Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6

[mcdjl]

Edinburger said:

Just to pick up on a point from ages ago: I explained why the Scottish Government decided to scrap prescription charges and that the vast majority of prescriptions in Scotland were 'free' anyway, for the known reasons.

Some of you mocked this and some didn't believe me - we'll surprise, surprise, 90% of English prescriptions aren't chargeable either!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30622544

The last time I went to the doctor I was offered a prescription or told that I could buy whatever it was fun the pharmacy for a tenth of the cost without it. A lot of prescriptions are the same apparently so some of those old folks and their free paracetamol cost the nhs a fortune buying them at £5 a free pack!

[HenryJM]

mcdjl said:

The last time I went to the doctor I was offered a prescription or told that I could buy whatever it was fun the pharmacy for a tenth of the cost without it. A lot of prescriptions are the same apparently so some of those old folks and their free paracetamol cost the nhs a fortune buying them at £5 a free pack!

Well, the item costs whatever it costs them, the issue is only whether the person pays £5 if they are are able to buy this item for less on the item country. Not sure what the issue is there.

[///ajd]

http://m.scotsman.com/news/uk/scots-snouts-in-the-...

interesting that is was 'evil thatch' that blocked the cuts.

i think this part still appears true:

"He told Mrs Thatcher:
'The Scottish opinion polls don’t suggest that the Government is getting any credit for this high spending.'
But the papers also show attempts to cut the Scottish block grant were personally vetoed by the Prime Minister."

[mcdjl]

HenryJM said:

Well, the item costs whatever it costs them, the issue is only whether the person pays £5 if they are are able to buy this item for less on the item country. Not sure what the issue is there.

It was a few years back, but the doctor/ pharmacist vaguely told me about the cost of along whatever in bulk to the bus didn't work out cheaper than the shelf price, then the admin costs of the prescription etc just added up on top. For people paying for the prescription, then on some items e.g. paracetamol, the nhs makes money, but where they get free prescriptions it costs the tax payer a lot more.

[///ajd]

http://www.visitscotland.com/about/history/timelin...

I'm sure tourists to Scotland can't wait to find out about important events in Scottish history, such as:

1945 first SNP (for 3 months until they had a proper election)

1980s thatcher oppressing scotland & closing its industry
(but it boosts the independence movement)

2014 A referendum on Scottish independence is held, with 55 percent of the electorate voting to remain part of the UK
(you can sense the gritted teeth as this was reluctantly bashed out on the keyboard in the most unflattering way)

Presumably the creation of the NHS and welfare state are not notable events.

[Edinburger]

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Green means in favour of independence.

As it's panto season - oh no it doesn't!

And well you know it

I know that the constituencies who voted red, something like 28 of them, all voted against independence. 4 favoured in favour.

That graph shows it, it even shows you the ones in red that were more anti it than others.

So why do you call it a 'Panto season'? Why do you think it does anything other than the reflect of the results?

It was a national referendum therefore the constituencies are utterly irrelevant.

Only two numbers are significant - and that's 55% and 45%. The TV coverage only showed the constituencies for visual effect as constituency vote counts were published seperately, but as soon as the final counts were confirmed and published that map is of no relevance whatsoever. Apart from people like you who think it's funny/interesting/effective/whatever.

[Edinburger]

Wombat3 said:

Edinburger said:

Surprise, surprise...as also discussed.,,

Newly-released cabinet papers from Margaret Thatcher's time in power have confirmed that then Scottish Secretary George Younger pushed for the poll tax to be introduced early in Scotland.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-pol...

Correct because (IIRC) there was an impending rate rise due in Scotland which would in itself have been highly unpopular (though that does not mean unwarranted or unfair).

At the same time there has never been any suggestion or evidence to suggest that the roll out of the community charge in the rest of the UK was in any way dependent upon what happened in Scotland. It was always going to be introduced across the country as indeed it was. Scotland just went first. So what?

Therefore the fact that Scotland got it a year early is a complete non issue, a red herring and a MASSIVE case of playing the victim card (as usual).

Edited by Wombat3 on Tuesday 30th December 01:48

Oh yeah? From the article: Mr Younger was "extremely keen to use Scotland as a trail blazer for the pure residence charge".

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

Just to pick up on a point from ages ago: I explained why the Scottish Government decided to scrap prescription charges and that the vast majority of prescriptions in Scotland were 'free' anyway, for the known reasons.

Some of you mocked this and some didn't believe me - we'll surprise, surprise, 90% of English prescriptions aren't chargeable either!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30622544

Thanks burger, but that just supports the argument that has been made. I may not like the england system, but it is arguably a fairer and better way to spend limited money. Only those who can afford to pay have to in england; for the young, old and poor it is FREE in england. The money the rich pay is used to support & improve other services, like a rich tax to help the poor.

This is why the free prescriptions are a political stunt in scotland; basically free for all sounds good, but all they are doing are giving free prescriptions to the rich/millionaires, who can afford to pay and support the poorer. In many ways the england system is closer to the 'lets support the poor better' rhetoric pushed by the SNP. That is the sickening hypocrisy - they blame westminster while ACTIVELY diverting funds from the poor themselves, by choice! To add illness to injury they are helped in doing it by the Barnett formula which is NOT intended to cover such addition policy cost - the Barnett is for reasonable extra costs due to geography etc. not for political vanity. In my view the SNP are therefore misappropriating the block grant to drive a wedge between us in the UK. It is a fraud against all UK taxpayers.

The resentment this causes in the rUK is great for the SNP as one of their objectives is to foster ill feeling. It is why it is important they get pasted at the 2015 election if Scots value the union.

Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 30th December 07:55

It's not a political stunt. It's a common-sense approach. It' may be scrapped in England at some point but 10% of 53m people is a lot more than 10% of 5m people and so is les affordable.

[Edinburger]

mcdjl said:

Edinburger said:

Just to pick up on a point from ages ago: I explained why the Scottish Government decided to scrap prescription charges and that the vast majority of prescriptions in Scotland were 'free' anyway, for the known reasons.

Some of you mocked this and some didn't believe me - we'll surprise, surprise, 90% of English prescriptions aren't chargeable either!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30622544

The last time I went to the doctor I was offered a prescription or told that I could buy whatever it was fun the pharmacy for a tenth of the cost without it. A lot of prescriptions are the same apparently so some of those old folks and their free paracetamol cost the nhs a fortune buying them at £5 a free pack!

That's true and a decent GP and a decent pharmacists will explain that, but the NHS isn't buying/dispensing them at £5 a free pack!means it's costing the

[HarryW]

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Green means in favour of independence.

As it's panto season - oh no it doesn't!

And well you know it

I know that the constituencies who voted red, something like 28 of them, all voted against independence. 4 favoured in favour.

That graph shows it, it even shows you the ones in red that were more anti it than others.

So why do you call it a 'Panto season'? Why do you think it does anything other than the reflect of the results?

It was a national referendum therefore the constituencies are utterly irrelevant.

Only two numbers are significant - and that's 55% and 45%. The TV coverage only showed the constituencies for visual effect as constituency vote counts were published seperately, but as soon as the final counts were confirmed and published that map is of no relevance whatsoever. Apart from people like you who think it's funny/interesting/effective/whatever.

True, but it does paint a picture of the spread of the notion of independence, which seems to mainly be Glasgow centric. Perhaps that may be a catalyst in the future when it is realised that the SNP really want to transfer fron a presupposed London centric influenced government to a Glasgow based one. Perhaps the graphic is inconvenient to some...

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

Just to pick up on a point from ages ago: I explained why the Scottish Government decided to scrap prescription charges and that the vast majority of prescriptions in Scotland were 'free' anyway, for the known reasons.

Some of you mocked this and some didn't believe me - we'll surprise, surprise, 90% of English prescriptions aren't chargeable either!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30622544

Thanks burger, but that just supports the argument that has been made. I may not like the england system, but it is arguably a fairer and better way to spend limited money. Only those who can afford to pay have to in england; for the young, old and poor it is FREE in england. The money the rich pay is used to support & improve other services, like a rich tax to help the poor.

This is why the free prescriptions are a political stunt in scotland; basically free for all sounds good, but all they are doing are giving free prescriptions to the rich/millionaires, who can afford to pay and support the poorer. In many ways the england system is closer to the 'lets support the poor better' rhetoric pushed by the SNP. That is the sickening hypocrisy - they blame westminster while ACTIVELY diverting funds from the poor themselves, by choice! To add illness to injury they are helped in doing it by the Barnett formula which is NOT intended to cover such addition policy cost - the Barnett is for reasonable extra costs due to geography etc. not for political vanity. In my view the SNP are therefore misappropriating the block grant to drive a wedge between us in the UK. It is a fraud against all UK taxpayers.

The resentment this causes in the rUK is great for the SNP as one of their objectives is to foster ill feeling. It is why it is important they get pasted at the 2015 election if Scots value the union.

Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 30th December 07:55

It's not a political stunt. It's a common-sense approach. It' may be scrapped in England at some point but 10% of 53m people is a lot more than 10% of 5m people and so is les affordable.

You can't be serious surely? Whether it is 10% of 5 or 53M is irrelevant as the burden is proportional to the overall population. So in theory it is just as (un)affordable in all areas of the UK - UNLESS you penalise other services (e.g. that you could spend on the poor instead of those who can afford to pay for prescriptions), or get more than an average share of public spending (which could be argued to be unfair across the UK to use to offer 'better' services in one area over another).



I saw this. I sincerely hope the nurse fully recovers from this terrible virus, and this could be considered very poor taste, but the point made is inescapable over the benefits of the union in helping fight the battle against the disease.

Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 30th December 10:49

[Axionknight]

Does anybody else here have zero respect for Edinburger? He bleats in about independence constantly, and clearly argues in its favour, but he didn't even have the conviction to vote Yes.

Total joker of a man.

[Troubleatmill]

HenryJM said:

Green means in favour of independence.

While it is interesting to look at - it is meaningless for the rules of this referendum.
If you do not understand this -you need to ask a statistician to explain it to you.


If you want to show a meaningful graphic - then this is what you need.

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

http://www.visitscotland.com/about/history/timelin...

I'm sure tourists to Scotland can't wait to find out about important events in Scottish history, such as:

1945 first SNP (for 3 months until they had a proper election)

1980s thatcher oppressing scotland & closing its industry
(but it boosts the independence movement)

2014 A referendum on Scottish independence is held, with 55 percent of the electorate voting to remain part of the UK
(you can sense the gritted teeth as this was reluctantly bashed out on the keyboard in the most unflattering way)

Presumably the creation of the NHS and welfare state are not notable events.

Creation of the NHS and of the welfare state weren't Scottish events though.

[toppstuff]

Troubleatmill said:

While it is interesting to look at - it is meaningless for the rules of this referendum.
If you do not understand this -you need to ask a statistician to explain it to you.


If you want to show a meaningful graphic - then this is what you need.

Wow. So only 4/32 had a majority for Yes.

So why are we still having this conversation?

Why don't the Nats just shut up and accept that they have no mandate? The majority of Scottish people, 28 out of 32 regions, voted No. If that isn't a clear cut result, I don't know what is.

[///ajd]

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

http://www.visitscotland.com/about/history/timelin...

I'm sure tourists to Scotland can't wait to find out about important events in Scottish history, such as:

1945 first SNP (for 3 months until they had a proper election)

1980s thatcher oppressing scotland & closing its industry
(but it boosts the independence movement)

2014 A referendum on Scottish independence is held, with 55 percent of the electorate voting to remain part of the UK
(you can sense the gritted teeth as this was reluctantly bashed out on the keyboard in the most unflattering way)

Presumably the creation of the NHS and welfare state are not notable events.

Creation of the NHS and of the welfare state weren't Scottish events though.

Wasn't their creation a fantastic event in Scotland, still revered as a principle around the world?
If that is not worth mentioning, why on earth bore a foreign visitor with a short lived UK wide change in tax legislation that just happened to be piloted in Scotland first?

The tourist board has been politicised in a most crass and shambolic way. In a way that tries to slag off wider Britain. It is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed, it is cringe worthy.




PS going by that chart, Orkney weren't very keen on SNP independence were they? Isn't that where all the oil is?

[Edinburger]

HarryW said:

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Edinburger said:

HenryJM said:

Green means in favour of independence.

As it's panto season - oh no it doesn't!

And well you know it

I know that the constituencies who voted red, something like 28 of them, all voted against independence. 4 favoured in favour.

That graph shows it, it even shows you the ones in red that were more anti it than others.

So why do you call it a 'Panto season'? Why do you think it does anything other than the reflect of the results?

It was a national referendum therefore the constituencies are utterly irrelevant.

Only two numbers are significant - and that's 55% and 45%. The TV coverage only showed the constituencies for visual effect as constituency vote counts were published seperately, but as soon as the final counts were confirmed and published that map is of no relevance whatsoever. Apart from people like you who think it's funny/interesting/effective/whatever.

True, but it does paint a picture of the spread of the notion of independence, which seems to mainly be Glasgow centric. Perhaps that may be a catalyst in the future when it is realised that the SNP really want to transfer fron a presupposed London centric influenced government to a Glasgow based one. Perhaps the graphic is inconvenient to some...

That'll be interesting to academics and statisticians, but all that matters to the rest of us is that as it was a national referendum the only numbers with any significance are 55% and 45%.

[Edinburger]

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

///ajd said:

Edinburger said:

Just to pick up on a point from ages ago: I explained why the Scottish Government decided to scrap prescription charges and that the vast majority of prescriptions in Scotland were 'free' anyway, for the known reasons.

Some of you mocked this and some didn't believe me - we'll surprise, surprise, 90% of English prescriptions aren't chargeable either!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30622544

Thanks burger, but that just supports the argument that has been made. I may not like the england system, but it is arguably a fairer and better way to spend limited money. Only those who can afford to pay have to in england; for the young, old and poor it is FREE in england. The money the rich pay is used to support & improve other services, like a rich tax to help the poor.

This is why the free prescriptions are a political stunt in scotland; basically free for all sounds good, but all they are doing are giving free prescriptions to the rich/millionaires, who can afford to pay and support the poorer. In many ways the england system is closer to the 'lets support the poor better' rhetoric pushed by the SNP. That is the sickening hypocrisy - they blame westminster while ACTIVELY diverting funds from the poor themselves, by choice! To add illness to injury they are helped in doing it by the Barnett formula which is NOT intended to cover such addition policy cost - the Barnett is for reasonable extra costs due to geography etc. not for political vanity. In my view the SNP are therefore misappropriating the block grant to drive a wedge between us in the UK. It is a fraud against all UK taxpayers.

The resentment this causes in the rUK is great for the SNP as one of their objectives is to foster ill feeling. It is why it is important they get pasted at the 2015 election if Scots value the union.

Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 30th December 07:55

It's not a political stunt. It's a common-sense approach. It' may be scrapped in England at some point but 10% of 53m people is a lot more than 10% of 5m people and so is les affordable.

You can't be serious surely? Whether it is 10% of 5 or 53M is irrelevant as the burden is proportional to the overall population. So in theory it is just as (un)affordable in all areas of the UK - UNLESS you penalise other services (e.g. that you could spend on the poor instead of those who can afford to pay for prescriptions), or get more than an average share of public spending (which could be argued to be unfair across the UK to use to offer 'better' services in one area over another).



I saw this. I sincerely hope the nurse fully recovers from this terrible virus, and this could be considered very poor taste, but the point made is inescapable over the benefits of the union in helping fight the battle against the disease.

Edited by ///ajd on Tuesday 30th December 10:49

Oh, and just when I thought we were a United Kingdom too...?

If the specialist unit and staff are at that London hospital then that's where the patient should go regardless of whether she was moved from Glasgow, Derry, Rhyl or Newcastle.

My argument is that waiving prescription fees for 10% of patients is a good idea for all of the UK, and I've no doubt England will do that one day. That's all.

[Edinburger]

Axionknight said:

Does anybody else here have zero respect for Edinburger? He bleats in about independence constantly, and clearly argues in its favour, but he didn't even have the conviction to vote Yes.

Total joker of a man.

Seriously?

I'm not bleating on about independence or in it's favour. I think you're misunderstanding me.

Perhaps I'm defending my region

[Edinburger]

toppstuff said:

Troubleatmill said:

While it is interesting to look at - it is meaningless for the rules of this referendum.
If you do not understand this -you need to ask a statistician to explain it to you.


If you want to show a meaningful graphic - then this is what you need.

Wow. So only 4/32 had a majority for Yes.

So why are we still having this conversation?

Why don't the Nats just shut up and accept that they have no mandate? The majority of Scottish people, 28 out of 32 regions, voted No. If that isn't a clear cut result, I don't know what is.

It doesn't matter whether it was 4/32, 0/32 or 32/32 - all that matters are the 55% and 45% outcomes! The breakdown made good reporting at the time and is helpful for analysis. That is all.