Forum menu
There's not a cat in hells chance of them doing so IMHO. Under what circumstances do you think such power will be withdrawn?
Moving the goalposts - tired of straw mans ?
The allegation is they cannot not that they choose not to- would you like to argue they cannot ?
They can and it is not federalism- one of the few areas where we have a facts to work with.
FWIW I do agree they would be unlikely to do this but there is nothing to stop them which is the point .
[quote=Junkyard ]The allegation is they cannot not that they choose not to
Is it? I suggested it was theoretical.
Would you care to argue that the power of the Queen to deny royal assent to laws or deny parliament the right to assemble is any more than theroetical?
Not quite. That was the House of Lords proposing an amendment which was accepted by debate and vote in the Commons. The Commons could have refused that.So that's the unelected House of Lords removing powers from the democratically elected Scottish Parliament
The Lords can propose amendments or delay matters but the Parliament Act stops them from defying the will of the Commons. If you're going to direct your anger at Westminster, at least get the right bit.
Here is what you said
because of the purely theoretical power of the UK government to revoke devolution
This is still not true it is not theoretical they can actually legally do this in reality and we both know this and Ben gave you an example where they have revoked it. It is pretty daft, even by STW standards, to debate this NOW. Its amusing you wish to move the goalposts to an entirely different pitch to discuss the Queen [ gawd bless her]
They can and they have.
I have nothing further to say as you are not this daft and I am not that interested .....for once 😉
This is what happens if we all feign confusion over the meanings of words we all understand.
I'm not feigning anything. I'm trying to explain that the concept of nationhood is arbitrary.
[quote=Junkyard ]Its amusing you wish to move the goalposts to an entirely different pitch to discuss the Queen [ gawd bless her]
It was an analogy rather than anything to do with badgers.
Someone is certainly badgering someone here* 😉
* is not a treasonous euphemism Ma'am.
This is what happens if we all feign confusion over the meanings of words we all understand.
When you say "words"...
😆
Good to see how in the political utopia that is Holyrood, that freedom of info and honest debate is valued so much higher than in Westminster...
And who was mentioning the fact that AS has a long standing tradition of suppressing debate and opposition? Still, it's only a little issue like Europe.
It is such a revelation to see a political party spinning stuff to suit their agenda and I am shocked beyond words to discover this sort of thing goes on...thankfully only in the SNP and Holyrood though
@Junkyard it's a bit more than spinning when you delete evidence and conclusions from a supposedly independent report which don't support your view.
I also read this piece after reading the link posted by @thm [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10850366/Scotlands-universities-prevented-from-speaking-out-against-independence.html ]Scottish Universities Preventing from speaking out against indepence[/url]
I was surprised the SNP is claiming Scottish universities would still receive a disproportionate amount of UK Cancer Research funding post independence. I would have thought they would receive zero. That would certainly be my preference, we have plenty of English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities which would appreciate the funding. Why send the money abroad.
The Vote No Borders mob are continuing with their cinema adverts, the latest just blatantly lies:
NHS Scotland has always been totally independent of NHS England, and there are already cross-border agreements on funding treatment. Unfortunately political adverts are exempt from ASA regulation, so it's not possible to complain about them.
it's a bit more than spinning when you delete evidence and conclusions from a supposedly independent report which don't support your view
Fair point - it is worse than that.
I am not defending this report or what they have done but do you think better together wont have done the same and UK govt wont have either?
I am not claiming the SNP are impartial purveyors of the truth nor a
am I claiming GO is either
NHS Scotland has always been totally independent of NHS England, and there are already cross-border agreements on funding treatment. Unfortunately political adverts are exempt from ASA regulation, so it's not possible to complain about them.
I've just watched that video three times and I still can't hear the bit where anybody mentions funding treatment!
On the point that they did mention - why on earth do you think someone from iS would be allowed to take the waiting list place of an rUK patient after independence?
Its good old Granny flat independence again
They're saying that the NHS now is UK-wide (it isn't) and that after independence you won't be able to have treatment at specialist hospitals in the rUK (you will).
and that after independence you won't be able to have treatment at specialist hospitals in the rUK
No, they didn't say that, listen again - they said that you'd be back of the queue with the other foreigners on the waiting list, not that you wouldn't be able to have treatment in the rUK
The clue was in the phrase "they can join the long list of foreigners waiting to be seen" rather than "no, you won't be able to"
There are long-standing cross-border agreements between all Eurpoean countries - it's not like Scots would go to the back of the list at all. Equally, all the English patients who come to Scotland for treatment would be able to do so.
Not on shared waiting lists!
I can get short term treatment in France with my EHIC card, I don't get sent over to get treatment on their waiting list because ours is full!
don't tell me - continued access to rUK waiting lists is another thing that Alex and his crack team will be able to negotiate in the 18 months after the referendum because it will be in both nations interests to continue with the current system 😆
Its certainly a positive message as to why the union is ace
Stay or your children die
With the wholesale privatisation of the NHS South of the border, hoping things stay the same after a No vote is very optimistic.
Ben, there is no need to wordy about NHS Scotland - it is in very good hands with Alex Neil. After all ...
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Health Secretary has acted entirely appropriately at every single stage of the process regarding mental health service provision across NHS Lanarkshire and all of the key information in this case has already been in the public domain for a very long time."
You are lucky to have a service and responsible MSPs to be proud off. We should be so lucky in rUK.
With the wholesale privatisation of the NHS South of the border
And the NO campaign are accused of scaremongering! Have you a copy of the privatisation prospectus? I missed it's publication? Hope it does better than Saga yesterday. The IPO market looks a little soggy.
I haven't paid an awful lot of attention to the Alex Neil thing - what did he do wrong? He saved some wards from closing, didn't he?
Even if he did do something wrong, that's a rubbish argument against independence - by that argument, Neil Hamilton is a good reason for independence.
So you don't think the NHS in a England isn't being privatised by stealth? You think it's safe in Tory hands?
I think you will be doing well to get a reply from THM never mind a balanced one 😉
Re the tories given they said they would not do any reforms to the NHS and they then did another top down reform at some considerable costs few would believe a word they say on the NHS but yes they have not said they would privatise the NHS. Personally i doubt the electorate would let them but some of them would like to try.
Ben basically the claim is he intervened to keep wards open in his constituency and this was a conflict of interest between him as a minister and as an MSP. He told them he wished it to stay open but then left the decision to another minister- the issue is whether he declared the conflict of interest
Scotland's ministerial code says that ministers taking decisions which affect their constituencies "should advise the permanent secretary" to ensure there is no "conflict of interest".
Mr Neil clung on to his job as health minister on Wednesday following a vote of no confidence which was backed by every opposition party in Holyrood but defeated thanks to an SNP majority.
I am not sure why he thinks thei means the NHS is not safe and I very much doubt we will ever get an explanation. He is flinging some mud and hoping it sticks basically - to be fair so are you Ben re them.
Basically I think we are in agreement that we dont really trust politicians to behave honourably or to tell the truth. Now on that point THM did you explain how the SNP were worse than UKIP? how are you marking that essay that makes that claim and then presents no evidence Teacher Sir?
To say that and then then attack the BBC for hyperbole was a beautiful piece of satire.
DP
You think it's safe in Tory hands?
And whats that got to do with independence?
By your own admission the NHS in Scotland is run separately from E&W under devolved powers, so [i]even[/i] if the Evil Tories did privatise it (which they won't) they can't privatise the Scottish NHS
Anyway, 4 years into their 5 year term the Evil Tories need to get a crack on with this mass sell off of the NHS that they were supposedly planning when they got into power, back when there was only 24 hours to save the NHS? I mean you would have thought they would make hay while the sun shined, and taken the opportunity to sell it when all those scandals came out about people dying in shit encrusted corridors under Labour, or when it came out that Andy Burnham had been covering up excess death rates in 14 NHS trusts - but no, it seems that it hasn't happened, it was all just another big old Labour scare story (project fear again!) and the one financial basketcase hospital that was put out to private (well, employee co-operative) contract has not only started to break even, but has just won an award as best hospital in the country - while at the same time NHS Scotland have been missing their targets and showed up for fiddling the figures by dropping people off the waiting list because they weren't willing to go to England for treatment 😆
Ben, - few pages back, I was criticised for highlighting the fact that the SNP had a track record of suppressing dissent that falsified the idea that Scottish policies were somehow above the normal skullduggery associated with "normal" politics. Several posters have suggested that there will be little change in this respect come a possible yes vote, and this has been rejected by yS supporters. That rejection in light of these two pieces of news above seems somewhat hasty. AS makes Mandleson look a mere novice in the dark arts.
The Scottish press has more details on Mr Neil than I will ever know! But for the rest of us are you arguing wholesale privatisation or privatisation by stealth?
(Sorry if you are hungry, but I simply don't waste time in feeding, you should have got that by now.....)
AS makes Mandleson look a mere novice in the dark arts.
More hyperbole THM more hyperbole
But for the rest of us are you arguing wholesale privatisation or privatisation by stealth?
Oh the irony of you asking questions- chuckles - call him a troll Ben 🙄
(Sorry if you are hungry, but I simply don't waste time in feeding, you should have got that by now.....)
Ernie asked you the same question - to explain your reasons. Is anyone who asks you to explain your astonishing irrational levels of hyperbole a troll? Its seems to me an easy way for you to avoid having to employ reason to your comments
Out of interest how would you mark the the answer when you challenged them to explain their thinking and they said just said troll?
Well teacher sir?
You cannot justify much of what you say therefore you dont even try and just do lame name calling/passive aggressive stuff.
I would assume - seeing as you reported duckman for his choice of words- you have reported me by now and I have had no correspondence. No one else accuses me of trolling you but you, lets see how you deal with that evidence.
I am attempting to hold your view to some sort of of reasonable/rational standard. You have the intelligence to not try to justify your more extreme outpourings to me or to ernie. If i was to say what it said about you character then you would call troll 😉
You know you cannot reasonably justify what you said hence i have to sit here being called a troll because you cannot apologise or defend your own utterances. On so many levels poor
FWIW i have agreed with you on many other threads - even the UKIP one till you said that - if i was trolling you i would attack everything you said rather than just the OTT stuff you say.
I have no idea what it is about this issue or SIr BS of Eck that leads you to this place where you just despise him and hate him and make outlandish claims about him and the SNP.
Several posters have suggested that there will be little change in this respect come a possible yes vote, and this has been rejected by yS supporters.
I am happy to accept that Scottish politicians can be as devious, duplicitous and deceptive as any at Westminster.
However, they are elected under a parliamentary system which makes them much more accountable, and much easier to remove. The SNP majority is an aberration - it's likely that most Scottish governments will be coalitions.
To repeat what's been said many times - independence isn't about this politician or that, it's not about the next election or the next year. It's about the next 10, 50, 100 years. It's about changing the system, not worrying about the individual players.
Well I hope you are correct Ben.
To repeat what's been said many times - independence isn't about this politician or that, it's not about the next election or the next year. It's about the next 10, 50, 100 years. It's about changing the system, not worrying about the individual players.
Two hours earlier:
So you don't think the NHS in a England isn't being privatised by stealth? You think it's safe in Tory hands?
It's perfectly possible to be both worried about current events, and step back to look at the bigger picture.
You mean your long term 'changing the system' hundred year plan, is flexible long as you can keep playing project fear with the Evil Tory bogeyman 😆
Face it, half the Yes campaign has been old fashioned PW's throwing their dollies out the pram because they didn't get the result they wanted in the general election!
The IPO market looks a little soggy.
It didn't stop the privatisation of the Royal Mail.
the Evil Tory bogeyman
After independence I'm sure we'll have our own Evil Tories - and they might even do better than at present.
Face it, half the Yes campaign has been old fashioned PW's throwing their dollies out the pram because they didn't get the result they wanted in the general election!
If I knew what a PW was I could comment. Making up acronyms which no-one else understands - are you sure you're not THM?
If they call you a troll for asking you will have your answer 😉
konabunny - Member
It didn't stop the privatisation of the Royal Mail.
But things were cheaper then!
Glad I avoided saga and quite a few now being pulled.
Ben. - I am struggling with PW too 😉
Todays herald says treasury figures over estimate cost of setting up independent govt by 650%
New 'milestone' Treasury scare story doesn't add up
Westminster exaggerates cost of setting up indy Scotland ... by 650%
Sunday 25 May 2014
ALEX Salmond last night demanded that the Treasury withdraw a "deeply flawed and deeply misleading" claim that an independent Scotland would face an immediate bill of £2.7 billion to set up 180 massive Government departments.
The UK has only 24 Government departments.
So has the Herald got an early copy of the analysis?
5000 wow!
Ben. - I am struggling with PW too
Jfgi?
I did FGI, but didn't think it was Presbyterian Women or Poets & Writers.
No, they didn't say that, listen again - they said that you'd be back of the queue with the other foreigners on the waiting list, not that you wouldn't be able to have treatment in the rUK
If you think that people who have non-NHS funded treatment are at the back of the queue you're sadly mistaken.
Wan that's right, Scots that can afford private treatment in the UK will still be able to jump the queue. Scots that can't afford private treatment will not be able to and will miss out on the specialist treatment that is only available in the UK.
You've not thought that one through.
Enlighten me then.
He who knows others is wise. He who knows himself is enlightened.
Wan that's right, Scots that can afford private treatment in the UK will still be able to jump the queue. Scots that can't afford private treatment will not be able to and will miss out on the specialist treatment that is only available in the UK.
Care to name a treatment that is only available in the non-Scottish part of the UK and nowhere else on the planet?
The difference is that those treatments are currently available to all Scots free of charge. It won't be the case after independence.
Free at the point of use you mean and Scotland NHS will still be paying - assuming what ben said was true [ I dont know if this is true but I know is is funded separately]
has the Herald got an early copy of the analysis?
Their plan is to just make statements and then call anyone who asks for an explanation a troll 😉
The difference is that those treatments are currently available to all Scots free of charge. It won't be the case after independence.
You clearly have no idea how the NHS is funded, so it's probably best not to engage you in debate in the subject.
Nobody said this is a debate Wan. If you know something I don't on the subject please share it with me. My understanding is that if Scotland becomes independent then Scots will no longer have free access to specialist NHS services in the UK.
Your understanding is incorrect.
The NHS is free at the point of use. This is not the same as saying it is free. The NHS is not free.
Lets take an example from the current set up. NHS Scotland pays for a block of heart, heart/lung and lung transplants at the Newcastle Freeman Hospital, why would that change after independence? Republic of Ireland, Russia and several other countries have similar agreements. Would those departments remain open if they did not have the increased demand for operations from outwith England? Possibly not.
NHS Scotland also pays for patients to go abroad for Proton Beam Therapy. So there is already a clear pathway in place for people to get treatment outside of Scotland and indeed the UK and have it paid for by NHS Scotland.
The other side of this is that in 2011 although there were 7500 patient referrals to services in England by NHS Scotland there were over 5200 referrals by NHS England to services in Scotland. Why would independence change that or make life worse/harder for patients.
In my experience of tertiary care units you cant tell who is a private or NHS patient as they use the same facilities, same doctors and same AHPs and nurses.
The claim* is currently NHS scotland pays for it- ie the treatment if a scottish national elsewhere in the NHS
So it depends how you look the scottish person gets it for free but scotland pays for it
*I do not know if this claim is true
[i]Why would independence change that or make life worse/harder for patients. [/i]
Independence would change that or is healthcare being added to the long list of things that we will be sharing? Next you will be arguing that the NHS is an asset. What part of independence and standing on your own two feet do Nats not get? I think we will mark this one down as a win for the better together campaign.
Scotland is considering becoming independent, not turning into a North Korea of the West.
Can you explain how independence would change the "that" you refer to above?
is healthcare being added to the long list of things that we will be sharing?
At present, NHS Scotland pays for patients to use facilities south of the border. After independence, NHS Scotland will pay for patients to use facilities south of the border. Can you explain why this will change?
Independent means going it alone, if Scotland goes it alone then I wish all Scots good luck. The UK does not have any reciprocal healthcare agreements with other foreign countries so there is no reason why we should have one with an iScotland.
Oh and I was referring to the "that" in your original comment. 🙂
NHS England doesn't have reciprocal agreements with NHS Scotland at the moment - not in the way you seem to think. NHS England (and NHS Scotland) take patients from other countries, and charge to treat them. It's not free.
Ben you seem to be making a habit out of being wrong.
[url= http://www.nsd.scot.nhs.uk/%5C%5C/services/specialised/index.html ]Link[/url]
I now expect you to change the subject rather than admit you are wrong and that the argument for independence has been weakened, this is what you usually do anyway. 😉
Your link says "NSD funds services provided in England". Did you actually read your link?
The UK does not have any reciprocal healthcare agreements with other foreign countries so there is no reason why we should have one with an iScotland.
And also all states within the European Economic Area.
Are you trolling?
Exactly - it's not a free "you fix ours and we'll fix yours" deal, it's a service agreement where NHS Scotland pays for services provided by NHS England.
Now after independence it's theoretically possible that NHS England could decide they don't want our money any more - but since that might well lead to closing the services they'd be crazy to do so.
Ben you seemed to have missed "a contribution to the NHS England for Scottish access to highly specialist services which are provided on a [u]UK basis[/u]". An independent Scotland will no longer be in the UK so there will be no service agreement for treatment.
Wan, the non-EEA countries provide "urgent or immediate medical treatment" and not access to specialist services. You really should read what you post as evidence.
I think we will mark this one down as a win for the better together campaign.
In that case its not a win for the rUK education system 😕
The UK does not have any reciprocal healthcare agreements with other foreign countries so there is no reason why we should have one with an iScotland.
That was an even worse indictment of it and as shown is just factually incorrect
And then your link says
NDS* [ funds]a contribution to the NHS England for Scottish access to highly specialist services which are provided on a UK basis. Access is ensured through a service agreement.
Even your own link proves what they have said
Face palm
* Scotland health commissioner
So you think NHS England would either close these specialist services or find all the missing funding, rather than continuing to get funding from NHS Scotland?
You been on the sauce today?
An independent Scotland will no longer be in the UK so there will be no service agreement for treatment.
Erm, have a wee think about that sentence up there. Particularly the Scotland will no longer be in the United Kingdom part of it.
Wan, the non-EEA countries provide "urgent or immediate medical treatment" and not access to specialist services. You really should read what you post as evidence.
Typical of the "Please Gonnae No Leave Us Or We're Screwed" (TM) side of the debate. Trying to reframe the debate every time they are proven to be spouting nonsense.
The problem is if Scotland does not fund them then they NHS england has a budget short fall and issues with economies of scale , it is more expensive for rUK to provide less and they have to lose staff /beds/provision as well.
I suppose they could bite of their nose to spite their face but they have nothing to gain as it costs them money to do this and they lose staff
We would not have to lose staff due to already existing shortages in staff. [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10551257/NHS-hospitals-suffer-staffing-crisis-on-top-of-scandals.html ]Link[/url], if anything less patients from Scotland will be better for the UK. Are you saying the the UK is too wee and too poor to go it alone without Scotland?
The truth is that an iScotland will not be guaranteed the same level of access to healthcare that it currently gets as being part of the UK.
I suppose they could bite of their nose to spite their face but they have nothing to gain as it costs them money to do this and they lose staff
So, very similar to the "No To A Currency Union" standpoint that The Three Amigos are taking: "I suppose they could bite of their nose to spite their face but they have nothing to gain as it costs them money to do this and they lose stuff..."
The truth is that an iScotland will not be guaranteed the same level of access to healthcare that it currently gets as being part of the UK.
The same could be said of the rUK, given that the whole provisions of services thing is a two way street. The latest year that I could get figures for said that NHS Scotland spending on services provided by NHS England was 2008/9 and which claimed that the figure was around £8m for that year. Given that NHS Scotland has a budget of ~£12Bn, it's a mere inconsequential drop in the ocean and not something that I'll be worrying about should NHS Scotland have to pay private rates for those services (which it wouldn't given that it's not a single patient)
The staff shortages are mainly due to insufficient funding. Do you propose that the current staff in those specialist units take a pay cut - given that there would be a further reduction in funding following the withdrawal of Scottish funding input and staff don't work for free.We would not have to lose staff due to already existing shortages in staff.
Are you saying the the UK is too wee and too poor to go it alone without Scotland?
I meant what i said. It is your problem if you cannot do anything beyond create a straw man with it. I never said that
Thanks for a link unrelated to the topic in discussion - unless of course you wish to claim they are all rushing south to use the A & E departments or seek treatment in the hospitals that are [ and I quote] the centre of patient-care scandals.
They go south for specialist provision at say GOSH or other national centres of excellence.
If scotland does not pay for this then GOSH has less money coming in
therefore rUK/ GOSH has to do one of two things
1. Pay more money to keep the current provision- COSTS
2. Reduce numbers of staff but incur economies of scale costs - ie the hospital still has to be heated so it will have to either pay more than it does currently or reduce provision for rUK residents
I cannot really simplify it further as it is not really that complicated and both points are facts rather than opinion
If rUK choses to do this it costs rUK money as well as affecting iS - will they ? I do not know neither do you but it does not make any sense for either rUK or iS
]The truth is that an iScotland will not be guaranteed the same level of access to healthcare that it currently gets as being part of the UK.
you clearly mean in your opinion rather than it being a truth- it may happen it may not but as explained if it does the decision costs rUK money.
Wan the currency union makes a lot of sense to an iScotland and none to the UK.
Junkyard. [i]If scotland does not pay for this then GOSH has less money coming in therefore rUK/ GOSH has to do one of two things[/i]
Completely missing out the fact that it could go to NHS England for more money. As Wan stated it is not that many patients anyway. Good luck to building your own centres of Excellence.
I'd have thought there would still be trade in healthcare across the border, in much the same way there will be trade in all sorts of other things.
Completely missing out the fact that it could go to NHS England for more money.
😆 Good luck with that one.
Junkyard. If scotland does not pay for this then GOSH has less money coming in therefore rUK/ GOSH has to do one of two things
Completely missing out the fact that it could go to NHS England for more money. As Wan stated it is not that many patients anyway. Good luck to building your own centres of Excellence.
What you mean it would cost more? Shit i really wish i had thought of that one
FACE PALM
I still do not live in England - how many times do i need to say that one for you to get then?
Junkyard the NHS in the UK will not collapse without Scottish patients. The figures that Wan uses above show it to be £8 million in one year. That is peanuts for the NHS. You can repeat your mantra that the UK is too poor to live without Scotland as much as you want, I won't be believing you any time soon. You need to get your head around the fact that independence will mean additional costs for iScotland and the UK.
I have no problem with paying more to live in an independent Scotland. I'd happily pay a few % more in taxes to ensure that my country was run better.
Junkyard the NHS in the UK will not collapse without Scottish patients.
Who has claimed it would?
The figures that Wan uses above show it to be £8 million in one year. That is peanuts for the NHS.
Its not a great deal but it is a costs if rUK has to pay it rather than iS though. Have you realised this is a cost yet? Have i said it often enough for you to grasp?
You can repeat your mantra that the UK is too poor to live without Scotland as much as you want,
Straw man I never said that again who would claim that for either state?
Bizarre "debating" style to put it mildly
Junkyard the NHS in the UK will not collapse without Scottish patients.Who has claimed it would?
Wouldn't that be you with the statement below?
The problem is if Scotland does not fund them then they NHS england has a budget short fall and issues with economies of scale , it is more expensive for rUK to provide less and they have to lose staff /beds/provision as well.
I think you're confusing "collapse" with "costing more money".