Independence - how would you vote?

[Enigma]

I'd be interested to see the evidence. There could be a case for allowing doctor's surgeries to charge for GP appointments in certain circumstances. Short notice cancellations/no shows might be one area particularly suitable for this. I certainly don't think it's a "nasty" policy in the slightest. It's common practice for lots of countries seen as progressive and economically and socially advanced. Do you think that the £10 I was charged by my chiropodist every time I went to have my ingrown toenail treated was "nasty"? What about psychiatrists? Are they "nasty"? What about the charge that my NHS dentist levied for the updated x-ray of my teeth she took as part of my last check-up? Was that "nasty"? Is it "nasty" to charge for over-the-counter medicines, even if they're "necessary" to relieve pain? What are your criteria here?

I would absolutely agree on charging for no shows and short notice cancellations.

We have enough trouble getting people who need to seek medical attention going to see their GP without slapping on a fee. I just can't ideologically support a policy that charges for seeking medical help.

Excuse my short post but I have some glorious failure to watch and don't want to be posting about this and pay attention to it. I might come back with a longer one but, yeah, you put forward some great points but I think we should be providing as much healthcare to as many people as we realistically can.

[Ad Lib]

You know, if the English way is so great and wonderful for things like tuition fees and prescriptions, why do we get so much English muttering about freebies and subsidies?

I honestly struggle to think of three things that Ad Lib thinks we do better in Scotland than down south.

Local government electoral system, shinty, gardening programmes, property law, defamation laws, public access rights, whisky, football chants, scenery and golf courses immediately spring to mind.

[DAFC]

How did you rate Sarwar?

Thought he was ok, bit of a cheap stunt with the bill signing gesture but find it hard to judge when you've got someone on the other side talking over someone all the time.

Would like to see more of him before passing judgement.

[DAFC]

Well, now I'm not sure you were watching the same debate as everyone else.

She did it on question time also, dimbleby had to tell her to stop several times.

Terrible in public and perhaps a bit of a bully?

Talking louder and over people is a pet hate of mine, so maybe being a bit harsh.

I'm pro independence btw.

[Mr Rational]

[Ad Lib]

Thought he was ok, bit of a cheap stunt with the bill signing gesture but find it hard to judge when you've got someone on the other side talking over someone all the time.

Would like to see more of him before passing judgement.

Not even an unfair minded observer could have concluded that Sturgeon was the most unbearable participant in yesterday's debate. Even Alan Cochrane would hesitate before saying that.

[Mr.Bojangles]

Thought he was ok, bit of a cheap stunt with the bill signing gesture but find it hard to judge when you've got someone on the other side talking over someone all the time.

Would like to see more of him before passing judgement.

I suggest you rewatch it. Sarwar instigated all of that stuff. If Sturgeon had allowed him to completely ignore her questions and start ranting on about whatever tangent (and even calling it a tangent is stretching it) he wanted, she would have looked weak/scared/awed/whatever. She had to step in to try and make him answer ANYTHING.

The funniest thing was when he reading his script and accused her of not answering questions (in his best faux "I ain't no big city lawyer" manner) seconds after she had given a detailed answer about something.

[DAFC]

I found it really hard to watch along with her appearance on question time.

Maybe I have got it wrong but I just find whenever she's on the tele the debate always ends up in a farce and with her shouting the same thing over and over.

She just makes me want to switch off, which is a shame because having turned from anti independence to pro Indy after reading some of the well thought out and insightful posts on here I was looking for the snp to easily take down labour.

Maybe it's time for salmond to take control and put them in their place?

[xbl]

I didn't even watch the debate, and I know sarwar made a clusterfuck of it. Not that you would know from most of the media, which clearly decided that the debate never happened.

[Jamaldo]

I found it really hard to watch along with her appearance on question time.

Maybe I have got it wrong but I just find whenever she's on the tele the debate always ends up in a farce and with her shouting the same thing over and over.

She just makes me want to switch off, which is a shame because having turned from anti independence to pro Indy after reading some of the well thought out and insightful posts on here I was looking for the snp to easily take down labour.

Maybe it's time for salmond to take control and put them in their place?

She certainly isn't as good at debating as Salmond, then again I don't believe any other politician in the UK is.

She didn't need to be good last night. Sarwar was an absolute disaster, flashing irrelevant documents when the going got tough. I'd go as far as to say he had a meltdown live on air.

[jamesn]

I didn't even watch the debate, and I know sarwar made a clusterfuck of it. Not that you would know from most of the media, which clearly decided that the debate never happened.

Why don't you watch the debate? It's tragic TV instigated by Anas, but its on Youtube other sources you can access.

[AMMjag]

I don't disagree with you that we can cut the defence budget. I do, however, think that right here right now removing the Assad regime which has used chemical weapons against its own people is more important than universal healthcare free at every point of use in the UK.

An absolute embodiment of the skewed priorities of Westminster. Who cares about our own sick people and giving them easily accessible provisions for health care, we have to force a vote through Parliament, without substantial evidence, letting us throw missiles at a foreign country so we can install a more compliant regime and take the brown people's oil.

The immorality of Westminster's foreign policy is one of the main, of many, reasons why I'm voting Yes.

[lichtgilphead]

Why don't you watch the debate? It's tragic TV instigated by Anas, but its on Youtube other sources you can access.

XBL claims to be abroad at the moment. I suspect he's in St Vigeans, or maybe Arbirlot

[Davi3j]

Why is it better for society as a whole that rich people not have to pay for medicine at the point of use

can you define "rich people"???

thats quite a generalisation your using there

[lichtgilphead]

Now is £120 a year significant for those on low incomes not protected by income support? Sure. But that's an argument for broadening the exemption, not against the principle of the charge or the practice of any charge.

I'll pick up on this one point.

As soon as you broaden the exemption, you are effectively admitting that the principle is inequitable in the first place.

In addition, my understanding is that (in Scotland) when charges were made to the few that were not exempt, there was no enforcement whatsoever. No checks were made in the vast majority of cases to ensure that the exemption claimed was appropriate.

I believe that the same situation applies down south. As such, if I currently lived in England and was prescribed some medication, I could tick the "I've paid for my season ticket" box or the "I'm pregnant" box and would get my prescription for free, even though both would be lies and (in the second case) easily disprovable at a cursory glance.

Why are you championing a system that has no consistent formal enforcement regime and no body that is currently advocating some form of credible enforcement, especially as such enforcement would never be feasible on a cost recovery basis?

[~~~]

Sarwar seems to think he done very well during the debate last night

He really doesn't have the slightest clue, just another one in a long line of Westminster MP's that are out of touch with the Scottish people enjoying the gravy train.

[Apache Don]

Sarwar seems to think he done very well during the debate last night

He really doesn't have the slightest clue, just another one in a long line of Westminster MP's that are out of touch with the Scottish people enjoying the gravy train.

He was pish, couldn't answer a single question other than declaring Labour would abolish Bedroom tax. He'll get his baws booted for that.

[Baxter Parp]

I wouldn't fancy trying to live on the minimum wage at all. But if you're on a low income there's a decent chance you're entitled to help with prescription costs.

Really? In what way?

"Entitlement broadly follows Income Support rules to decide how much, if anything, you have to pay towards your health costs".

[xbl]

Why don't you watch the debate? It's tragic TV instigated by Anas, but its on Youtube other sources you can access.

Im a bit busy. Im back in scotland next week, so im looking forward to it on catchup!

[Ad Lib]

I'll pick up on this one point.

As soon as you broaden the exemption, you are effectively admitting that the principle is inequitable in the first place.

In addition, my understanding is that (in Scotland) when charges were made to the few that were not exempt, there was no enforcement whatsoever. No checks were made in the vast majority of cases to ensure that the exemption claimed was appropriate.

I believe that the same situation applies down south. As such, if I currently lived in England and was prescribed some medication, I could tick the "I've paid for my season ticket" box or the "I'm pregnant" box and would get my prescription for free, even though both would be lies and (in the second case) easily disprovable at a cursory glance.

Why are you championing a system that has no consistent formal enforcement regime and no body that is currently advocating some form of credible enforcement, especially as such enforcement would never be feasible on a cost recovery basis?

People should really learn to read my posts instead of responding based on things completely unrelated to them and points not argued by me.

1. I am not championing the English system.

2. I am not saying it is the most efficient or more efficient than the Scottish system.

3. I have passed no comment on the effectiveness of enforcement.

4. However, poor enforcement is not itself justification against a system.

So your last three paragraphs are completely irrelevant.

As to your first proper paragraph:

An acknowledgement that the exemption classes need to be broader is not a concession of the principle in the slightest. It is an acknowlegment that the specific boundaries that were drawn are not in the right place. You have provided no explanation for why this syllogism of yours follows. Probably because it doesn't.

Concession on where boundaries are drawn is not a concession against the principle of boundaries. Saying "putting the age of consent at 21 is too high" is not the same as saying "we should abolish the age of consent" nor is it a concession that the notion of an age of consent is inadequate for the purposes and values you are pursuing.