Jump to content

The Big Scottish Independence Debate


Laurence

Recommended Posts

Israel isn't committing genocide.  They could do that very easily.  However, they have (as has Hamas) committed war crimes.  When they voted for two enemies (Begin and Arafat) willing to put differences aside for peace, it was within a hair's breadth.  Now they vote for Netanyahu, who cares nothing for the Palestinians, and Hamas, who promptly killed their rivals and refused to hold another election (if we did that, Blair would still be in charge).  If you vote for the enemies of peace, what do you get?

 

But then why do you care?  Remember: your 'Not Scotland's problem' solution?

 

Vote no and pledge to kill another 140,000 innocent iraqi men women and children in your name!

 

> And your response to religious genocide would be...?

Not Scotland's problem

 

Talking about genocide maybe the uk could stop selling weapons to isreal?

 

That's pretty selective morality.  Caring about one international incident but not about another.

 

Much as I was (and I was) against the war in Iraq and believe Bush and Blair committed war crimes, I would be profoundly disappointed if we let religious minorities and a moderate Muslim society be brutally murdered by an invading force.  Be we independent or part of the UK, I would be disgusted if we stood by laughing and washing our hands as such a horror unfolded.  As criminal as the war to depose Saddam was, it doesn't approve allowing genocide here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel isn't committing genocide. They could do that very easily. However, they have (as has Hamas) committed war crimes. When they voted for two enemies (Begin and Arafat) willing to put differences aside for peace, it was within a hair's breadth. Now they vote for Netanyahu, who cares nothing for the Palestinians, and Hamas, who promptly killed their rivals and refused to hold another election (if we did that, Blair would still be in charge). If you vote for the enemies of peace, what do you get?

But then why do you care? Remember: your 'Not Scotland's problem' solution?

Vote no and pledge to kill another 140,000 innocent iraqi men women and children in your name!

> And your response to religious genocide would be...?

Not Scotland's problem

Talking about genocide maybe the uk could stop selling weapons to isreal?

That's pretty selective morality. Caring about one international incident but not about another.

Much as I was (and I was) against the war in Iraq and believe Bush and Blair committed war crimes, I would be profoundly disappointed if we let religious minorities and a moderate Muslim society be brutally murdered by an invading force. Be we independent or part of the UK, I would be disgusted if we stood by laughing and washing our hands as such a horror unfolded. As criminal as the war to depose Saddam was, it doesn't approve allowing genocide here.

I am not asking for an invasion of isreal and either way the usa is "dealing" with iraq so why should we?

look what happened last time we followed them into iraq!

Talking about being selective do you think we should be selling weapons to isreal?

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd already implied my criticism of Israel.

 

I don't think we should be supporting neither Netanyahu or Hamas (both politically or militarily).  Both are part of the problem rather than the solution.  Neither wants to live in peace.  Bombing UN schools was a war crime.  Hamas would do the same had they access to the same weapons.  Support moderates on both sides. Everyone knows the solution.  Two states side-by-side living in peace.  Arafat and Begin almost had it (really they did if Begin had survived) and Olmert and Abbas were close too (which might surprise some as he led the Lebanon War but negotiations went well with both sides on the 2-state).  Israel may elect a peaceful leader but Hamas needs increased pressure as they have refused to have an election since 2006.  There's no way Tony Blair (our leader in 2006) would get elected today, so every chance Hamas would be voted out for a more peace-minded assembly too.

 

But north Iraq is another story.  The Kurds, Christians and other religious minorities wouldn't be burying children alive, taking women as sex slaves and decapitating men in pursuit of religious fascism.  Invading Iraq was wrong (and it still would be) but letting the Kurds defend their own country (which is what their autonomous region is in effect) from a dark-ages inspired medieval force is absolutely right.

 

It's far from a controversial view, given that the UN condemned IS unanimously (how rare is that?!) and the EU voted to support the Kurds.  We could sit back and let others do it, but I would condemn other countries that took that view.

 

We should never have invaded.  We still shouldn't get involved in what is basically a Shia-Sunni power battle in the south.  But the north is a functioning, reltively safe, secular community, dominated by moderate Muslims, welcoming those of different religions into its sanctuary.  Well worth defending their right to exist.  I'd hope a moral Scotland, whether in the UK or not, would support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd already implied my criticism of Israel.

 

I don't think we should be supporting neither Netanyahu or Hamas (both politically or militarily).  Both are part of the problem rather than the solution.  Neither wants to live in peace.  Bombing UN schools was a war crime.  Hamas would do the same had they access to the same weapons.  Support moderates on both sides. Everyone knows the solution.  Two states side-by-side living in peace.  Arafat and Begin almost had it (really they did if Begin had survived) and Olmert and Abbas were close too (which might surprise some as he led the Lebanon War but negotiations went well with both sides on the 2-state).  Israel may elect a peaceful leader but Hamas needs increased pressure as they have refused to have an election since 2006.  There's no way Tony Blair (our leader in 2006) would get elected today, so every chance Hamas would be voted out for a more peace-minded assembly too.

 

But north Iraq is another story.  The Kurds, Christians and other religious minorities wouldn't be burying children alive, taking women as sex slaves and decapitating men in pursuit of religious fascism.  Invading Iraq was wrong (and it still would be) but letting the Kurds defend their own country (which is what their autonomous region is in effect) from a dark-ages inspired medieval force is absolutely right.

 

It's far from a controversial view, given that the UN condemned IS unanimously (how rare is that?!) and the EU voted to support the Kurds.  We could sit back and let others do it, but I would condemn other countries that took that view.

 

We should never have invaded.  We still shouldn't get involved in what is basically a Shia-Sunni power battle in the south.  But the north is a functioning, reltively safe, secular community, dominated by moderate Muslims, welcoming those of different religions into its sanctuary.  Well worth defending their right to exist.  I'd hope a moral Scotland, whether in the UK or not, would support them.

 

I hope Scotland would voice support also but these international incidents are for the united nations and not for the usa/uk to interfere at any other level than supporting/condemning!

 

We would still have a voice after independence and could still help in international incidents I don't want to sit back and let genocide happen but what can we do now that we wouldn't be able to do as an independent country?

Edited by Ayeseetee
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Israel isn't committing genocide.  They could do that very easily.  However, they have (as has Hamas) committed war crimes.  When they voted for two enemies (Begin and Arafat) willing to put differences aside for peace, it was within a hair's breadth.  Now they vote for Netanyahu, who cares nothing for the Palestinians, and Hamas, who promptly killed their rivals and refused to hold another election (if we did that, Blair would still be in charge).  If you vote for the enemies of peace, what do you get?

 

But then why do you care?  Remember: your 'Not Scotland's problem' solution?

 

Vote no and pledge to kill another 140,000 innocent iraqi men women and children in your name!

 

> And your response to religious genocide would be...?

Not Scotland's problem

 

Talking about genocide maybe the uk could stop selling weapons to isreal?

 

That's pretty selective morality.  Caring about one international incident but not about another.

 

Much as I was (and I was) against the war in Iraq and believe Bush and Blair committed war crimes, I would be profoundly disappointed if we let religious minorities and a moderate Muslim society be brutally murdered by an invading force.  Be we independent or part of the UK, I would be disgusted if we stood by laughing and washing our hands as such a horror unfolded.  As criminal as the war to depose Saddam was, it doesn't approve allowing genocide here.

 

But the thing is, the UK (and USA) are selective, both re legality and morality. Their hypocrisy and double standards start and end with what is best for the UK and USA, regardless of who gets in the firing line between them and their preferred goal.  The double standards of the UK/the West is amply illustrated here

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/11/iraq-west-hypocrisy-middle-east-yazidi-people

 

I can't, myself, see a lot of difference between genocide, as in an invading force, from outside a country, trying to take over the country and kill off/subjugate the native populations, as we did in to USA, Australia, New Zealand and Africa, genocide as in one tribe/religion/ethnicity decimating another tribe/religion/ethnicity within a country's own borders, or genocide as in a third party, in the mid 20th century, being invited by a second party to take over the lands and resources of the original inhabitant (the first party).

 

The politicians of our country, which instigated much of the current mayhem in the Middle East is still supporting the third party, which is still fighting the first party to grab it all 65 years later.....65 years for the love of Pete.....and our politicians just sit, watch, pat their friends the Israelis on the back, and rake in the business profits and resulting taxes from the arms manufacturers (if taxes are paid at all), made by selling their products to continue the killing...which would not have been happening without the take-over invitation in the first place.

 

If we vote for Independence, I'd hope that our defence force would be just that, and it would be written into our Consitution.....a force to defend Scotland from real, actual enemies, not a force based on being able to strike perceived enemies first "just in case".....but also a force which will take their part in UN/NATO/EU peacekeeping missions, and where necessary, in missions for humanitarian purposes....if we agree that those missions are genuinely for humanitarian purposes and not for oil or trade or to install "western democracy" or change regimes.

 

Kind of an ethical foreign policy?

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We would still have a voice after independence and could still help in international incidents I don't want to sit back and let genocide happen but what can we do now that we wouldn't be able to do as an independent country?

I agree.  But you used non-intervention as an argument for independence.

 

And, yes, the West has been guitly of many crimes over the years but that wasn't the question.  It was about the situation in northern Iraq today.  Should Kurdistan be allowed to be over-run and many thousands of minorities and moderates slaughtered, or should the UK help a secular peaceful community defend it's territory from the Islamic State? 

For me, the answer isn't 'Yes' because we've had a brutal history.  It's also in the history of many other countries.  That's also an excuse for turning our back on the victims of the Nazis (to invoke Godwin). 

It isn't 'Yes' because Israel bombs UN schools.

It's also not 'Yes' because there is not the time to get together a multi-agency force from the UN. 

It's not 'Yes' because they are not Scottish, so why should we care about genocide

And it's not 'Yes' because only US and EU countries have the will and arms to achieve it but we should wait for Kenya and Lithuania to do something.

 

There's a few days to do something.  It's do it now or not.  Washing your hands isn't an ethical policy in my view.

 

BTW, try to talking to someone about peacekeeping missions in developed countries.  It basically means standing aside whilst someone gets ripped apart.  It's anything but peace, just not actual war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We would still have a voice after independence and could still help in international incidents I don't want to sit back and let genocide happen but what can we do now that we wouldn't be able to do as an independent country?

I agree.  But you used non-intervention as an argument for independence.

 

And, yes, the West has been guitly of many crimes over the years but that wasn't the question.  It was about the situation in northern Iraq today.  Should Kurdistan be allowed to be over-run and many thousands of minorities and moderates slaughtered, or should the UK help a secular peaceful community defend it's territory from the Islamic State? 

For me, the answer isn't 'Yes' because we've had a brutal history.  It's also in the history of many other countries.  That's also an excuse for turning our back on the victims of the Nazis (to invoke Godwin). 

It isn't 'Yes' because Israel bombs UN schools.

It's also not 'Yes' because there is not the time to get together a multi-agency force from the UN. 

It's not 'Yes' because they are not Scottish, so why should we care about genocide

And it's not 'Yes' because only US and EU countries have the will and arms to achieve it but we should wait for Kenya and Lithuania to do something.

 

There's a few days to do something.  It's do it now or not.  Washing your hands isn't an ethical policy in my view.

 

BTW, try to talking to someone about peacekeeping missions in developed countries.  It basically means standing aside whilst someone gets ripped apart.  It's anything but peace, just not actual war.

 

 

The problem is the uk can't be some peace loving nation while selling weapons to other countries including Israel / Iran / Russia and 20 others...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/17/uk-sells-arms-to-worlds-w_n_3608760.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/uk-government-reviews-arms-sales-israel-gaza

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blood-money-uks-123bn-arms-sales-to-repressive-states-8711794.html

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1116687/britains-chemical-sales-to-syria-revealed

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.

 

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land.

 

Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"?  Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. 

 

 

You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" :lol: ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No comment by me required.

 

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/yes-scotland-challenges-alistair-darling-nhs-funding-hypocrisy

 

Yes Scotland Chief Executive, Blair Jenkins, has challenged No campaign chief Alistair Darling to explain the difference between claims made about the threat to Scotland’s NHS funding, that helped get him elected as an MP in 2010, and the exact opposite and contradictory claims now being made by the campaign he leads.

Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling, you were elected saying a Westminster Tory government would 'slash funding for schools and hospitals' in Scotland but now lead a campaign that wants us to believe that Scotland’s funding is safe in Tory hands."

The Scottish Labour Party’s 2010 General Election Broadcast makes clear that a Westminster Tory government has and would cut Scotland’s health spending and that this is a ‘risk’ that Scotland faces. The broadcast states:

    "They [the Tories] starved our schools and hospitals of funding and there’s a real risk they’d do the same again."

    "They wouldn’t fight for the NHS, they call it a 60 year mistake."

    "The Tories would . . . slash funding for schools and hospitals . . . The Tories haven’t changed."

The official No campaign is now arguing that there would be no impact on Scotland’s schools and hospitals from Westminster Tory policies, including the ongoing privatisation of the English NHS.

Commenting, Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling has been caught out saying two very different things in two campaigns. He was elected on the back of the claim that a Westminster Tory government poses a threat to Scotland’s NHS, and now leads a campaign that is trying to argue the exact opposite.

"Of course, Mr Darling was right back in 2010 when he warned that Westminster Tory cuts could damage Scotland’s schools and hospitals.

"Elsewhere in the UK, the Labour Party is warning that the privatisation of the NHS in England could mean cuts. This would have a direct and automatic impact on Scottish spending as a result of the Barnett formula.

"Given that Mr Darling’s party identified the threat to Scotland’s NHS in 2010 and his colleagues, including the Welsh Health Minister, are repeating that warning today, it is simply not credible for the No campaign to continue with their assertion that Tory health privatisation won’t have a damaging impact on Scotland’s NHS.

"The NHS is Scotland’s most valued public service. We simply can’t risk any knock-on damage to our health service in the future from the Westminster government’s privatisation agenda. Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes."

 

 

 

Having suffered a pounding on the pound, Alex Salmond will now look to breathe new life into the Yes campaign by exploiting the public's support  for the NHS.  Oddquine is quite right that Alistair Darling has got some explaining to do on this one and the next televised debate may well see him having some awkward questions to answer.  The NHS will surely become a hot topic in the next few weeks.

 

But voting in the referendum should not be based on whether or not Darling has got himself into a bit of bother.  As far as the NHS is concerned, the issue is about whether or not independence will make a radical difference to the quality of healthcare in Scotland.  No doubt pledges that the NHS will be safe in an independent Scotland will be bandied about but it will be interesting to see whether there is a debate about the real issues rather than the usual shallow sloganising.  There must be few things which attract so much ill informed comment as the NHS.

 

We hear people saying we need Independence to keep privatisation out of the NHS.  Nonsense!  It's here already and it always has been.  Do you go to a GP?  Do you get NHS prescriptions dispensed at a pharmacy? Do you get NHS dental treatment or NHS eye tests at an optician?  If so 99% of the staff who provide those services either are or are employed by private contractors.  A variety of other services are contracted out to private contractors and that trend will continue in an independent Scotland.

 

It is true that more services are privatised in England than in Scotland but that is largely due to the fact that the per capita spend on the NHS is higher here and the NHS in England is forced to explore private service provision because it is cheaper.

 

Whether the NHS provides the service itself or whether a private sector contractor provides it, the NHS in England pays for it. 

 

Whether you like it or not, healthcare costs are going to rise massively and these rising costs are putting pressure on the service both North and South of the Border.  More radical steps to address these pressures have been taken in England than in Scotland because of the more generous public funding in Scotland.  But the extra funding and, indeed, any further funding which might come into Scottish public funding as a result of independence, will only delay the inevitable.  The fact is the NHS is a victim of its own success and people live much longer only to go on and develop other more expensive conditions.  In addition, treatments become more sophisticated and ever more expensive.  Any debate on the NHS needs to address how it is going to tackle these massive cost pressures. 

 

It is very easy for people to say, as Oddquine concludes by saying "Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes", but what does that actually mean?  If it means that the NHS needs to continue to be fully funded by the state then there are two choices for the electorate.  Either we need to continue year on year to pour an ever increasing percentage of the public purse into the service (and therefore increase taxes and/or cut other public spending to pay for it) or we limit what the NHS provides so that it stays affordable.

 

That latter option may sound draconian but actually we do it already.  There are, for instance, a lot of alternative therapies not available on the NHS or you can get better hearing aids etc if you go privately.  Indeed, just in terms of general care and advice or screening for early diagnosis, the NHS could do far more than it does now if it had more money.  We therefore currently limit what the NHS provides and if individuals feel that is not enough for them, they have the option of getting private treatment if they can afford it.  That is true in Scotland today as the existence of various private hospitals and clinics and the number of folk with private healthcare insurance demonstrates.   

 

In Scotland, we already have extensive private health care provision funded by the National Health Service and we already have people paying for a variety of treatments, equipment and health services where NHS services don't meet their needs.  With the spiraling costs of healthcare associated with an aging population and the development of ever more expensive treatments we are now seeing a shift in England towards greater input from the private sector and greater private purchase of healthcare.  That shift is also happening here but is not yet so developed.  What we need to hear from the "Yes" campaign is how these challenges will be addressed in an independent Scotland.  Cheap sloganising will simply not do.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No comment by me required.

 

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/yes-scotland-challenges-alistair-darling-nhs-funding-hypocrisy

 

Yes Scotland Chief Executive, Blair Jenkins, has challenged No campaign chief Alistair Darling to explain the difference between claims made about the threat to Scotland’s NHS funding, that helped get him elected as an MP in 2010, and the exact opposite and contradictory claims now being made by the campaign he leads.

Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling, you were elected saying a Westminster Tory government would 'slash funding for schools and hospitals' in Scotland but now lead a campaign that wants us to believe that Scotland’s funding is safe in Tory hands."

The Scottish Labour Party’s 2010 General Election Broadcast makes clear that a Westminster Tory government has and would cut Scotland’s health spending and that this is a ‘risk’ that Scotland faces. The broadcast states:

    "They [the Tories] starved our schools and hospitals of funding and there’s a real risk they’d do the same again."

    "They wouldn’t fight for the NHS, they call it a 60 year mistake."

    "The Tories would . . . slash funding for schools and hospitals . . . The Tories haven’t changed."

The official No campaign is now arguing that there would be no impact on Scotland’s schools and hospitals from Westminster Tory policies, including the ongoing privatisation of the English NHS.

Commenting, Mr Jenkins said: "Mr Darling has been caught out saying two very different things in two campaigns. He was elected on the back of the claim that a Westminster Tory government poses a threat to Scotland’s NHS, and now leads a campaign that is trying to argue the exact opposite.

"Of course, Mr Darling was right back in 2010 when he warned that Westminster Tory cuts could damage Scotland’s schools and hospitals.

"Elsewhere in the UK, the Labour Party is warning that the privatisation of the NHS in England could mean cuts. This would have a direct and automatic impact on Scottish spending as a result of the Barnett formula.

"Given that Mr Darling’s party identified the threat to Scotland’s NHS in 2010 and his colleagues, including the Welsh Health Minister, are repeating that warning today, it is simply not credible for the No campaign to continue with their assertion that Tory health privatisation won’t have a damaging impact on Scotland’s NHS.

"The NHS is Scotland’s most valued public service. We simply can’t risk any knock-on damage to our health service in the future from the Westminster government’s privatisation agenda. Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes."

 

 

 

Having suffered a pounding on the pound, Alex Salmond will now look to breathe new life into the Yes campaign by exploiting the public's support  for the NHS.  Oddquine is quite right that Alistair Darling has got some explaining to do on this one and the next televised debate may well see him having some awkward questions to answer.  The NHS will surely become a hot topic in the next few weeks.

 

But voting in the referendum should not be based on whether or not Darling has got himself into a bit of bother.  As far as the NHS is concerned, the issue is about whether or not independence will make a radical difference to the quality of healthcare in Scotland.  No doubt pledges that the NHS will be safe in an independent Scotland will be bandied about but it will be interesting to see whether there is a debate about the real issues rather than the usual shallow sloganising.  There must be few things which attract so much ill informed comment as the NHS.

 

We hear people saying we need Independence to keep privatisation out of the NHS.  Nonsense!  It's here already and it always has been.  Do you go to a GP?  Do you get NHS prescriptions dispensed at a pharmacy? Do you get NHS dental treatment or NHS eye tests at an optician?  If so 99% of the staff who provide those services either are or are employed by private contractors.  A variety of other services are contracted out to private contractors and that trend will continue in an independent Scotland.

 

It is true that more services are privatised in England than in Scotland but that is largely due to the fact that the per capita spend on the NHS is higher here and the NHS in England is forced to explore private service provision because it is cheaper.

 

Whether the NHS provides the service itself or whether a private sector contractor provides it, the NHS in England pays for it. 

 

Whether you like it or not, healthcare costs are going to rise massively and these rising costs are putting pressure on the service both North and South of the Border.  More radical steps to address these pressures have been taken in England than in Scotland because of the more generous public funding in Scotland.  But the extra funding and, indeed, any further funding which might come into Scottish public funding as a result of independence, will only delay the inevitable.  The fact is the NHS is a victim of its own success and people live much longer only to go on and develop other more expensive conditions.  In addition, treatments become more sophisticated and ever more expensive.  Any debate on the NHS needs to address how it is going to tackle these massive cost pressures. 

 

It is very easy for people to say, as Oddquine concludes by saying "Scotland needs to fully protect its NHS, and that comes only from a Yes", but what does that actually mean?  If it means that the NHS needs to continue to be fully funded by the state then there are two choices for the electorate.  Either we need to continue year on year to pour an ever increasing percentage of the public purse into the service (and therefore increase taxes and/or cut other public spending to pay for it) or we limit what the NHS provides so that it stays affordable.

 

That latter option may sound draconian but actually we do it already.  There are, for instance, a lot of alternative therapies not available on the NHS or you can get better hearing aids etc if you go privately.  Indeed, just in terms of general care and advice or screening for early diagnosis, the NHS could do far more than it does now if it had more money.  We therefore currently limit what the NHS provides and if individuals feel that is not enough for them, they have the option of getting private treatment if they can afford it.  That is true in Scotland today as the existence of various private hospitals and clinics and the number of folk with private healthcare insurance demonstrates.   

 

In Scotland, we already have extensive private health care provision funded by the National Health Service and we already have people paying for a variety of treatments, equipment and health services where NHS services don't meet their needs.  With the spiraling costs of healthcare associated with an aging population and the development of ever more expensive treatments we are now seeing a shift in England towards greater input from the private sector and greater private purchase of healthcare.  That shift is also happening here but is not yet so developed.  What we need to hear from the "Yes" campaign is how these challenges will be addressed in an independent Scotland.  Cheap sloganising will simply not do.

 

 

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/referendum/309863/scottish-health-secretary-challenges-ed-miliband-over-nhs-privatisation/

 

Ah I love when the no camp uses the nhs why dont we see what the english think? (2 mins in)

 

 

Cheers for salmond in england.....   :lol:  they seem to disagree with you doofer!

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big danger to the NHS in Scotland is not Independence. In an independent country the people in power will have total control of the available budget and will use it as they see fit. If the answer is no NHS England and Wales will succumb to privatisation of some description. This will mean that the budget for NHS England and Wales will be cut. Under the Barnet formula Scotlands funds will also be cut pro rata. So to maintain a service anywhere like what we have at the moment will need funds transfered from other budgets. Someone or something will suffer.

 

Just as an aside. On the subject of political parties. Yes all three major parties south of the border are agreed on keeping us all together but many in Scottish Labour see a chance to revitalise themselves and are swaying more towards YES.

 

Finally, Israel, Palestine, Iraq etc. I would hope that an Independent Scotland would be more into seeking out and aiding in solutions to the problems rather than promoting the killing.

Edited by Alex MacLeod
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.

 

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land.

 

Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"?  Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. 

 

 

You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" :lol: ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is.

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:    My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom.  I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way.  I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put :tongueincheek:  at the end.  So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude 

 

And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London".  To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid.  The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region.  As a non Tory I am very happy with that.

 

It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for.  The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for.  However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a once in a life-time opportunity to vote for this.

 

There's no point moaning in a couple of years time, or even 5 or 10 years from now. Make that 20 years or 50 - or more. Westminster will ensure that there are no further referenda on Scottish Independence - by hook or by crook.

 

Certainly, the rules will be changed to prevent or hinder any further 'attempts' from us Scots trying to 'break away' or better ourselves.

It's effectively now or never. The UK parliament will be swiftly 'changing' their statute books to ensure this opportunity never, ever occurs and embarrasses them again.

 

Don't think, "I wont vote for Independence this time - but, next time, I probably will!"

There will be no next time!

 

I've seen the Yes campaign using this "once in a lifetime" concept in their advertising.  So shouldn't it be legally binding on them?!  We all know it's just another false claim though and they'll keep demanding more referendums until they eventually get the answer they want. 

 

I don't buy into this paranoia that rules will be changed.  Even a Tory PM agreed to a legally binding referendum because it was morally the right thing to do, not because any laws obliged him to.  He could have refused and would have been very unpopular up here, but hey.....

Labour obviously have far more to lose up here so would comply if the demand is there. 

 

If the will of the Scottish people is ever to be independent, then it will happen, regardless of any statutes.

Edited by Yngwie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big danger to the NHS in Scotland is not Independence. In an independent country the people in power will have total control of the available budget and will use it as they see fit. If the answer is no NHS England and Wales will succumb to privatisation of some description. This will mean that the budget for NHS England and Wales will be cut. Under the Barnet formula Scotlands funds will also be cut pro rata. So to maintain a service anywhere like what we have at the moment will need funds transfered from other budgets. Someone or something will suffer.

 

Just as an aside. On the subject of political parties. Yes all three major parties south of the border are agreed on keeping us all together but many in Scottish Labour see a chance to revitalise themselves and are swaying more towards YES.

 

Finally, Israel, Palestine, Iraq etc. I would hope that an Independent Scotland would be more into seeking out and aiding in solutions to the problems rather than promoting the killing.

I am not aware that anyone has said that Independence is the big danger to the NHS in Scotland.

 

In our current devolved parliament, Health is a wholly devolved matter.  The Scottish government already has the power to fund it within available resource.

 

What do you mean by "sucumb to privitisation"?  As I made absolutely clear in my previous post, the private sector is and always has been an important part of the NHS. 

 

Involvement of the private sector does not mean cuts to the NHS or cuts to the funding.  The NHS continues to fund services provided by the private sector.

 

All the major unionist parties have pledged their continuing support for the NHS.  The Government has continued to protect the NHS from other post recession public spending cuts and funding for the NHS continues to rise above the rate of inflation. 

 

What the NHS in England is doing and which the Scottish Government is hoping to conveniently ignore till after the referendum, is to address the fact that demands on the NHS are rising even faster than the rising funding can address.  I may not particularly like the way they are going about it in England but the fact is that Independence will not make these pressures disappear in Scotland.

 

It is not political policy at Westminster that is a threat to the health service in Scotland, it is the growing demand for health care from the people of Scotland that threatens to overwhelm the NHS.  The question is, how will an independent Scottish Government address this problem?

Edited by DoofersDad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.

 

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land.

 

Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"?  Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. 

 

 

You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" :lol: ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is.

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:    My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom.  I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way.  I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put :tongueincheek:  at the end.  So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude 

 

And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London".  To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid.  The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region.  As a non Tory I am very happy with that.

 

It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for.  The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for.  However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for.

 

 

I pity No voters, but fire on with your future of Boris for PM, seems you're quite happy with that prospect, and with the "thriving and vibrant" UK being one of the most unequal and divided of all developed societies, food banks, bedroom taxes, it's all good. :smile:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.

 

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land.

 

Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"?  Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. 

 

 

You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" :lol: ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is.

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:    My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom.  I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way.  I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put :tongueincheek:  at the end.  So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude 

 

And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London".  To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid.  The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region.  As a non Tory I am very happy with that.

 

It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for.  The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for.  However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for.

 

 

I pity No voters, but fire on with your future of Boris for PM, seems you're quite happy with that prospect, and with the "thriving and vibrant" UK being one of the most unequal and divided of all developed societies, food banks, bedroom taxes, it's all good. :smile:  

 

Boris for PM  :crazy:  Don't think so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.

 

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land.

 

Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"?  Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. 

 

 

You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" :lol: ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is.

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:    My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom.  I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way.  I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put :tongueincheek:  at the end.  So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude 

 

And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London".  To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid.  The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region.  As a non Tory I am very happy with that.

 

It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for.  The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for.  However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for.

 

 

I pity No voters, but fire on with your future of Boris for PM, seems you're quite happy with that prospect, and with the "thriving and vibrant" UK being one of the most unequal and divided of all developed societies, food banks, bedroom taxes, it's all good. :smile:  

 

Boris for PM  :crazy:  Don't think so!

 

 

Tories love him, as you will know. And you are happy to entrust the future of the NHS and the whole country to this guy or some other out of touch toff?

 

Anyone but those nasty red Scots at the controls I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well I'm voting "No" to the servitude of a central belt dominated socialist state and instead will vote for a continuation for the freedoms enjoyed as part of a thriving and vibrant United Kingdom.

 

Ah, a fully signed-up member of the Bannerman Front for Outdated Conceptions of a Benevolent Union and Nice Tories as Opposed to Those Nasty Reds in Hey Jimmy Land.

 

Still on the "you must be a Tory if you vote "No" bandwagon"?  Tell that to the majority of the population who intend to vote "No" when support for the Tories in Scotland is so low. 

 

 

You said yourself that you prefer to be ruled by the Tory government of London rather than the big bad Glesga socialists ("servitude" :lol: ). By definition your vote is conservative and unionist, which is fair enough, but don't deny that's what it is.

 

 

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:    My reference to "servitude" was in response to a previous post by SP where he made the rediculous statement that the choice was between servitude and freedom.  I simply turned that round in a tongue in cheek way.  I would have thought that was pretty obvious but maybe should have put :tongueincheek:  at the end.  So, no, I don't consider that living in a state dominated by the views of the Scottish central belt would be servitude 

 

And I did not say I would prefer to be ruled by the "Tory government of London".  To suggest a "No" vote makes me a Tory when all the main UK wide parties support the "No" campaign is just stupid.  The alternative to a central belt dominated Scottish government is a UK Government which regularly changes political colour and which is not dominated by any geographical region.  As a non Tory I am very happy with that.

 

It does make me laugh that a main plank of the "Yes" campaign is so that Scots get the Government they vote for.  The fact is (as has already been well established on this thread) that in the majority of general elections Scotland does actually get the Government it votes for.  However, from a Highland perspective, having a central belt dominated Scottish Government would make it less likely that we in the Highlands would get the Government it voted for.

 

 

I pity No voters, but fire on with your future of Boris for PM, seems you're quite happy with that prospect, and with the "thriving and vibrant" UK being one of the most unequal and divided of all developed societies, food banks, bedroom taxes, it's all good. :smile:  

 

Boris for PM  :crazy:  Don't think so!

 

 

He is mayor of the capital and is in charge of the biggest city budget in the uk so dont try and play him down...

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2014-08-13/boris-johnsons-dream-of-becoming-prime-minister-just-got-better/

 

If it's not boris the alternative is Osbourne   :amazed: 

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The big danger to the NHS in Scotland is not Independence. In an independent country the people in power will have total control of the available budget and will use it as they see fit. If the answer is no NHS England and Wales will succumb to privatisation of some description. This will mean that the budget for NHS England and Wales will be cut. Under the Barnet formula Scotlands funds will also be cut pro rata. So to maintain a service anywhere like what we have at the moment will need funds transfered from other budgets. Someone or something will suffer.

 

Just as an aside. On the subject of political parties. Yes all three major parties south of the border are agreed on keeping us all together but many in Scottish Labour see a chance to revitalise themselves and are swaying more towards YES.

 

Finally, Israel, Palestine, Iraq etc. I would hope that an Independent Scotland would be more into seeking out and aiding in solutions to the problems rather than promoting the killing.

I am not aware that anyone has said that Independence is the big danger to the NHS in Scotland.

 

In our current devolved parliament, Health is a wholly devolved matter.  The Scottish government already has the power to fund it within available resource.

 

What do you mean by "sucumb to privitisation"?  As I made absolutely clear in my previous post, the private sector is and always has been an important part of the NHS. 

 

Involvement of the private sector does not mean cuts to the NHS or cuts to the funding.  The NHS continues to fund services provided by the private sector.

 

All the major unionist parties have pledged their continuing support for the NHS.  The Government has continued to protect the NHS from other post recession public spending cuts and funding for the NHS continues to rise above the rate of inflation. 

 

What the NHS in England is doing and which the Scottish Government is hoping to conveniently ignore till after the referendum, is to address the fact that demands on the NHS are rising even faster than the rising funding can address.  I may not particularly like the way they are going about it in England but the fact is that Independence will not make these pressures disappear in Scotland.

 

It is not political policy at Westminster that is a threat to the health service in Scotland, it is the growing demand for health care from the people of Scotland that threatens to overwhelm the NHS.  The question is, how will an independent Scottish Government address this problem?

 

Private sector involvement has been around for many years. That is a totally different situation to privatisation. Private sector involvement keeps control within the NHS. Privatisation sells that control to the private sector. It is well documented that many Tory MP's would like to do with the NHS what they done with BT and BG and all the other national institutes that were privatised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doofers Dad

So you think my comment about Servitude versus freedom was ridiculous, eh?

As I posted it I had visions of Mel Gibson crying out something similar in his movie Braveheart and he was spot-on in them thar days wasn't he? But you will find out soon enough as to what I meant.

Vote "no" and you will enhance the sense of superiority and power that the likes of Cameron and his ilkalready have. "No" will send a clear signal that Scotland will ALWAYS henceforth be under his control

and jackboot whilst he increases his use of the revenue about to flow into Scotland from oil after a YES vote is recorded. Meanwhile throwing crumbs to the Scots from his groaning table laden with sparklingnew loads of money coming over the border in a steady unrelenting stream, always headed south but

rarely north.

In short, by increasing his iron grip on the powers allocated to the nation's people to pursue

their own decisions and dreams, he continues to impose complete control over their lives whilst milkingthem to death of their riches. For EVER.

That's servitude in my book. For EVER.

DD , you were born in England and naturally have English roots and a deeper sense of loyalty to all things English. My father was English,born and bred,and a fine man but I was born in Scotland and more closely identify with Scotland, it's past, it's future and the possible stifling of all things Scottish by it's continuing to allow the southern political parasites to control our future destiny.

Scotland must now go-it-alone, grasp the nettle, forge ahead and NEVER look back.

VOTE YES!

IF Scotland votes "YES" that will send the very opposite signal--Freedom for the Scots to make their

own decisions free of Westminster's stifling, condescending attitudes. Their own say in the cost of

doing business and the size of the taxes to be levied. A smaller unit of government to be handled whichshould allow for an easier and quicker turn around in the decision-making process and the quicker

implementation of the decisions arrived at , leading to a quicker recognition whether or not the changes just implemented are correct or otherwise.

And so forth and so on. That sound an awful lot like more freedom to me.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is well documented that many Tory MP's would like to do with the NHS what they done with BT and BG and all the other national institutes that were privatised.

 

In that case it'll be easy for you to provide a link to demonstrate this.

 

Remind me, which side is "project fear"?!

 

The English folk wouldn't stand for the things you talk about any more than the Scots would. Everybody wants the same thing from the NHS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is well documented that many Tory MP's would like to do with the NHS what they done with BT and BG and all the other national institutes that were privatised.

 

In that case it'll be easy for you to provide a link to demonstrate this.

 

Remind me, which side is "project fear"?!

 

The English folk wouldn't stand for the things you talk about any more than the Scots would. Everybody wants the same thing from the NHS.

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tories-want-privatise-nhs-cuts-3102993

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-tories-hidden-privatisation-plan-1729681

 

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-a1ce-Shopworkers-union-Usdaw-declares-One-year-to-save-NHS-from-Tory-privatisation/#.U_MYkWOVzTo

 

http://labourlist.org/2014/08/300-mile-march-to-protest-nhs-privatisation-sets-off-tomorrow/

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/privatisation-agenda-drives-tory-policy-on-nhs-says-andy-burnham-9052640.html

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/biggest-threat-nhs-tories-not-eu-us-trade-deal

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/jos-bell/tory-links-of-health-agencies-exposed-as-hunt-lines-up-next-nhs-selloff-in-england

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/farewell-to-the-nhs-19482013-a-dear-and-trusted-friend-finally-murdered-by-tory-ideologues-8555503.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2013/mar/05/nhs-reforms-government-privatise

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/opinion/news-opinion/national-health-sell-off-dont-believe-3752792

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532984/Dont-spare-wasteful-NHS-future-spending-cuts-says-senior-Conservative-MP.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-spending-has-been-cut-tories-forced-to-admit-8395976.html

 

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-9fe3-The-Tories-are-killing-our-NHS#.U_MVGGOVzTo

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/controversy-over-new-tory-health-advisor-nick-seddon-who-called-for-nhs-cuts-and-charges-for-gp-visits-8609421.html

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cuts-leave-nhs-mental-health-services-dangerously-close-to-collapse-9667370.html

 

Just a mixed bag of links for you one quick google search will tell you things are going to **** down south....

 

I just think you dont want to believe it  :sad:

Edited by Ayeseetee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy