The political divide

[Cream Cheese]

7 hours ago, RedRob72 said:

 

Dodge a claim, that 'a huge percentage of English people' settle up here with the sole intention of sponging of the Scottish state!?

I've never heard so much pish in my life! Which set of statistics are you referring to?

 

^^^ Still dodging.

[NotThePars]

Not sure where you're trying to go with this point tbh Cream Cheese.

[kennysmassiveego]

14 hours ago, Fide said:

Then you'll be fully aware of the systematic dismantling of the NHS and what that means for Scotland's block grant?

Please expand on this statement 

[RedRob72]

^^^ Still dodging.

What am I dodging mate, show me which stats you are referring to, then I can perhaps try and respond, isn't that how it works?

Just share some real facts and data that back up your claim that a huge percentage of English people residing in Scotland are on the scrounge!?

You've reiterated your point more than once, so presumably you have the figures to hand that will validate your opinion?

[Fide]

28 minutes ago, kennysmassiveego said:

Please expand on this statement 

As just one example, English NHS Trusts have been turned into competitive marketplaces.  Nearly 40% of new NHS deal signed in 2015 were by private firms.  As a result, satisfaction in the NHS has plummeted by 10% since 2010, whereas in Scotland, where there is no such competitive market, satisfaction has went up 20% since 2005.

In addition you have the rest of the Health & Social Care Act removing the obligation for universal healthcare and a projected final PFI bill of over £300bn.

I think it's pretty plain to see that the NHS is being slowly privatised piece by piece. 

Not only will that have a knock on reduction on the Barnett formula, meaning we get less money, but if the English NHS goes fully private, we, as part of the UK won't be too far behind.

If we want to keep an NHS in Scotland, so far as I see it, the only way is independence.  As for an NHS in Scotland being too expensive, the Commonwealth Fund said that the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world, with the US system ranking last on efficiency and cost.

[kennysmassiveego]

16 minutes ago, Fide said:

As just one example, English NHS Trusts have been turned into competitive marketplaces.  Nearly 40% of new NHS deal signed in 2015 were by private firms.  As a result, satisfaction in the NHS has plummeted by 10% since 2010, whereas in Scotland, where there is no such competitive market, satisfaction has went up 20% since 2005.

In addition you have the rest of the Health & Social Care Act removing the obligation for universal healthcare and a projected final PFI bill of over £300bn.

I think it's pretty plain to see that the NHS is being slowly privatised piece by piece. 

Not only will that have a knock on reduction on the Barnett formula, meaning we get less money, but if the English NHS goes fully private, we, as part of the UK won't be too far behind.

If we want to keep an NHS in Scotland, so far as I see it, the only way is independence.  As for an NHS in Scotland being too expensive, the Commonwealth Fund said that the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world, with the US system ranking last on efficiency and cost.

I believe that's what the Smith Commission was set up to prevent , part of that set out that the UK govt bears economic responsibility for its own policies and the risk of any shocks that this causes to the rest of the U.K. But equally Scotland bears its own economic responsibility for the decisions it makes about its devolved spending , in this case health/welfare . There is also a no detriment clause inserted on the block grants.

As I stated earlier competitive tendering when introduced was meant to free up more money to be spent on the frontline services but it went on unchecked and unaudited for several years which led to abuse. PFI was another attempt at a major facelift but as usual the govt was outwitted by big business and the contracts were more about profit than providing healthcare. For example Cumnocks community hospital was meant to have a much needed primary and secondary care  dental units which was blocked by the "owners" of the hospital as it wouldn't produce enough profits neither AAHB or Edinburgh prevented this 

The NHS is rightly revered around the world but it depends upon which criteria you wish to base that on . Best for free at the point of delivery ... Most certainly although Cuba in the 80s/90,s was up there too.

 

[renton]

2 hours ago, kennysmassiveego said:

I believe that's what the Smith Commission was set up to prevent , part of that set out that the UK govt bears economic responsibility for its own policies and the risk of any shocks that this causes to the rest of the U.K. But equally Scotland bears its own economic responsibility for the decisions it makes about its devolved spending , in this case health/welfare . There is also a no detriment clause inserted on the block grants.

As I stated earlier competitive tendering when introduced was meant to free up more money to be spent on the frontline services but it went on unchecked and unaudited for several years which led to abuse. PFI was another attempt at a major facelift but as usual the govt was outwitted by big business and the contracts were more about profit than providing healthcare. For example Cumnocks community hospital was meant to have a much needed primary and secondary care  dental units which was blocked by the "owners" of the hospital as it wouldn't produce enough profits neither AAHB or Edinburgh prevented this 

The NHS is rightly revered around the world but it depends upon which criteria you wish to base that on . Best for free at the point of delivery ... Most certainly although Cuba in the 80s/90,s was up there too.

 

Bare in mind the No detriment clause is an unworkable mess.

[Fide]

14 hours ago, kennysmassiveego said:

I believe that's what the Smith Commission was set up to prevent , part of that set out that the UK govt bears economic responsibility for its own policies and the risk of any shocks that this causes to the rest of the U.K. But equally Scotland bears its own economic responsibility for the decisions it makes about its devolved spending , in this case health/welfare . There is also a no detriment clause inserted on the block grants.

As I stated earlier competitive tendering when introduced was meant to free up more money to be spent on the frontline services but it went on unchecked and unaudited for several years which led to abuse. PFI was another attempt at a major facelift but as usual the govt was outwitted by big business and the contracts were more about profit than providing healthcare. For example Cumnocks community hospital was meant to have a much needed primary and secondary care  dental units which was blocked by the "owners" of the hospital as it wouldn't produce enough profits neither AAHB or Edinburgh prevented this 

The NHS is rightly revered around the world but it depends upon which criteria you wish to base that on . Best for free at the point of delivery ... Most certainly although Cuba in the 80s/90,s was up there too.

 

So essentially what you're saying is, you can't answer the points I raised? Righty ho.

[kennysmassiveego]

7 hours ago, Fide said:

So essentially what you're saying is, you can't answer the points I raised? Righty ho.

I fear you're misinterpreting my post 

Do you agree that Scotland has full autonomy over its health services ?

If so then my 1st paragraph adequately covers your fears. When we have greater tax raising powers perhaps the Govt of the day will spend it more wisely .

As for your statistics as Twain said lies , damned lies etc etc 

'there is a Kings Fund report that there has been no change in satisfaction rates since 2000 apart from a slight fall and satisfaction rates in Engalnd are higher than in Scotland . Go figure .

As with all surveys on the general public there are so many variables that renders them meaningless half the time unless the sample size is large enough to negate statistically significant differences.

[Fide]

7 minutes ago, kennysmassiveego said:

I fear you're misinterpreting my post 

Do you agree that Scotland has full autonomy over its health services ?

If so then my 1st paragraph adequately covers your fears. When we have greater tax raising powers perhaps the Govt of the day will spend it more wisely .

As for your statistics as Twain said lies , damned lies etc etc 

'there is a Kings Fund report that there has been no change in satisfaction rates since 2000 apart from a slight fall and satisfaction rates in Engalnd are higher than in Scotland . Go figure .

As with all surveys on the general public there are so many variables that renders them meaningless half the time unless the sample size is large enough to negate statistically significant differences.

Scotland does indeed have full autonomy over the NHS, yes, but crucially Westminster holds the purse strings.

If the NHS in England continues to be privatised, this WILL have a knock on effect on the Barnett formula.

Never mind meagre tax raising powers, the only way to protect our NHS is to be fully in control of ALL the levers.  Surely you can see this?

[Gordon EF]

On 25/07/2016 at 22:58, kennysmassiveego said:

How much of your countries GDP do you spend  on health ? We currently spend approximately 6% which is about 13bn in Scotland yet there are still staff shortages for many positions in both the primary and secondary care services. This is due to many localised and national problems too complicated to go into here but dissatisfaction with the administration in Edinburgh is a large one. The fact that the Scottish govt didn't increase its spending when it had full autonomy to do so I think wrangled with some professionals I can't remember if this was in any manifesto so can't comment further.

How far behind are we ? Well the standard answer is look to Scandinavia , Sweden spends just over 9% of its GDP on health and is based on a national/regional/local basis but as many will know the tax rates there are much higher than ours and to match it would need a rise across the income tax brackets by approximately 12% as a 1% rise raises 500million . To clarify Scotlands GDP =220bn 9% = 19.8bn difference = 6bn It's my belief that the decimation of labour at the polls was in no small part due to its proposed 1% tax rise .We could of course use the Trident money if independent but as this is only 1bn there will be a considerable shortfall 

How do you fix or improve it ? its such a behemoth and its ingrained in the psyche of the people of the U.K.that for any govt to attempt to alter it majorly would be political suicide.  Major introducing market forces and tendering and Blairs PFI's although helping to increase funding were not universally welcomed . So we go back to central funding .Can Scotland afford it ? You could tinker around the edges with the " lets employ fewer managers " but there are studies to show that actually more managers equates to bigger savings , difficult to comprehend but true . There are lots of local initiatives that give great value to health boards but as with all large administrations little empires are to be protected even at the expense of an issue like healthcare 

At the end of last year when there was the crisis in the A/E depts with a large increase in patient numbers ,the Scottiish govt made 65m available to meet this. Its origin ? The U.K. Govt 

These are my simplistic views on this matter and I'm happy to debate sensibly 

. 

Thanks for the reply.

Isn't the reality that neither Scotland nor the UK can actually 'afford' what we're spending at the moment. The UK govt borrows money to cover current spending. So the £65m you mention didn't really come from the UK govt, it came from whoever loaned that money to the UK govt.

I'm still struggling to see how anything you mention really relates to independence. The argument about how much money do you spend on the health and what do you get for it is pretty universal. You could just say 'How will an independent Scotland afford it?' You could also say 'How will the UK afford it?' and the same conclusions would follow.

I take your point that health spending has risen faster in rUK than in Scotland as a counter to the 'vote Yes to save the NHS' line. But I wonder how much of that extra spending in England is going to cover PFI payments etc? Staff satisfaction can't really be held up as something to beat the Scottish govt with when the UK govt's relationship with NHS staff must be at one of it's lowest points ever?

[RedRob72]

The fact that we spend 6% of GDP on Health, less than many of our European neighbours doesn't highlight that almost 90% of that comes from the public purse, far more than Germany and France for example. Imagine the outcry if the Government announced that an additional £10 Billion was going into the Healthcare budget next year but it all of it was going to come from external funding? The cries of backdoor privatisation would be deafening. Other countries seem to manage perfectly well with a jointly funded model that delivers a high quality, efficient health service, Why can't we?

[Cream Cheese]

The Scottish Government has control over the health services. They don't however have control over the total level of block grant that is received. The more privatization that takes place in England, the less Scotland will receive through the block grant, despite contributing the same level of tax revenue to rUK.

Sure, they could still choose to contribute the same level of funding to the NHS, but with a severely reduced block grant, they would need to make devastating cuts elsewhere, or increase taxes in order to fund it.

Under the current anti-progressive tax system, the Scottish Government wouldn't be able to raise taxes on the better offs, without raising taxes on the working poor as well. 

[Cream Cheese]

56 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

The fact that we spend 6% of GDP on Health, less than many of our European neighbours doesn't highlight that almost 90% of that comes from the public purse, far more than Germany and France for example. Imagine the outcry if the Government announced that an additional £10 Billion was going into the Healthcare budget next year but it all of it was going to come from external funding? The cries of backdoor privatisation would be deafening. Other countries seem to manage perfectly well with a jointly funded model that delivers a high quality, efficient health service, Why can't we?

The Government (tax payer) is subsidizing the private sectors as well, because they are not being adequately funded. A company steps in, buys up a sector, then hikes up the cost of that sectors services. They then severely under fund that sector, forcing the Government to step in and fund those services which were considerably cheaper in government hands to begin with. It's an absolute farce and it's only going to get worse over time. The semi-NHS will not hold out much longer at the rate this is going.

[kennysmassiveego]

12 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Thanks for the reply.

Isn't the reality that neither Scotland nor the UK can actually 'afford' what we're spending at the moment. The UK govt borrows money to cover current spending. So the £65m you mention didn't really come from the UK govt, it came from whoever loaned that money to the UK govt.

I'm still struggling to see how anything you mention really relates to independence. The argument about how much money do you spend on the health and what do you get for it is pretty universal. You could just say 'How will an independent Scotland afford it?' You could also say 'How will the UK afford it?' and the same conclusions would follow.

I take your point that health spending has risen faster in rUK than in Scotland as a counter to the 'vote Yes to save the NHS' line. But I wonder how much of that extra spending in England is going to cover PFI payments etc? Staff satisfaction can't really be held up as something to beat the Scottish govt with when the UK govt's relationship with NHS staff must be at one of it's lowest points ever?

Thank you for your comments 

Health spending by any govt is always a very sensitive issue and all too often is used by political parties to beat each other up with claim and counter claim that to the general public is irrelevant . The main thrust of my argument is that several Scottish govts have had the opportunity to radically alter the NHS as it is run here and apart from tinkering around the edges they've failed to make significant improvements . Yes there are some out there , free prescriptions eye and dental check ups but all that this has done is remove money from the pharmacy/optical/dental budgets to spend on more essential and prioritised services, and in the case of dentistry and opticians this has lead to them withdrawing treatments that they are willing to carry out on the NHS . Backdoor privatisation by the SNP govt ?

PFI was in principle a good idea , company builds health centres and hospitals rents them back to the NHS , NHS diverts capital spending to front line, simple . Again for many reasons it failed and yes PFI payments agreed when times were good and there was govts promising increased expenditure are now weighing heavy on budgets . These won't go away with independence.There was talk of a rUK governmental body looking into buying these buildings back though 

The Kings Fund survey looked at the publics level of satisfaction with the NHS . As mentioned previously there will be a survey that will fit your argument somewhere. A colleague told me of a survey undertaken at 1 hospital , same conditions , the union members response was significantly different from the non union members .

Its my opinion that the NHS would be better served within the union due to the back ups and support available from a united UK there are no guarantees with independence that we could support a similar set up . No one can give cast iron assurances that it would improve with independence all they can do is speculate . I am one of the NHS,s biggest fans it has given me a good standard of life and will continue to do so in my retirement. Why should I risk this ?

[RedRob72]

The Government (tax payer) is subsidizing the private sectors as well, because they are not being adequately funded. A company steps in, buys up a sector, then hikes up the cost of that sectors services. They then severely under fund that sector, forcing the Government to step in and fund those services which were considerably cheaper in government hands to begin with. It's an absolute farce and it's only going to get worse over time. The semi-NHS will not hold out much longer at the rate this is going.

Particularly with all the f*ckin scroungers and spongers from England coming up here and using OUR services eh!?

[1320Lichtie]

Particularly with all the f*ckin scroungers and spongers from England coming up here and using OUR services eh!?

State of you

[Cream Cheese]

18 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

Particularly with all the f*ckin scroungers and spongers from England coming up here and using OUR services eh!?

Well there's that as well. Good shout.

[Fide]

1 hour ago, kennysmassiveego said:

Thank you for your comments 

 

And yet no reply to my post? Telling.

[NotThePars]

There's probably good arguments in favour of a joint private-public partnership that exists firstly to benefit people but would you say that the UK culturally is able to produce one? Our politicians constantly call the country "Great Britain PLC" and talk about us being "open for business". It's not people's wellbeing and health that private investors and the politicians supporting it are interested in but making money and tons of it.