  No business would ever make a profit if it did that!  In the case of the NHS read "reinvest in patient care" for "profit".

 

The result is we have an NHS which is massively over-bureaucratised, with loads of management duplication, numerous posts which are not really necessary and staff who are in posts they don't like, aren't good at and for which they are paid more than the going rate.  If we want a better health service we need to embrace either the private sector in service provision or a more business-like approach to the management of the service in order to drive this waste out. 

 

As I said at the top, the Scottish Government currently has the power to manage the NHS as it sees fit.  What is happening in the rest of the UK is not going to impact on us unless we want it to.  However, if a greater engagement with the private sector in England helps to increase quality and reduce wastage then we, in Scotland need to learn the lessons.  If we are to invest in better front line services we need to be far more business-like in the management of the service.  We need to embrace major reforms in the way the services are managed and delivered in the NHS.   Keeping our tired old NHS structures and outdated restrictive attitudes within an independent socialist Scottish state is a recipe for continuing pressures on front line services and poor levels of care.

 

Oddquine's post is a classic example of the "YES" campaign claiming the the "Better Together" campaign is "project fear" whilst at the same time promoting a scare story of their own which is totally without foundation.   I sense the thrust of Oddquine's posts is a genuine wish for a more compassionate society - which is admirable - but the NHS is currently stifled by stale socialist ideology and is riddled with restrictive practises and a massively cumbersome management structure.  This prevents better patient care.  In order to allow the wonderful health care practitioners in the NHS to deliver a better and more compassionate service to patients we need to embrace radical change.  Evidence from elsewhere is that better patient care can be delivered cost-effectively through appropriate engagement with the private sector.  What matters is the quality and cost of the service provided - if the private sector can provide service delivery more cost effectively then so be it.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Thatcherite speaks and tells us what to think.

Thanks!

DoofersDad's post is interesting and well-informed and is surely deserving of a more considered response than a cheap 'one-line put-down'!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Thatcherite speaks and tells us what to think.

Thanks!

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

Never voted Tory in my life and unlikely to start now!

 

 

Sounds hoora like a Tory "healthcare" policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In DD's healthcare world will I be able to reduce my national insurance payments to go private?

I doubt that my healthcare world is much different from yours.  That is unless yours is an entirely state operated structure where the private sector has no place.  That's been tried in the old Soviet Union and Cuba without a great deal of success.

 

My point is simply that the state funded NHS has always operated with a significant level of private sector service delivery.  As far as I am aware no political party is suggesting that the state will  no longer fund the NHS broadly as now but there is undoubtedly an argument for greater input from the private sector in service delivery if they can do it more cost effectively.  Personally I would rather see service delivery provided by the public sector than the private sector, but if it is a choice between the public sector providing an inefficient service or the private sector providing an efficient service then it would surely be foolish to insist on the inefficient public sector service delivery.  If the private sector can provide the service more cost effectively it either means we get better outcomes for patients for the same money or the same quality of outcomes for less money.  We either get better patient care or release cash to spend on other things.  I think that is a good thing.  If you disagree with that I would be fascinated to understand the reasons why!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A Thatcherite speaks and tells us what to think.

Thanks!

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

Never voted Tory in my life and unlikely to start now!

 

 

Sounds hoora like a Tory "healthcare" policy.

 

 As I have said in my response to Alex, private sector service provision has been a part of the NHS since its inception.  That has been accepted by Governments of all colours since that time and remains a policy actively adopted by the SNP government in Scotland.

 

Your earlier jibe about me being a Thatcherite couldn't be further from the truth.  The thing about Thatcher was that she saw the involvement of the private sector in the NHS (or anywhere else for that matter) as an opportunity for the private sector to make money out of healthcare rather than an opportunity to use public funds better as a result of more efficient service delivery.  That is an important distinction between the Thatcherite view and the view of the other parties and, to be fair, most of the Tory party.

 

You are, of course, not alone in using the Thatcher card in the "YES" cause.  Thatcher was rightly unpopular in Scotland and by labelling anyone seen as supporting the "Better together" campaign as a "Thatcherite"  the "Yes" campaign attempts to link the Better Together campaign with the views of that odious woman.  Talk about "project fear" and being negative!   Making a reasoned argument to support your view would be far more constructive.

 

My view on healthcare policy is broadly that the bulk of healthcare should be funded by the state and provided by the public sector.  Where it can be demonstrated that the private sector can provide public services more cost effectively, then it makes sense to pay the private sector to provide those services so that best use can be made of public funding.  That is also broadly the view of the SNP, Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservative parties. Given that you are so dismissive of that view, I wonder if you could explain why you disagree with the involvement of the private sector in NHS service provision when it can provide services more efficiently than the public sector?. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • FB_caley_thisle_online_970x90.jpg

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.