Indy Ref 2

[lord bunberry]

Fear is the biggest obstacle. I really can't see where the opposition to independence starts and finishes. You're fighting a losing battle. Embrace the inevitable

[grunt]

I agree some city type jobs will go but to the ordinary man or woman on the streets when will they start to think that Brexit has been a disaster, only then will people maybe consider that another independence referendum is required. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/half-of-high-skilled-eu-workers-in-u-k-eye-leaving-study-says?utm_content=brexit&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-facebook-brexit

[Hibbyradge]

Support for independence remains as high as it has ever been if you trust opinion polls. The rest of your post seems wildly optimistic imo, but you're right as we don't know what brexit will mean.

The rest of my post isn't optimistic. It's a statement of fact, isn't it?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Fear is the biggest obstacle. I really can't see where the opposition to independence starts and finishes. You're fighting a losing battle. Embrace the inevitable

Ad long as people on the yes side think like this, it wont happen


How can you poasibly hope the assuage fears, calm nerves amd persuade people when you cant / wont understand what they are?

[lucky]

Fear is the biggest obstacle. I really can't see where the opposition to independence starts and finishes. You're fighting a losing battle. Embrace the inevitable

I don't accept it was fear of independence that gave no the victory. There are many different reasons for so many people. But the opposition started with the first no vote and ended with 55% of the population later. There is nothing certain in life except death and independence is moving further away than at any time in the last 10 years.

[steakbake]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-27/half-of-high-skilled-eu-workers-in-u-k-eye-leaving-study-says?utm_content=brexit&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-facebook-brexit

That's just EU nationals too - plenty of UK nationals in relationship or mobile jobs eyeing a move. Certainly something me and my partner have been talking about and other folks we know.

[High-On-Hibs]

You state a lot of unknowns as facts to suit your positions.

Are we meant to believe you can predict the direction of the pound or inflation with such certainty that you can state it is 'only going in one direction'. What? like forever?

Assuming some hyperbole and you are not actually claiming to know the direction of a currency forever, on what timescales has your crystal ball provided you with the information on? As from what I can see the pound has strengthened against the Dollar this year, which I assume wasn't the direction you were referring to...

And as for inflation, you had better give Carney a call and tell him your crystal ball is way better than his one because the BoE version is predicting inflation to fall in 2018 and 2019.

It's not a prediction, it's been happening since 2008. The pound has consistantly fell year on year. It's happening right now. Carney's job is to instil confidence in the markets, not to be honest.

[High-On-Hibs]

I don't accept it was fear of independence that gave no the victory. There are many different reasons for so many people. But the opposition started with the first no vote and ended with 55% of the population later. There is nothing certain in life except death and independence is moving further away than at any time in the last 10 years.

Except it isn't certain, because it's based on nothing other than your desire for that to be the case.

[CropleyWasGod]

It's not a prediction, it's been happening since 2008. The pound has consistantly fell year on year. It's happening right now. Carney's job is to instil confidence in the markets, not to be honest.

It hasn't actually.

Whilst it fell sharply after the crash in 2008, and fell again after the Brexit vote, in the intervening years it was fairly steady against the Dollar.


http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=10Y



And it's actually been climbing this year.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y

[marinello59]

Except it isn't certain, because it's based on nothing other than your desire for that to be the case.

Lucky is right. We lost the last time because we failed to make a strong enough case. Telling No voters that they only voted that way because they were scared will get us nowhere.

[Hibrandenburg]

It hasn't actually.

Whilst it fell sharply after the crash in 2008, and fell again after the Brexit vote, in the intervening years it was fairly steady against the Dollar.


http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=10Y



And it's actually been climbing this year.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y

Surely the £/€ value is much more important that the £/$ simply because the EU is by far our largest important/export market?

[CropleyWasGod]

Surely the £/€ value is much more important that the £/$ simply because the EU is by far our largest important/export market?

I used the $, because it's the normal standard by which currencies are judged.

However, against the Euro:-

10 years.... http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y

Shows the same fall after 2008, and then a gradual climb until the Brexit referendum campaign.

1 year..... http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=1Y

Up and down, with no obvious pattern.

[johnbc70]

Surely the £/€ value is much more important that the £/$ simply because the EU is by far our largest important/export market?

Is the rest of the UK not by far our biggest export market?

[RyeSloan]

It's not a prediction, it's been happening since 2008. The pound has consistantly fell year on year. It's happening right now. Carney's job is to instil confidence in the markets, not to be honest.

So to taking your position to its logical conclusion then: Your statement is not a prediction therefore you are telling us what with absolute certainty what will happen in the future.

That can only mean one thing...you don't have a crystal ball but a time machine!

[Hibrandenburg]

Is the rest of the UK not by far our biggest export market?

Yes but I guess the £/£ currency exchange has remained relatively stable over the last 300 years or so.

[High-On-Hibs]

It hasn't actually.

Whilst it fell sharply after the crash in 2008, and fell again after the Brexit vote, in the intervening years it was fairly steady against the Dollar.


http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=10Y



And it's actually been climbing this year.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y

Being steady with the dollar is irrelevant, seeing as the dollar has been falling as well.

[High-On-Hibs]

Lucky is right. We lost the last time because we failed to make a strong enough case. Telling No voters that they only voted that way because they were scared will get us nowhere.

You know, I often get asked to make a strong enough case for independence (usually by people where it wouldn't matter how strong the case was, they would find their own percieved flaws in it regardless). When I asked them to make a strong enough case for remaining in the UK while things continue to decay year on year, I never got one, not once.

If it wasn't because they were scared, then what was it really? Because their arguments for remaining part of the UK were pretty much non existent. The few arguments I did hear have now fallen to pieces in the space of 3 years. But that doesn't seem to matter a jot....

[CropleyWasGod]

Being steady with the dollar is irrelevant, seeing as the dollar has been falling as well.
And steady with the Euro, which is what I also posted.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[pacoluna]

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/views-from-the-nhs-frontline/2017/jul/03/snp-know-what-theyre-doing-health?CMP=share_btn_tw

[McD]

You know, I often get asked to make a strong enough case for independence (usually by people where it wouldn't matter how strong the case was, they would find their own percieved flaws in it regardless). When I asked them to make a strong enough case for remaining in the UK while things continue to decay year on year, I never got one, not once.

If it wasn't because they were scared, then what was it really? Because their arguments for remaining part of the UK were pretty much non existent. The few arguments I did hear have now fallen to pieces in the space of 3 years. But that doesn't seem to matter a jot....


First part - you're the one wanting to change the status quo.

Second part - another statement full of arrogance. Who are you to tell other people why they voted they way they did? Or does their democratic right to vote as they see fit "not matter a jot"?
Have you added mind reading to your ability to see the future, since you've already told us categorically what will happen to the pound in the future? Btw, what you have said is a prediction, because you cannot guarantee it will happen, no matter how much you try to spin in.

[ronaldo7]

First part - you're the one wanting to change the status quo.

Second part - another statement full of arrogance. Who are you to tell other people why they voted they way they did? Or does their democratic right to vote as they see fit "not matter a jot"?
Have you added mind reading to your ability to see the future, since you've already told us categorically what will happen to the pound in the future? Btw, what you have said is a prediction, because you cannot guarantee it will happen, no matter how much you try to spin in.

In fairness, the status quo is being changed for us.

[McD]

In fairness, the status quo is being changed for us.


I'd say that's a fair point.

I'm much more in favour of balanced, decent and respectful debate, from both sides, rather than the derogatory comments which only help foster division and acrimony.

You often bring passionate input from the independence side R7, amongst others, and there are others who bring similar passion to the table from 'no' side, which leads to insightful debate. It's in that arena that the discussion and debate will help inform and guide the electorate towards a population who are more able to deal constructively and productively with the challenges and decisions ahead.

[ronaldo7]

I'd say that's a fair point.

I'm much more in favour of balanced, decent and respectful debate, from both sides, rather than the derogatory comments which only help foster division and acrimony.

You often bring passionate input from the independence side R7, amongst others, and there are others who bring similar passion to the table from 'no' side, which leads to insightful debate. It's in that arena that the discussion and debate will help inform and guide the electorate towards a population who are more able to deal constructively and productively with the challenges and decisions ahead.

We can all get heated at times. We're Hibs fans after all.:aok:

[McD]

We can all get heated at times. We're Hibs fans after all.:aok:


Very true mate :aok:

(I was speaking in relative generalities, not just on here :greengrin, but totally agree, and it is a very emotive subject)

[pacoluna]

First part - you're the one wanting to change the status quo.

Second part - another statement full of arrogance. Who are you to tell other people why they voted they way they did? Or does their democratic right to vote as they see fit "not matter a jot"?
Have you added mind reading to your ability to see the future, since you've already told us categorically what will happen to the pound in the future? Btw, what you have said is a prediction, because you cannot guarantee it will happen, no matter how much you try to spin in.
What exactly is the status quo?
You probably find those who are debating are those who are not for changing no matter what the circumstances are.

[marinello59]

You know, I often get asked to make a strong enough case for independence (usually by people where it wouldn't matter how strong the case was, they would find their own percieved flaws in it regardless). When I asked them to make a strong enough case for remaining in the UK while things continue to decay year on year, I never got one, not once.

If it wasn't because they were scared, then what was it really? Because their arguments for remaining part of the UK were pretty much non existent. The few arguments I did hear have now fallen to pieces in the space of 3 years. But that doesn't seem to matter a jot....

We have to recognise that the No side have very valid reasons for wanting to remain in the U.K. The bigots on either side who refuse to respect or listen to the opinions of others only generate ineffectual noise. I'm sure you can agree with that.

[High-On-Hibs]

First part - you're the one wanting to change the status quo.

Second part - another statement full of arrogance. Who are you to tell other people why they voted they way they did? Or does their democratic right to vote as they see fit "not matter a jot"?
Have you added mind reading to your ability to see the future, since you've already told us categorically what will happen to the pound in the future? Btw, what you have said is a prediction, because you cannot guarantee it will happen, no matter how much you try to spin in.

Except it's not the "status quo". The UK is changing and not in a good way. There will be changes regardless of whether we stay or leave.

[High-On-Hibs]

We have to recognise that the No side have very valid reasons for wanting to remain in the U.K. The bigots on either side who refuse to respect or listen to the opinions of others only generate ineffectual noise. I'm sure you can agree with that.

I just want to know what those valid reasons are, because the only reasons that seemed loosely valid to me during the referendum at the time have been completely wiped out in the space of 3 years.

I recall being told that we had the "best of both worlds", the "strong arms of the UK economy" and that we were "equal members who would help lead the way forward". It sounded ridiculous to me then, but playing it back in my mind now just seems like a complete and utter insult.

[marinello59]

I just want to know what those valid reasons are, because the only reasons that seemed loosely valid to me during the referendum at the time have been completely wiped out in the space of 3 years.

I recall being told that we had the "best of both worlds", the "strong arms of the UK economy" and that we were "equal members who would help lead the way forward". It sounded ridiculous to me then, but playing it back in my mind now just seems like a complete and utter insult.

You have previously stated you have no respect for those who don't agree with your views so maybe you simply can't see the other side of an argument or just don't listen. In amongst all the noise during the referundum there was decent debate coming from both sides, not just soundbites.

[High-On-Hibs]

You have previously stated you have no respect for those who don't agree with your views so maybe you simply can't see the other side of an argument or just don't listen. In amongst all the noise during the referundum there was decent debate coming from both sides, not just soundbites.

I have never once stated that I don't have respect for people who don't agree with my views. I have however made it clear that I don't respect those who don't respect this country or it's culture. But I can see how that could easily be misconstrued.

Well I recieved nothing but soundbites, even from the official "Better Together" campaign.

[McD]

What exactly is the status quo?
You probably find those who are debating are those who are not for changing no matter what the circumstances are.


The status quo is being part of the United Kingdom.

'Probably find' - I'm glad youve brought along evidence then :confused:

as for those debating, you do realise I specifically mentioned people on both sides of the discussion?

[McD]

I just want to know what those valid reasons are, because the only reasons that seemed loosely valid to me during the referendum at the time have been completely wiped out in the space of 3 years.

I recall being told that we had the "best of both worlds", the "strong arms of the UK economy" and that we were "equal members who would help lead the way forward". It sounded ridiculous to me then, but playing it back in my mind now just seems like a complete and utter insult.


They don't need to be valid to you, only to the person casting their vote and having their opinion. just as your reasons don't need to be valid to them, but are equally important as they are valid to you.

[pacoluna]

The status quo is being part of the United Kingdom.

'Probably find' - I'm glad youve brought along evidence then :confused:

as for those debating, you do realise I specifically mentioned people on both sides of the discussion?
It's a wasted debate on those who are still happy with the status quo because let's face it the United Kingdom surely can't get any worse. It's the silent undecided that will determine our future, demographics, time and hope on our side.

[McD]

It's a wasted debate on those who are still happy with the status quo because let's face it the United Kingdom surely can't get any worse. It's the silent undecided that will determine our future, demographics, time and hope on our side.


Definitely agree with this mate :aok:

[marinello59]

It's a wasted debate on those who are still happy with the status quo because let's face it the United Kingdom surely can't get any worse. It's the silent undecided that will determine our future, demographics, time and hope on our side.

A wasted debate? And you want us to gain Independence? :confused:

[pacoluna]

A wasted debate? And you want us to gain Independence? :confused:

Yes it's a wasted debate when those who are debating are not for turning no matter what the circumstances. Independence will come in time through patience and a generational shift IMO.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes it's a wasted debate when those who are debating are not for turning no matter what the circumstances. Independence will come in time through patience and a generational shift IMO.
Surely that counts for both sides, no?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[High-On-Hibs]

Surely that counts for both sides, no?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I'd be willing to turn if I believed it was in the interests of Scotland. I don't however believe that remaining part of the UK is in our best interests. I've spoken to unionists who actually agree that it's not in Scotlands best interests either, but couldn't care less about that. As long as it's deemed better for the UK as a whole to remain an ignored member state.

[marinello59]

I'd be willing to turn if I believed it was in the interests of Scotland. I don't however believe that remaining part of the UK is in our best interests. I've spoken to unionists who actually agree that it's not in Scotlands best interests either, but couldn't care less about that. As long as it's deemed better for the UK as a whole to remain an ignI ored member state.

So the No campaign only consisted of three sound bites and the No voters who moved beyond them with you agree that Independence is the best option but couldn't care less about their personal circumstances and will happily vote for what they see as the worst option as long as it means they remain in an ignored state.
Looks like there is no need to campaign for a Yes vote, we are going to get a landslide by doing nowt. Happy days. :aok:

[High-On-Hibs]

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/20139662_907378756067083_8123179191567161106_n.jpg ?oh=81f39bbbc83ed9846e023b07d5decc0d&oe=5A0E8D05

[Hibrandenburg]

https://www.google.com.cy/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldier-lost-legs-amputee-afghanistan-nhs-england-treatment-scottish-ayr-bomb-blast-queen-a7864811.html%3famp

How's that Union of equal partners working out for us?

[lord bunberry]

https://www.google.com.cy/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldier-lost-legs-amputee-afghanistan-nhs-england-treatment-scottish-ayr-bomb-blast-queen-a7864811.html%3famp

How's that Union of equal partners working out for us?
That's just ridiculous. They should provide the care and claim the money back later. I can't see nhs
scotland bumping them.

[beensaidbefore]

That's just ridiculous. They should provide the care and claim the money back later. I can't see nhs
scotland bumping them.

Is this only because hes from another part of uk? Do we charge other eu countries for treating their citizens who are living and working here?

[Just Alf]

On phone so struggling with link but if it's what it looks like, I had trouble earlier this year trying to get a prescription I'd got from my qwack in Edinburgh "honoured" in London!... in the end resolved by the manager of the store (Boots) and it was seemingly a "jobsworth" type that had taken things too far.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

https://www.google.com.cy/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldier-lost-legs-amputee-afghanistan-nhs-england-treatment-scottish-ayr-bomb-blast-queen-a7864811.html%3famp

How's that Union of equal partners working out for us?


That's just ridiculous. They should provide the care and claim the money back later. I can't see nhs
scotland bumping them.


Is this only because hes from another part of uk? Do we charge other eu countries for treating their citizens who are living and working here?

Before this turns into something it isn't, folk should be aware that this happens within Scotland too. If I was a resident in Lothian and I needed this level of care and it meant being treated at the Southern General in Glasow for example, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde would recoup costs related to my treatment from NHS Lothian.

It's common practice and means that places that provide national levels of expertise aren't financially penalised.

[Hibrandenburg]

Before this turns into something it isn't, folk should be aware that this happens within Scotland too. If I was a resident in Lothian and I needed this level of care and it meant being treated at the Southern General in Glasow for example, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde would recoup costs related to my treatment from NHS Lothian.

It's common practice and means that places that provide national levels of expertise aren't financially penalised.

You're missing the point. This is a special NHS department staffed by military personnel specifically trained to treat British casualties of war and centrally funded. Either it's access for all or all the devolved regions should also get the same. Or are Scottish soldiers less British than their English comrades?

[beensaidbefore]

Before this turns into something it isn't, folk should be aware that this happens within Scotland too. If I was a resident in Lothian and I needed this level of care and it meant being treated at the Southern General in Glasow for example, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde would recoup costs related to my treatment from NHS Lothian.

It's common practice and means that places that provide national levels of expertise aren't financially penalised.

Cheers for clarifying up. Makes sense I suppose.

[beensaidbefore]

You're missing the point. This is a special NHS department staffed by military personnel specifically trained to treat British casualties of war and centrally funded. Either it's access for all or all the devolved regions should also get the same. Or are Scottish soldiers less British than their English comrades?


I also see your point. Especially if this is for armed forces. Shouldn't matter where in the UK you originate from or are registered to vote, if you've put your ass on the line and been injured you should get the best care possible, regardless of cost.

[Mibbes Aye]

You're missing the point. This is a special NHS department staffed by military personnel specifically trained to treat British casualties of war and centrally funded. Either it's access for all or all the devolved regions should also get the same. Or are Scottish soldiers less British than their English comrades?

I think you're wrong and you've not read your article properly.

All NHS services are 'centrally funded' in theory, but this hospital is part of the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the services delivered are the Trust's responsibility and come from their budget.

I think the article is inaccurate and lazy, because the Trust (as opposed to NHS England) wouldn't be looking for funding from NHS Scotland, they would be seeking it from NHS Ayrshire and Arran, if the story is correct in saying the veteran is an Ayr resident.

That feels a pretty basic error.

I don't think this would be any different for a patient who was resident outwith the catchment area of the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust area, e.g. someone from Aylesbury or Alnwick, let alone Ayr.

But that wouldn't make such a sensationalist story (the Independent has really gone downhill over the years) and would deprive you of your point.

Health services in the UK are riven with service-level agreements at cross-board level within the home nations and cross-border level between them. It keeps countless people in business back-office!

If you live in the Borders, depending on your location, you may end up getting treatment in NHS Borders, NHS Lothian, NHS Lanarkshire, NHS Dumfries and Galloway, NHS Cumbria and NHS Northumberland. There are agreements in place to ensure ongoing treatment doesn't fall on somewhere that isn't the board of the person's residence.

Likewise, Trusts or Boards are protected from footing the bill for ongoing specialist treatment for people outwith their area.

[Mibbes Aye]

I also see your point. Especially if this is for armed forces. Shouldn't matter where in the UK you originate from or are registered to vote, if you've put your ass on the line and been injured you should get the best care possible, regardless of cost.

You should, I agree.

It's not the cost that's the issue, it's that for various reasons you can only have so many places that specialise. If we set up a specialist rehab in Alloa, for the sake of argument, we could send everyone there but it would wipe out NHS Forth Valley's budget. If they are delivering ongoing treatment for people from Aberdeen then it's only reasonable that NHS Grampian fund them.

[beensaidbefore]

You should, I agree.

It's not the cost that's the issue, it's that for various reasons you can only have so many places that specialise. If we set up a specialist rehab in Alloa, for the sake of argument, we could send everyone there but it would wipe out NHS Forth Valley's budget. If they are delivering ongoing treatment for people from Aberdeen then it's only reasonable that NHS Grampian fund them.

I can see how that makes perfect sense and fair enough. Given we have one other largest hospitals in the region we probably benefit from this arrangement, as you outlined in your other reply above.

Makes it a bit of a non story, as I presume NHS Ayrshire will be seeing that he gets the treatment he needs?

[Mibbes Aye]

You're missing the point. This is a special NHS department staffed by military personnel specifically trained to treat British casualties of war and centrally funded. Either it's access for all or all the devolved regions should also get the same. Or are Scottish soldiers less British than their English comrades?

Just realised you've refuted your own point.

If it's centrally funded then what's it got to do with University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust?

Why would they be looking for funding from NHS Scotland (which in itself is a nonsense because it would be NHS Ayrshire and Arran)?

This story is abysmal, poor, poor journalism.

[Mibbes Aye]

I can see how that makes perfect sense and fair enough. Given we have one other largest hospitals in the region we probably benefit from this arrangement, as you outlined in your other reply above.

Makes it a bit of a non story, as I presume NHS Ayrshire will be seeing that he gets the treatment he needs?

Not for me to comment but essentially I think the story is that the poor guy's ongoing treatment is very expensive for NHS A+A.

What they can offer by way of substitute isn't apparent in the article.

[lord bunberry]

Before this turns into something it isn't, folk should be aware that this happens within Scotland too. If I was a resident in Lothian and I needed this level of care and it meant being treated at the Southern General in Glasow for example, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde would recoup costs related to my treatment from NHS Lothian.

It's common practice and means that places that provide national levels of expertise aren't financially penalised.
Would they refuse treatment though. The issue isn't the recouping of costs, it's the fact that they withdrew treatment . I fully understand that costs have to be paid by the authorities that you are resident in, but we are all supposed to be British and in a union of nations, so why can things like this happen?

[beensaidbefore]

Not for me to comment but essentially I think the story is that the poor guy's ongoing treatment is very expensive for NHS A+A.

What they can offer by way of substitute isn't apparent in the article.

You've got to wonder whats going on, when they talk of £x billion for a ship or missiles etc, but they cant find money to treat injured soldiers properly. Hopefully this gut gets what he needs.

[Hibrandenburg]

Would they refuse treatment though. The issue isn't the recouping of costs, it's the fact that they withdrew treatment . I fully understand that costs have to be paid by the authorities that you are resident in, but we are all supposed to be British and in a union of nations, so why can things like this happen?

They have refused treatment. It's a unit set up to care for British war wounded and employs British military personal. Unfortunately being Scottish means your not British enough to be guaranteed treatment beyond the absolute necessary.

[lord bunberry]

They have refused treatment. It's a unit set up to care for British war wounded and employs British military personal. Unfortunately being Scottish means your not British enough to be guaranteed treatment beyond the absolute necessary.
Yeah that's what I was saying. If I took ill in England I wouldn't expect to find myself being refused treatment. That's what seems to be happening in this case and we can only assume that the rest of us would be treated the same.

[Mibbes Aye]

Would they refuse treatment though. The issue isn't the recouping of costs, it's the fact that they withdrew treatment . I fully understand that costs have to be paid by the authorities that you are resident in, but we are all supposed to be British and in a union of nations, so why can things like this happen?


They have refused treatment. It's a unit set up to care for British war wounded and employs British military personal. Unfortunately being Scottish means your not British enough to be guaranteed treatment beyond the absolute necessary.

Have you actually read the article you quoted?

When you get to the actual quotes, as opposed to what the newspaper has written, they say the Health Trust is seeking to ensure that the costs of future treatment are pre-agreed.

In what possible language is that "refusing treatment"?

You can play the nationalist flag all you want but it's nothing to do with that.

Shame on you for jumping on a poor veteran and using his injuries to try and score cheap political points :bitchy:

[Mibbes Aye]

They have refused treatment. It's a unit set up to care for British war wounded and employs British military personal. Unfortunately being Scottish means your not British enough to be guaranteed treatment beyond the absolute necessary.

Personnel, not personal.

But funded by University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust.

And they've got every right to ask for funding from whatever Health Trust or Health Board is responsible. that's what happens all the time, whether it's war wounded or anyone else with ongoing trauma.

You've not answered the point - they would do the same for someone from another part of England wouldn't they?

Maybe just admit you got this one wrong and leapt in with a lazy and false accusation :dunno:

[lord bunberry]

Have you actually read the article you quoted?

When you get to the actual quotes, as opposed to what the newspaper has written, they say the Health Trust is seeking to ensure that the costs of future treatment are pre-agreed.

In what possible language is that "refusing treatment"?

You can play the nationalist flag all you want but it's nothing to do with that.

Shame on you for jumping on a poor veteran and using his injuries to try and score cheap political points :bitchy:
That's complete rubbish. The hospital has reinstated treatment after the story had been made public. You can play the unionist card all you want, but that doesn't change the facts of this story. If this was merely a conflict between 2 health authorities it wouldn't have made the papers and the patient wouldn't be informed of the problem. I suspect you already knew this, but as usual you have adopted your usual smug and frankly annoying position. Why don't you just see the situation for what it is?

[Mibbes Aye]

That's complete rubbish. The hospital has reinstated treatment after the story had been made public. You can play the unionist card all you want, but that doesn't change the facts of this story. If this was merely a conflict between 2 health authorities it wouldn't have made the papers and the patient wouldn't be informed of the problem. I suspect you already knew this, but as usual you have adopted your usual smug and frankly annoying position. Why don't you just see the situation for what it is?

Sounds like you are making it a bit personal? Disappointing, if true.

The claims in the report were wrong.

The claims in posts on here were wrong.

You said that "That's what seems to be happening in this case and we can only assume that the rest of us would be treated the same."

Where's your evidence for that? Surprised if you've got any because it's untrue.

Assuming you are from Lothian (though it's regardless of where you're from) if you needed A+E in England you would get it.

If you needed ongoing treatment in an English hospital you would get it.

If the treatment was ongoing, there would be a discussion, and if it was really complex and expensive, it would be at a senior level between the NHS Board or Trust you were being treated in,and the one you were resident in about it.

[Hibrandenburg]

Have you actually read the article you quoted?

When you get to the actual quotes, as opposed to what the newspaper has written, they say the Health Trust is seeking to ensure that the costs of future treatment are pre-agreed.

In what possible language is that "refusing treatment"?

You can play the nationalist flag all you want but it's nothing to do with that.

Shame on you for jumping on a poor veteran and using his injuries to try and score cheap political points :bitchy:

Behave. You mean shame on me for pointing out that Brit/Scots receive less specialist treatment in a specialist ward staffed by British Military PERSONNEL (last time I checked the military is not devolved).

Shame on you for making light of the plight of a poor veteran"s attempts to get equal treatment to that of his English colleagues. No matter what the actual reason behind him being refused specialist treatment, it's indefensible.

[Mibbes Aye]

Behave. You mean shame on me for pointing out that Brit/Scots receive less specialist treatment in a specialist ward staffed by British Military PERSONNEL (last time I checked the military is not devolved).

Shame on you for making light of the plight of a poor veteran"s attempts to get equal treatment to that of his English colleagues. No matter what the actual reason behind him being refused specialist treatment, it's indefensible.

Except he's not being refused treatment, so stop making stuff up of the back of reading a shoddily-written article.

Trying to turn this into an English-Scottish thing is unbelievably crass, but also completely untrue.

[Just Alf]

The bottom line surely is that this whole episode should be a non-issue?... A hospital set up to treat our armed forces should be financially supported by the UK Government either directly or to the Local NHS trust in question via a seperate route to ensure no negative financial impact on the trust.

As an aside I remember when that Hospital came online there was a fanfare at the time how the Trust (and others nearby) were getting access to some state of the art facilities that they otherwise couldn't afford.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Hibrandenburg]

Except he's not being refused treatment, so stop making stuff up of the back of reading a shoddily-written article.

Trying to turn this into an English-Scottish thing is unbelievably crass, but also completely untrue.

I don't have to try to turn it into a whole English-Scottish thing, that's already been done.

[Hibrandenburg]

The bottom line surely is that this whole episode should be a non-issue?... A hospital set up to treat our armed forces should be financially supported by the UK Government either directly or to the Local NHS trust in question via a seperate route to ensure no negative financial impact on the trust.

As an aside I remember when that Hospital came online there was a fanfare at the time how the Trust (and others nearby) were getting access to some state of the art facilities that they otherwise couldn't afford.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Sounds about right.

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't have to try to turn it into a whole English-Scottish thing, that's already been done.

Only by you.

There's not a story here, but you've tried to make it into some sort of "English doing the Scots down" sort of thing, when it's just a typical funding request from one Health Board to another (reported inaccurately).

Are you going to change your name to "Wings Over Brandenburg"? :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Only by you.

There's not a story here, but you've tried to make it into some sort of "English doing the Scots down" sort of thing, when it's just a typical funding request from one Health Board to another (reported inaccurately).

Are you going to change your name to "Wings Over Brandenburg"? :greengrin

:faf: There's not a story here and it's only me trying to make a Scottish/English thing out of it :faf: About five national papers are reporting this so there's obviously a story there.

As for "Wings over Brandenburg", well I like that, it kind of incorporates what I do for a living and where I live. As for the website you're witty name calling is referring to, well I'm not sure if I've paid it a visit.

There's an inequality happening here whether you like it or not and trying to palm it off as nothing doesn't wash.

[Mibbes Aye]

:faf: There's not a story here and it's only me trying to make a Scottish/English thing out of it :faf: About five national papers are reporting this so there's obviously a story there.

As for "Wings over Brandenburg", well I like that, it kind of incorporates what I do for a living and where I live. As for the website you're witty name calling is referring to, well I'm not sure if I've paid it a visit.

There's an inequality happening here whether you like it or not and trying to palm it off as nothing doesn't wash.

Except there's not.

You claimed there was, but you can't back it up.

Let it go.

[Mibbes Aye]

You've got to wonder whats going on, when they talk of £x billion for a ship or missiles etc, but they cant find money to treat injured soldiers properly. Hopefully this gut gets what he needs.

Sorry, beensaidbefore, missed your post. You're right, it's a silly argument. The money will be there for the guy's treatment, it's just a fight between different services about who is responsible. All health services are facing huge challenges to find the money to do what they want or need to, cases like this highlight how bad the situation is. They need to contest every case because they can't afford not to.

[Hibrandenburg]

Except there's not.

You claimed there was, but you can't back it up.

Let it go.

Rubbish! We've got a highly specialised care unit for British soldiers centrally funded and staffed by the military who are financed by the UK. It's in England and soldiers living in England who suffered horrific injuries serving the UK get treated no questions asked and open end. Taff, Paddy and Jock however are required to ensure their devolved NHS are willing and able to foot the bill after initial treatment. John, Taff, Paddy and Jock all lost limbs serving the British people, only John doesn't have to worry about the quality of his follow up treatment and care because he's resident in the country where the centrally funded specialist care centre is located. Injuries obtained during the service in the British military need to be funded centrally, the cause of those injuries were centrally financed and the aftercare needs to be centrally financed also.

[Mibbes Aye]

Rubbish! We've got a highly specialised care unit for British soldiers centrally funded and staffed by the military who are financed by the UK. It's in England and soldiers living in England who suffered horrific injuries serving the UK get treated no questions asked and open end. Taff, Paddy and Jock however are required to ensure their devolved NHS are willing and able to foot the bill after initial treatment. John, Taff, Paddy and Jock all lost limbs serving the British people, only John doesn't have to worry about the quality of his follow up treatment and care because he's resident in the country where the centrally funded specialist care centre is located. Injuries obtained during the service in the British military need to be funded centrally, the cause of those injuries were centrally financed and the aftercare needs to be centrally financed also.

You're making stuff up.

If it's centrally-funded then why is the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundations Trust seeking money from another part of the health service?

And who are they seeking money from? The report says NHS Scotland which is wrong, it would be NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

The truth is that if your 'John' was from any part of England other than the catchment area for University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundations Trust, then the Trust would be seeking agreement for funding from his Trust. You've failed to answer or acknowledge that point.

It's not about him being Scottish, it's about him not being from Birmingham.

But that doesn't make such an emotive story.

And it robs you of a lazy, cheap, bandwagon-jumping accusation.

Pity that some poor veteran is being used to try and score cheap political points.

Worse so when the points have no validity whatsoever :rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

You're making stuff up.

If it's centrally-funded then why is the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundations Trust seeking money from another part of the health service?

And who are they seeking money from? The report says NHS Scotland which is wrong, it would be NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

The truth is that if your 'John' was from any part of England other than the catchment area for University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundations Trust, then the Trust would be seeking agreement for funding from his Trust. You've failed to answer or acknowledge that point.

It's not about him being Scottish, it's about him not being from Birmingham.

But that doesn't make such an emotive story.

And it robs you of a lazy, cheap, bandwagon-jumping accusation.

Pity that some poor veteran is being used to try and score cheap political points.

Worse so when the points have no validity whatsoever :rolleyes:

Questions you need to ask yourself!

Were his injuries received during UK armed service?
Are the UK armed services centrally funded?
Who pays the wages of the military personnel staffing the facility?
Is part of this facility funded by UK wide charity donations?
Did I make this story up or am I just chatting about a national story that broke after the guy was told he wouldn't be getting further treatment there and if he hadn't have gone to the press would there have been any reaction?
Is the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine centrally funded or is it funded from the Birmingham NHS?
Do the military demand funding from the NHS for the civilian patients they also treat?

It's indefensible to say a devolved health service should pick up the bill for life changing injuries sustained in military service, especially when it comes to a centrally financed department like the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine.

[Mibbes Aye]

Questions you need to ask yourself!

Were his injuries received during UK armed service?
Are the UK armed services centrally funded?
Who pays the wages of the military personnel staffing the facility?
Is part of this facility funded by UK wide charity donations?
Did I make this story up or am I just chatting about a national story that broke after the guy was told he wouldn't be getting further treatment there and if he hadn't have gone to the press would there have been any reaction?
Is the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine centrally funded or is it funded from the Birmingham NHS?
Do the military demand funding from the NHS for the civilian patients they also treat?

It's indefensible to say a devolved health service should pick up the bill for life changing injuries sustained in military service, especially when it comes to a centrally financed department like the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine.

The guy will undoubtedly get his treatment.

The funding of it is a bunfight between different trusts. That's the nature of the health system

But it is 100% not an English-Scottish thing, which was the basis of your original post and several after.

Why don't you man up and acknowledge that there isn't some petty nationalist point to be scored here. You got it wrong.

[Hibrandenburg]

Man up. :faf:

An injured veteran was originally told he would no longer get treatment in a centrally funded establishment because it was in England and he was resident in Scotland, the tune only changed after he went public. Or are you suggesting he's lying? It's the essence of why the union is a farce and why I posted it here. You might not think it's worthwhile discussing but I did, I'd have preferred to do it without all the petty jibes and name calling you've brought to the discussion but each to their own eh!

[Mibbes Aye]

Man up. :faf:

An injured veteran was originally told he would no longer get treatment in a centrally funded establishment because it was in England and he was resident in Scotland, the tune only changed after he went public. Or are you suggesting he's lying? It's the essence of why the union is a farce and why I posted it here. You might not think it's worthwhile discussing but I did, I'd have preferred to do it without all the petty jibes and name calling you've brought to the discussion but each to their own eh!

Except that's not true.

Come on man, it's not even written up like that in the article you originally linked!!

You tried to make a cheap nationalist point in your original post, you kept repeating it and you have no foundation to do so.

Yes, man up. And get your facts right, because despite me telling you how the NHS works you are posting all sorts of rubbish that isn't true.

I've asked you this a few times - if the care is centrally funded then why does the article cite the local trust as asking NHS Scotland for money?

That's ignoring the glaring error in that the trust would be asking NHS Ayrshire + Arran, not NHS Scotland.

You've also ignored the fact that the local trust would ask another English trust for funding, if the guy was from outside Birmingham.

That's true isn't it?

Keep digging though :aok:

Or better still, acknowledge you got it wrong, got called out and just leave it.

[Hibrandenburg]

Except that's not true.

Come on man, it's not even written up like that in the article you originally linked!!

You tried to make a cheap nationalist point in your original post, you kept repeating it and you have no foundation to do so.

Yes, man up. And get your facts right, because despite me telling you how the NHS works you are posting all sorts of rubbish that isn't true.

I've asked you this a few times - if the care is centrally funded then why does the article cite the local trust as asking NHS Scotland for money?

That's ignoring the glaring error in that the trust would be asking NHS Ayrshire + Arran, not NHS Scotland.

You've also ignored the fact that the local trust would ask another English trust for funding, if the guy was from outside Birmingham.

That's true isn't it?

Keep digging though :aok:

Or better still, acknowledge you got it wrong, got called out and just leave it.


"""Come on man, it's not even written up like that in the article you originally linked!!"""

“When I was down there, a senior member of staff told me that he was ashamed to say that they could no longer treat me there.

“He said it was because the English NHS would no longer foot the bill for me there since I wasn’t from England.

“I am sitting here without my legs because I fought for this country. This is the ultimate slap in the face. I am still in shock and can barely get my head around it.”

Did you even read the article? And I'm the one making things up :rolleyes:

[Mibbes Aye]

"""Come on man, it's not even written up like that in the article you originally linked!!"""

“When I was down there, a senior member of staff told me that he was ashamed to say that they could no longer treat me there.

“He said it was because the English NHS would no longer foot the bill for me there since I wasn’t from England.

“I am sitting here without my legs because I fought for this country. This is the ultimate slap in the face. I am still in shock and can barely get my head around it.”

Did you even read the article? And I'm the one making things up :rolleyes:

When you've calmed down can you just try and answer my points?

And dig yourself out of your original post?

If the care is centrally funded, as you keep claiming, then why do you and the article cite the local trust as asking NHS Scotland for money?

[Hibrandenburg]

When you've calmed down can you just try and answer my points?

And dig yourself out of your original post?

If the care is centrally funded, as you keep claiming, then why do you and the article cite the local trust as asking NHS Scotland for money?

Is the RCDM a local trust or is it centrally funded?

I'm not the one in a hole here but keep digging! :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Is the RCDM a local trust or is it centrally funded?

I'm not the one in a hole here but keep digging! :greengrin

The RCDM is MoD funded as we both know.

But it's the local trust that pays for the guy's care, isn't it?

And they would charge anywhere else in England, wouldn't they?

This isn't an English-Scottish thing, like you claimed.

In your first post and then again and again.

Man up, admit your error, we can all move on.

[Hibbyradge]

Is the RCDM a local trust or is it centrally funded?

I'm not the one in a hole here but keep digging! :greengrin

The newspaper story is misleading and is designed to provoke this exact nationalistic outrage.

I live in York, but if I needed extensive treatment in Birmingham, they would eventually approach York NHS to recuperate their costs.

It would have nothing to do with me being Scottish, but because I have a YO post code.

[Hibrandenburg]

The RCDM is MoD funded as we both know.

But it's the local trust that pays for the guy's care, isn't it?

And they would charge anywhere else in England, wouldn't they?

This isn't an English-Scottish thing, like you claimed.

In your first post and then again and again.

Man up, admit your error, we can all move on.

Man up again. You really aren't capable of having a debate without resorting to insults are you?

There's a story here whether you like it or not. The guy himself was told by a senior member of staff that he could continue his treatment there because he was resident in Scotland. That's been widely report in the media and has even resulted in the Scottish Minister for veterans taking it up with his Westminster counterpart. There are established guidelines on what should happen with cross border funding which should have insured a seamless continuation of this guys treatment.

The story and scandal here is not about what should happen but what did happen.

[Hibrandenburg]

The newspaper story is misleading and is designed to provoke this exact nationalistic outrage.

I live in York, but if I needed extensive treatment in Birmingham, they would eventually approach York NHS to recuperate their costs.

It would have nothing to do with me being Scottish, but because I have a YO post code.

Yes they would approach York NHS, they certainly wouldn't tell you they can't treat you. Like I mentioned earlier, the story here is not about what should happen but about what did happen.

[Hibbyradge]

The story and scandal here is not about what should happen but what did happen.

It's still not a Scotland v England thing.

[RyeSloan]

Rubbish! We've got a highly specialised care unit for British soldiers centrally funded and staffed by the military who are financed by the UK. It's in England and soldiers living in England who suffered horrific injuries serving the UK get treated no questions asked and open end. Taff, Paddy and Jock however are required to ensure their devolved NHS are willing and able to foot the bill after initial treatment. John, Taff, Paddy and Jock all lost limbs serving the British people, only John doesn't have to worry about the quality of his follow up treatment and care because he's resident in the country where the centrally funded specialist care centre is located. Injuries obtained during the service in the British military need to be funded centrally, the cause of those injuries were centrally financed and the aftercare needs to be centrally financed also.

The aftercare is not centrally financed though...he is being treated as an out patient.

You've made a lot of accusations and points without backing any of them up.

For example you claimed he was refused treatment, where is your basis for that?

He been treated without incident since 2011 and has clearly been misinformed by someone in the hospital. The hospital it's self has stated that he has two further follow up appointments.

Furthermore the NHS trust responsible for paying for his care in Scotland has clearly stated that they will continue to do so.

So what he was told was inaccurate and your interpretation of that story is even more so.

This article helps to clarify a few points for you: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40763150

[Slavers]

It's still not a Scotland v England thing.

Alas, for some everything is a Scotland V England thing.

[Hibbyradge]

Yes they would approach York NHS, they certainly wouldn't tell you they can't treat you. Like I mentioned earlier, the story here is not about what should happen but about what did happen.

This is from the Army Rumour service forum;

"It is a load of bollix - It has nothing to do with him being Scottish, that is the Daily Record trying to stir things to keep the sheep happy. It's all about the availability of cannabis pain relief .

There is reciprocal arrangements and transfer of costs between All NHS Trusts.

However Scottish NHS do not sanction this particular pain relief. Also, the fact he lives in Scotland is nothing to do with the treatment being stopped it is down to his local NHS who are refusing to pay the Birmingham NHS for the treatment he is receiving, it's all down to the bean counters.it would take a hundred pages to explain so I've kept it simple"

So in fact, the fault, if there was any, lay at the Scottish end.

[Mibbes Aye]

Man up again. You really aren't capable of having a debate without resorting to insults are you?

There's a story here whether you like it or not. The guy himself was told by a senior member of staff that he could continue his treatment there because he was resident in Scotland. That's been widely report in the media and has even resulted in the Scottish Minister for veterans taking it up with his Westminster counterpart. There are established guidelines on what should happen with cross border funding which should have insured a seamless continuation of this guys treatment.

The story and scandal here is not about what should happen but what did happen.

I think my posting history suggests I am but I do have a low threshold when it comes to lazy accusations.

You jumped all over this with claims about it being an English-Scottish thing.

When presented with the facts (i.e it isn't an English-Scottish thing), instead of acknowledging your error, you doubled-down on a very poorly written news article.

Give it up.

And if you want to find stories to push a nationalist agenda then make sure they are actually accurate :bitchy:

[pacoluna]

This is from the Army Rumour service forum;

"It is a load of bollix - It has nothing to do with him being Scottish, that is the Daily Record trying to stir things to keep the sheep happy. It's all about the availability of cannabis pain relief .

There is reciprocal arrangements and transfer of costs between All NHS Trusts.

However Scottish NHS do not sanction this particular pain relief. Also, the fact he lives in Scotland is nothing to do with the treatment being stopped it is down to his local NHS who are refusing to pay the Birmingham NHS for the treatment he is receiving, it's all down to the bean counters.it would take a hundred pages to explain so I've kept it simple"

So in fact, the fault, if there was any, lay at the Scottish end.

who's "the sheep" ? nothing derogatory I hope :rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

It's still not a Scotland v England thing.

Then why do the trust in Birmingham seem to have a problem picking up the phone and calling NHS Scotland and instead telling the guy he won't be getting further treatment? Or don't you believe him?

[Mibbes Aye]

Then why do the trust in Birmingham seem to have a problem picking up the phone and calling NHS Scotland and instead telling the guy he won't be getting further treatment? Or don't you believe him?

They didn't tell him he wouldn't get further treatment.

And it's not NHS Scotland they would call, it's his local health board, NHS Ayrshire and Arran :brickwall

As far as it goes, it reads like they did contact NHS A+A and they didn't get the response they wanted.

But "Scottish health board refuses to pay for a veteran to get treatment" probably doesn't suit your agenda :rolleyes:

[Hibrandenburg]

This is from the Army Rumour service forum;

"It is a load of bollix - It has nothing to do with him being Scottish, that is the Daily Record trying to stir things to keep the sheep happy. It's all about the availability of cannabis pain relief .

There is reciprocal arrangements and transfer of costs between All NHS Trusts.

However Scottish NHS do not sanction this particular pain relief. Also, the fact he lives in Scotland is nothing to do with the treatment being stopped it is down to his local NHS who are refusing to pay the Birmingham NHS for the treatment he is receiving, it's all down to the bean counters.it would take a hundred pages to explain so I've kept it simple"

So in fact, the fault, if there was any, lay at the Scottish end.

One statement from an army rumours forum is hardly representative. I'm a member of a few army forums and opinion is divided. This is the Nurse visiting food banks all over again. Either you believe him or you don't. Me, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and the fact that once the story broke the trusts finally started communicating would strengthen that theory.

At the end of the day it's tragic that someone crippled serving Britain has to experience distress due to regional bureaucracy.

[Hibbyradge]

who's "the sheep" ? nothing derogatory I hope :rolleyes:

I don't know. I merely copied and pasted.

You'd have to register on that forum and ask the author.

[Hibrandenburg]

They didn't tell him he wouldn't get further treatment.

And it's not NHS Scotland they would call, it's his local health board, NHS Ayrshire and Arran :brickwall

As far as it goes, it reads like they did contact NHS A+A and they didn't get the response they wanted.

But "Scottish health board refuses to pay for a veteran to get treatment" probably doesn't suit your agenda :rolleyes:

He was told he would not be receiving further treatment at a specialised unit for British war wounded because of funding issues. That's now under review now it's made the papers. Is he lying about what he's been told?

[Hibrandenburg]

who's "the sheep" ? nothing derogatory I hope :rolleyes:

Sheep ****gers, Sweaty Sock, Porridge Wog, Haggis Basher. Take your pick, all affectionate nicknames used to describe Scottish comrades in the military.

[Hibbyradge]

One statement from an army rumours forum is hardly representative. I'm a member of a few army forums and opinion is divided. This is the Nurse visiting food banks all over again. Either you believe him or you don't. Me, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and the fact that once the story broke the trusts finally started communicating would strengthen that theory.

At the end of the day it's tragic that someone crippled serving Britain has to experience distress due to regional bureaucracy.

I don't believe he was told that he couldn't get treatment because he was Scottish. He, or a Record journalist, interpreted what he was told like that, whether deliberately or not.

He may have been told that there was a funding problem with his NHS trust was in Scotland, but no more than that.

Even if he was told that he couldn't be treated because he was Scottish, and I really can't imagine any circumstances that those words would come out of someone's mouth, it wasn't true so it's pretty much a non-story anyway, unless they're going for the person who said it.

Cleraly there was a mix up, but the fact that it involved a crippled army veteran from North of the border seeking treatment in England, made it a dream come true for the journalist.




At the end of the day it's tragic that someone crippled serving Britain has to experience distress due to regional bureaucracy.

:agree:

I think it's a disgrace that any ill person should experience additional distress because of bureaucracy.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't believe he was told that he couldn't get treatment because he was Scottish. He, or a Record journalist, interpreted what he was told like that, whether deliberately or not.

He may have been told that there was a funding problem with his NHS trust was in Scotland, but no more than that.

Even if he was told that he couldn't be treated because he was Scottish, and I really can't imagine any circumstances that those words would come out of someone's mouth, it wasn't true so it's pretty much a non-story anyway, unless they're going for the person who said it.

Cleraly there was a mix up, but the fact that it involved a crippled army veteran from North of the border seeking treatment in England, made it a dream come true for the journalist.



:agree:

I think it's a disgrace that any ill person should experience additional distress because of bureaucracy.

Possible. But how do you account for the senior member of staff expressing shame at the decision? Disappointment, surprise or frustration I'd understand, but shame is a strange emotion.

[Mibbes Aye]

He was told he would not be receiving further treatment at a specialised unit for British war wounded because of funding issues. That's now under review now it's made the papers. Is he lying about what he's been told?

Except he wasn't.

The account you linked to is inaccurate and spectacularly fails to get even the basic facts of the matter correct. It's completely unreliable.

You've taken it at face value and tried to make some English-Scottish point of it.

It's a shame that this poor guy is being used to try and make cheap, petty nationalist points.

Even more galling when there's no truth in them whatsoever..

[Mibbes Aye]

Possible. But how do you account for the senior member of staff expressing shame at the decision? Disappointment, surprise or frustration I'd understand, but shame is a strange emotion.

Your only evidence for this is a quote attributed to the guy in question.

So it's already subjective. And in an article that is laden with basic errors.

Do you think that's robust?

[Hibrandenburg]

Except he wasn't.

The account you linked to is inaccurate and spectacularly fails to get even the basic facts of the matter correct. It's completely unreliable.

You've taken it at face value and tried to make some English-Scottish point of it.

It's a shame that this poor guy is being used to try and make cheap, petty nationalist points.

Even more galling when there's no truth in them whatsoever..

All in your shouty, name calling, bullish and obnoxious opinion. There's no smoke without fire.

[Hibbyradge]

Possible. But how do you account for the senior member of staff expressing shame at the decision? Disappointment, surprise or frustration I'd understand, but shame is a strange emotion.

Those were the patient's words.


"When I was down there, a senior member of staff told me that he was ashamed to say that they could no longer treat me there.

“He said it was because the English NHS would no longer foot the bill for me there since I wasn’t from England."

If he was told that, and I doubt he was, it was wrong. His nationality had nothing to do with him receiving treatment. Furthermore, it would have had nothing to do with"the English NHS" as such. It would have been the Birmingham NHS trust.

We all know that to be the case.

[Mibbes Aye]

All in your shouty, name calling, bullish and obnoxious opinion. There's no smoke without fire.

Classy.

There's not an English-Scottish angle here though is there?

It would have saved a lot of time if you had just acknowledged that earlier on and withdrawn your claims that there was.

[Hibbyradge]

There's no smoke without fire.

In these times of fake news, yes there is.

[RyeSloan]

All in your shouty, name calling, bullish and obnoxious opinion. There's no smoke without fire.

Apart from the fact that you've completely ignored the points he made...points that were backed up by the BBC article I linked.

Even if the guy was told what he has been quoted as being said to him the fact remains that what he was told was incorrect and inaccurate. You can at least admit that yeah?

[Hibrandenburg]

In these times of fake news, yes there is.

Again possible, but doubtful considering it's been covered by several news outlets who've obviously contacted NHS Birmingham and their relevant colleagues in Scotland for quotes as well as being discussed at ministerial level.

[pacoluna]

Apart from the fact that you've completely ignored the points he made...points that were backed up by the BBC article I linked.

Even if the guy was told what he has been quoted as being said to him the fact remains that what he was told was incorrect and inaccurate. You can at least admit that yeah?
long time since the BBC were used as a reputable base for facts.

[Hibbyradge]

Again possible, but doubtful considering it's been covered by several news outlets who've obviously contacted NHS Birmingham and their relevant colleagues in Scotland for quotes as well as being discussed at ministerial level.

There was clearly some controversy surrounding the funding. That's the fire, I suppose, but the fuel must have been very damp because there's been an incredible amount of smoke from such tiny embers.

If the patient had been from London, the same situation could have occurred, but this story wouldn't have reached the papers.

The nationality issue caused the sensation, but it's red herring. Presumably smoked.

[RyeSloan]

long time since the BBC were used as a reputable base for facts.

Did you bother to read the link? It had direct quotes from the NHS trusts in question directly referencing the case in question.

Ach you know what there is no point even trying to have a discussion on here if that's your level of response...

[Hibbyradge]

long time since the BBC were used as a reputable base for facts.

The original story came from the Daily Record.

When did that become the bastion of integrity?

[Hibrandenburg]

Apart from the fact that you've completely ignored the points he made...points that were backed up by the BBC article I linked.

Even if the guy was told what he has been quoted as being said to him the fact remains that what he was told was incorrect and inaccurate. You can at least admit that yeah?

I've already said there are long standing arrangements between trusts on funding. Again I'll repeat my self. The problem is not what should happen but what did happen. That and the fact that since the integration of the military medical service in the NHS, there are no military hospitals in the UK outside England.

[Mibbes Aye]

I've already said there are long standing arrangements between trusts on funding. Again I'll repeat my self. The problem is not what should happen but what did happen. That and the fact that since the integration of the military medical service in the NHS, there are no military hospitals in the UK outside England.

But when it comes down to it, no one is being treated differently on the grounds of nationality, are they?

Which was the point you originally made, stuck by and has been thoroughly discredited.

At what point will you admit you were wrong?

[Hibrandenburg]

But when it comes down to it, no one is being treated differently on the grounds of nationality, are they?

Which was the point you originally made, stuck by and has been thoroughly discredited.

At what point will you admit you were wrong?

My point from the very beginning was about inequality amongst British casualties of war. There are no centrally financed specialist military treatment units in Scotland, Ireland or Wales. This guy was promised if he'd sign his discharge papers he'd continue to receive treatment in the military unit regardless. Now a couple of years down the line it appears he's now dependant on his local NHS funding the treatment and the promise was an empty one. If there had been a similar centrally funded unit in Scotland then he would not now be in the situation he finds himself. If you're going to send Scottish lads to war on behalf of the British Army then you damn well should make sure they have the same chance of care in Scotland when they return home crippled.

[Mibbes Aye]

My point from the very beginning was about inequality amongst British casualties of war. There are no centrally financed specialist military treatment units in Scotland, Ireland or Wales. This guy was promised if he'd sign his discharge papers he'd continue to receive treatment in the military unit regardless. Now a couple of years down the line it appears he's now dependant on his local NHS funding the treatment and the promise was an empty one. If there had been a similar centrally funded unit in Scotland then he would not now be in the situation he finds himself. If you're going to send Scottish lads to war on behalf of the British Army then you damn well should make sure they have the same chance of care in Scotland when they return home crippled.

Except that's not true.

There's no inequality, you claimed there was and now you are backtracking furiously.

Own up and admit "Scottish lads" get the same deal as "English lads", healthcare wise.

Shame on you for trying to make this into a nationalist point.

[easty]

Sheep ****gers, Sweaty Sock, Porridge Wog, Haggis Basher. Take your pick, all affectionate nicknames used to describe Scottish comrades in the military.

I've never heard porridge wog before...but I like it. When I lived in Leeds it was generally just "you Scottish ****".

[ronaldo7]

Quite a good piece here by Bateman. He covers Lord Darling (Labour Lord) well imo.

The Sun Has Got His Hat On
Sorry not to join the general lament but I return from a few weeks in France with renewed optimism about independence.
The infantile squabbling of the governing party in London is a pitiable sight. Their wilful myopia to the unfolding tragedy of Brexit is a new low in post war mismanagement. (Even in the mayhem of Iraq, Blair at the time appeared decisive and determined).
We are witnessing in real time the breakdown of a government subjugating national interest for internecine turmoil.
Week by week their failure even to develop a plan is confirmed. Now there is the growing likelihood of a long-term transitional arrangement with Brussels being necessary to stave off the worst effects of withdrawal. The angry hordes who voted to leave and who have no understanding why we can’t just ‘resign’, will be maddened that those who promised swift closure and instant funds for public spending have failed them. And still the highly-charged door to immigration will be remain open…
We are now in a phase of history when, because of the ineptitude of that cowardly clown Cameron, everything that can go wrong, does go wrong. The so-called government he bequeathed has no touch let alone political elan. The juxtaposition of billions for a London Crossrail system with withdrawal of upgrading for essential rail services to Wales, the West country and the English north is a prime example. To anyone outside the metropolitan bubble it is nothing less than a government saying ****** You to the rest of the country. As taxpayers’ billions pour into overheated London, the provinces are deliberately left in spartan penury. More than half of transport spending now goes to one corner of the country, a total of £1500 more per head. That’s a figure you don’t hear repeated with the same emotional venom applied to higher Scottish spending.
I have also experienced a morbid pleasure in watching the promises and vows of the pre-2014 British campaign bomb before our eyes. Recall with grim satisfaction how we were told with solemn sincerity that companies would leave an independent Scotland…then read how, daily the finance sector is transferring staff out of London and opening alternative offices in (independent) Ireland and Holland. See how even the horticulture sector which is dependent on outside labour, is now planning to move wholesale its production to Eastern Europe where the workers are.
Remember how the Scottish currency would lose its value without the unshakable strength of the UK behind it…then see the volatility of sterling since the Brexit vote. Prices in the shops would go up…that’s happening now while wages stagnate.
Hear again the echoes of the Alistair Darling threats of doom for the economy…before googling today’s news of ‘notable’ slowdown and ‘grim’ forecasts.
Revisit your memories of Unionists scoffing at how we would be perceived in the world – ‘wee Scotland out on its own’ – then check out what even our American allies are writing about us losing our collective mind. Read what Europe regards as fantasy imperial posturing by a rickety, class-ridden country. They are laughing at the UK – the Eddie the Eagle of European nations.
And, how could we forget? We were told by the wise and statesmanlike Darling that voting Yes would remove us from EU membership which would be catastrophic. How did that one go?
The only thing Darling got right was moving on to the board of Morgan Stanley to continue trousering yet more of the private sector pounds that were his trademark as an MP.
In other words the case made for the Union just three years ago is in ruins today. In a second campaign what threats could they make that would be credible? What could they say that wouldn’t have the voters rolling in the aisles? Who indeed could replace the wooden, angry Darling as front for the British state this time? Which one of the Tory Brexit buffons would Scots listen to? When it comes to more than a simplistic shouting match, could Davidson, a mouthy zealot from the right wing, rally a majority?
And, crucially, whose side would business be on this time? Interesting to see among others, Struan Stevenson, leader a pro business pro Union group, putting his name to the 60-strong letter asking for Brexit to be re-thought.
Because the question now is: What happens when the Tories take us out?
If the EU is truly crucial to national interest, to jobs and investment and growth, what does a Unionist businessman do when confronted with downturn, loss of contracts, shortage of revenue, falling share value, loss of market share, redundancies, restricted borrowing and extra administration and costs? Does he go down with the UK ship? Or does he finally accept the logic adopted by other small nations and embrace his own country’s European destiny?
It is becoming a no-brainer. And if business swallows its doubts about independence as the least worst option, how long will it take for the politicians to catch up?
There is a risk of course in any extended interim deal for the UK becoming the new norm and taking all the heat out of the issue. If that happens and people get used to just drifting along still in the EU but not of the EU, the independence case could suffer the same fate. It could go off the boil.
That’s where effective campaigning comes in because such deal would extend the period over which Scotland can plan and hold another vote before the UK slams the door on membership.
The option are there. The times are volatile. The Union is flaky. The threats are demolished. The disaster is unfolding.
And we are still here. Committed. Determined. And optimistic.
(Well, I am. Must be my holiday)

[Hibrandenburg]

Except that's not true.

There's no inequality, you claimed there was and now you are backtracking furiously.

Own up and admit "Scottish lads" get the same deal as "English lads", healthcare wise.

Shame on you for trying to make this into a nationalist point.

You might not want to see the inequality but it's there. How many military specialist units (MDHUs) are incorporated into the NHS in Scotland? How many in Wales? Or Ireland? The perfect double whammy by Tory and Labour governments. First the Tories incorporate the military health service into English hospitals only and staffed by centrally financed military personnel and followed by Labour taking the country into 2 very questionable wars.

The*Armed Forces Covenant*states that the armed forces community should enjoy the same standard of, and access to, healthcare as that received by any other UK citizen in the area they live. How's that working out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

As for the shame game, go point your finger at your unionist buddies who are now labelling Callum Brown as a low life Jock junkie on the sponge in England.

[Mibbes Aye]

You might not want to see the inequality but it's there. How many military specialist units (MDHUs) are incorporated into the NHS in Scotland? How many in Wales? Or Ireland? The perfect double whammy by Tory and Labour governments. First the Tories incorporate the military health service into English hospitals only and staffed by centrally financed military personnel and followed by Labour taking the country into 2 very questionable wars.

The*Armed Forces Covenant*states that the armed forces community should enjoy the same standard of, and access to, healthcare as that received by any other UK citizen in the area they live. How's that working out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

As for the shame game, go point your finger at your unionist buddies who are now labelling Callum Brown as a low life Jock junkie on the sponge in England.

There is a limit to how many places of expertise one can have, because there are only so many specialists. In that regard it doesn't matter whether it is Birmingham, Belfast or Brechin, there's only capacity for one and in fairness locating it in Birmingham probably makes most sense,

I see you've dropped your 'centrally funded' claim. Are you accepting that this is a simple discussion between two health boards and not an English-Scottish thing as you claimed?

As for your last paragraph, that's beneath you. "Unionist buddies", really?

I know we have had disagreements on here, mostly after the referendum, but I actually rate your posts on the whole, despite our obviously differing views.

[Hibbyradge]

I've been speaking to the laddie's mother in law on Facebook.

It seems that communications are still woeful.

This is part of a reply she sent me.

Yes he is fighting for medical cannibis, but more than that he is fighting to have his care continued as was promised to him. He still requires major surgery, he had a massive infection that a Scottish hospital missed. He was told if he hadn't gone to Birmingham he would have been dead within a year.

Neither health boards have written nor been in touch with him to say that his care will continue in Birmingham funded by his own health board. Yes they said it to the papers, so why hasn't he been informed?

Why did his consultants secretary call him to say they couldn't do his Mri on the very day the Ayrshire health board said they would fund him?

Why are top military officers getting in on this?

I too hope this is resolved. But until we see it happening, we won't let it lie.

[ronaldo7]

Now that the UK gov have decided to "re-organise" the books, it might help "The cause". It seems we have more money than we thought. Who'd have thunk it.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-magic-money-rigs/

[Mibbes Aye]

Now that the UK gov have decided to "re-organise" the books, it might help "The cause". It seems we have more money than we thought. Who'd have thunk it.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-magic-money-rigs/

I read your link and thought this was the most telling part, in the summary:

"Now, we’re not remotely expert enough when it comes to the labyrinth of government trade stats to determine how significant that is"

That's telling isn't it? The writer can't offer any sound critique. He just posts a jumble of figures, makes a few extravagant claims, and then defends his inability to back them up.

But hey-ho, it's another linkable blog in the post-truth world.

Instead of constantly posting soundbites from propagandists (and really shameful propagandists at that), why don't you offer your own thoughts, your own commentary, your own analysis?

No one is going to crucify you for it, this place is meant to be about debate, putting forward an argument, having that challenged, refuting or accepting others' views.

It would be so much more refreshing to read your actual views and agree or disagree, than just see a constant stream of hyperlinks to politicised blogs :rolleyes:

[ronaldo7]

I read your link and thought this was the most telling part, in the summary:

"Now, we’re not remotely expert enough when it comes to the labyrinth of government trade stats to determine how significant that is"

That's telling isn't it? The writer can't offer any sound critique. He just posts a jumble of figures, makes a few extravagant claims, and then defends his inability to back them up.

But hey-ho, it's another linkable blog in the post-truth world.

Instead of constantly posting soundbites from propagandists (and really shameful propagandists at that), why don't you offer your own thoughts, your own commentary, your own analysis?

No one is going to crucify you for it, this place is meant to be about debate, putting forward an argument, having that challenged, refuting or accepting others' views.


It would be so much more refreshing to read your actual views and agree or disagree, than just see a constant stream of hyperlinks to politicised blogs :rolleyes:







Once again, you "spectacularly" miss the point.

Have you heard this omission of our oil figures mentioned in the MSM in the last couple of days. I'll give you a clue, you've not. If this was a reference to the oft mentioned £15 Billion pound deficit it would be wall to wall coverage. I remember a wee while back when you couldn't get on here for the deficit getting mentioned and the Gers (not the govan types) was a hot topic.

The blog in question, doesn't offer an expert opinion on Oil, however, he brings to the attention of the electorate, the underhanded ways in which the UK gov operates. Unknown regions are really the regions of Scotland fyi.:wink:

On the subject of what posters should be offering on this site, it's not for you to decide, Simon, there are no rules which I've read which say you have to post in a certain way.

As long as I stay within the rules, which I have, I will continue to post links to stories which others may like to see.

Happy postings:greengrin

[Just Alf]

R7,,, for what it's worth I pretty much am on the same side as you (honest!) but if you'd put some of what you said in the above post along with that earlier link then you'd have had a much more powerful message :agree:

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[ronaldo7]

R7,,, for what it's worth I pretty much am on the same side as you (honest!) but if you'd put some of what you said in the above post along with that earlier link then you'd have had a much more powerful message :agree:

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

I've not had much time on my hands bud, hence my lack of postings, however, I can always depend on Simon to bring out the best in me.:greengrin

[Just Alf]

I've not had much time on my hands bud, hence my lack of postings, however, I can always depend on Simon to bring out the best in me.:greengrin:D

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Mibbes Aye]

Once again, you "spectacularly" miss the point.

Have you heard this omission of our oil figures mentioned in the MSM in the last couple of days. I'll give you a clue, you've not. If this was a reference to the oft mentioned £15 Billion pound deficit it would be wall to wall coverage. I remember a wee while back when you couldn't get on here for the deficit getting mentioned and the Gers (not the govan types) was a hot topic.

The blog in question, doesn't offer an expert opinion on Oil, however, he brings to the attention of the electorate, the underhanded ways in which the UK gov operates. Unknown regions are really the regions of Scotland fyi.:wink:

On the subject of what posters should be offering on this site, it's not for you to decide, Simon, there are no rules which I've read which say you have to post in a certain way.

As long as I stay within the rules, which I have, I will continue to post links to stories which others may like to see.

Happy postings:greengrin

You cant expect the so-called MSM to report something as news, when it's just a propagandist blogger posting something he claims from an anonymous source as fact :rolleyes:

You also seem to gloss over the fact that the methodology was revised for the RTS figures, and the SNAP figures which might be considered more accurate show a massive increase in Scotland's oil exports at the same time the RTS one drops. Somewhere close to £15bn perhaps?

It would be a better forum if we posted opinions for debate, and occasionally backed them up with certified facts, rather than posting falsehoods posing as 'facts' and then just kept repeating them and claimed any argument was just the MSM distorting things - that very convenient excuse :rolleyes:.

As for your latter point, I don't decide who posts what and in what way. You're right and I wouldn't really want to, in truth.

I was merely expressing my opinion, which I'm sure you will let me, which is that repeatedly posting hyperlinks isn't really debate, it's just sloganising and a bit disappointing.

And I have no idea who Simon is :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

You cant expect the so-called MSM to report something as news, when it's just a propagandist blogger posting something he claims from an anonymous source as fact :rolleyes:

You also seem to gloss over the fact that the methodology was revised for the RTS figures, and the SNAP figures which might be considered more accurate show a massive increase in Scotland's oil exports at the same time the RTS one drops. Somewhere close to £15bn perhaps?

It would be a better forum if we posted opinions for debate, and occasionally backed them up with certified facts, rather than posting falsehoods posing as 'facts' and then just kept repeating them and claimed any argument was just the MSM distorting things - that very convenient excuse :rolleyes:.

As for your latter point, I don't decide who posts what and in what way. You're right and I wouldn't really want to, in truth.

I was merely expressing my opinion, which I'm sure you will let me, which is that repeatedly posting hyperlinks isn't really debate, it's just sloganising and a bit disappointing.

And I have no idea who Simon is :greengrin

:faf:

That would be the same MSM which decided last week that Alex Salmond had never read a book. Full article by Kenny Farq in the Times, and his source was a uni student's interview. One which Salmond had said he'd never written a book. This was turned round by KF in his story to "read a book". The article was then removed by the Times, but surely a quick phone call to check his facts before running the story :dunno:

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-vanishings/

This was quickly followed up by David Torrance saying the same, or the Herald article leading from a Labour press release, regarding the train times. Once again found out telling lies.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/newspaper-misses-accuracy-targets/

https://wingsoverscotland.com/a-series-of-coincidences/

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-king-of-irony-world/

Excuse me if I find myself looking at alternative sites/blogs which are reporting facts, instead of the broadsheets/tabloids which are being caught telling lies.

You can carry on following the state news, the corrections page is getting bigger by the day, but some of use have moved on.

Have a nice day Simon.:greengrin

[Glory Lurker]

No surprise here, unfortunately



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41174619


By the way, cannae believe I beat R7 to this! :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

No surprise here, unfortunately



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41174619


By the way, cannae believe I beat R7 to this! :greengrin

Find it difficult to get upset about something that was obvious to all at the time.

[ronaldo7]

No surprise here, unfortunately



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41174619


By the way, cannae believe I beat R7 to this! :greengrin

:tee hee: Not got much time on my hands at the moment bud...over to my other Yes mates.:thumbsup:

You're right, it's no surprise, just like the many other things that have come to pass during the summer.

Racist and bigoted Tories, 5 days of Corbyn/Findlay falsehoods, and a Union going to the dogs with Brexit.

What more could better together have dreamed up for us.:rolleyes:

They've certainly looked after all those jobs in the oil industry. Broad shoulders my erse.

There is always an alternative.:hyper

https://t.co/Wflc94pZS3

[One Day Soon]

The utter state of this thread.

[cabbageandribs1875]

As long as I stay within the rules, which I have, I will continue to post links to stories which others may like to see.

Happy postings:greengrin



keep the links coming :aok: even better when they p@ss off the 'twins' on here

[ronaldo7]

keep the links coming :aok: even better when they p@ss off the 'twins' on here

:greengrin

Richard Murphy seems to have got under the skin of Kevin Hague(dog food salesman). A good piece on GERS, for those of "ALL" political persuasions.

https://t.co/zmjncMcqxK

[Mr White]

keep the links coming :aok: even better when they p@ss off the 'twins' on here

So it's better just trying to get a rise out of people who have a different view than trying to participate in actual debate on independence related issues? Ok then that explains why this part of the forum has shrunk to the sorry state it's currently in.

FWIW I voted Yes in 2014 and in the unlikely event of getting the chance to do so again I most likely would. But some of the absolute ***** I've read on here and FB etc from pro-independence supporters really makes me wonder what the hell they're trying to achieve. There is little or no chance of changing any no voters minds if the focus is on just winding them up and rubbing their noses in pro-indy propaganda.

[steakbake]

So it's better just trying to get a rise out of people who have a different view than trying to participate in actual debate on independence related issues? Ok then that explains why this part of the forum has shrunk to the sorry state it's currently in.

FWIW I voted Yes in 2014 and in the unlikely event of getting the chance to do so again I most likely would. But some of the absolute ***** I've read on here and FB etc from pro-independence supporters really makes me wonder what the hell they're trying to achieve. There is little or no chance of changing any no voters minds if the focus is on just winding them up and rubbing their noses in pro-indy propaganda.

I would agree with this, in many ways. I'm a stick-on Yes - so I'm not going to change my vote just because of a few folks on twitter, FB or dot net. However, what I do know (having actively campaigned for Yes in 2014) is that there was definitely a big soft-No element. People who were open to the idea, but couldn't see it at the time as it had been explained. A good number of folk I know who voted No didn't do so with the same kind of certainty that I voted Yes and were/are there for the convincing.

Hectoring folks, winding them up, criticising them or blaming them for things that have happened since - for example, sentence by sentence, the famous Vow has unraveled without even talking about the situation that the Brexit vote places us in - is not going to convert people. It'll alienate them.

I waste my 140 characters pointing this out to people at times on twitter and it will probably mean nothing to folks on here or FB. However, I still wish that folks would think more about how to bring over soft-No voters with persuasion, rather than constantly grinding people down with assertions.

[Just Alf]

:greengrin

Richard Murphy seems to have got under the skin of Kevin Hague(dog food salesman). A good piece on GERS, for those of "ALL" political persuasions.

https://t.co/zmjncMcqxKWhat do folks a actually think of this?.. Seems to have been missed in the generic too and forth going on in this thread.

Taking it on one level.. How can Ruth Davidson (for example) argue successfully for us to vote for her if she's unwilling to have the proper info to hand to govern on her voters behalf?


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[pacoluna]

So it's better just trying to get a rise out of people who have a different view than trying to participate in actual debate on independence related issues? Ok then that explains why this part of the forum has shrunk to the sorry state it's currently in.

FWIW I voted Yes in 2014 and in the unlikely event of getting the chance to do so again I most likely would. But some of the absolute ***** I've read on here and FB etc from pro-independence supporters really makes me wonder what the hell they're trying to achieve. There is little or no chance of changing any no voters minds if the focus is on just winding them up and rubbing their noses in pro-indy propaganda.

Really?

[JeMeSouviens]

What do folks a actually think of this?.. Seems to have been missed in the generic too and forth going on in this thread.

Taking it on one level.. How can Ruth Davidson (for example) argue successfully for us to vote for her if she's unwilling to have the proper info to hand to govern on her voters behalf?


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Some of the stuff he points out makes obvious sense, eg. if you are apportioning spending to Scotland that actually gets spent outside Scotland then you also have to apportion revenue that occurs as a result of that spending to Scotland even though it's raised outside Scotland. That being said I still think it's overwhelmingly likely that Scotland's fiscal starting position would be bad because of the somewhat ridiculous Barnett formula which is tied to relative population sizes that existed in the mid-70s!

It's tricky politically because the SNP was happy to accept GERS at face value when there was a massive spike in the oil price.

[Mr White]

Really?

Yes really. I moved to Northern Ireland in 2015. That's unlikely to be reversed any time soon, if ever.

[JeMeSouviens]

Yes really. I moved to Northern Ireland in 2015. That's unlikely to be reversed any time soon, if ever.

If you hang on long enough you can vote Y/N to reunification. :wink:

[Mr White]

If you hang on long enough you can vote Y/N to reunification. :wink:

More chance of Korean reunification in my lifetime I suspect!

[JeMeSouviens]

More chance of Korean reunification in my lifetime I suspect!

I actually think that's a lot likelier. Both populations are all for it. The north is bound to open up sooner or later, probably when China runs out of patience propping them up. I think when it does come, like in Germany, it will be speedy.

[Mibbes Aye]

I actually think that's a lot likelier. Both populations are all for it. The north is bound to open up sooner or later, probably when China runs out of patience propping them up. I think when it does come, like in Germany, it will be speedy.

It's a fascinating prospect and certainly cheerier than the scenarios that are currently being war-gamed!

Numbers-wise I think it's almost exponential. NK would add around fifty percent to the population, whereas East Germany was a lot less. How that translates into economic development is anyone's guess. If managed right then Japan would be rightly wary as Korea would be a real competitor.

[snooky]

Stuff Korea - we have power crisis at home right now.
All eyes should be fixed on what the sneaky UK government is up to. :ill:

[Smartie]

It's a fascinating prospect and certainly cheerier than the scenarios that are currently being war-gamed!

Numbers-wise I think it's almost exponential. NK would add around fifty percent to the population, whereas East Germany was a lot less. How that translates into economic development is anyone's guess. If managed right then Japan would be rightly wary as Korea would be a real competitor.

I think they'd rather have a neighbour less likely to launch missiles, possibly even nuclear ones, in their general direction.

Plus, dragging the North into the 21st century surely represents a huge trading opportunity?

I think Japan would rather have a stable neighbour, even if they are a formidable competitor, with a large portion of the country whose improving living standards and demand for imports will immediately drastically increase.

[High-On-Hibs]

Stuff Korea - we have power crisis at home right now.
All eyes should be fixed on what the sneaky UK government is up to. :ill:

A lot of power grabbing going on and we continue to turn a blind eye to it. Utterly shameful.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

I think they'd rather have a neighbour less likely to launch missiles, possibly even nuclear ones, in their general direction.

Plus, dragging the North into the 21st century surely represents a huge trading opportunity?

I think Japan would rather have a stable neighbour, even if they are a formidable competitor, with a large portion of the country whose improving living standards and demand for imports will immediately drastically increase.

Eventually maybe, but NK would, i imagine be an enormous drag on the SK economy for many decades. East Germany is still way behind the West as gar as i know (although there are others in here bettet placed to comment on that) but in the same way that the irish arent desperate to integrate the economic basket case of NI, i imagine many in the south of korea would dread the affects of unification.

[ronaldo7]

I'll just leave this here. Imagine what will happen when we really get going.:greengrin

Happy Christmas Independenistas.:aok:

19938