Tag Archives: NHS

THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

Dave Simonds cartoon on London's economic dominance

cartoon by Dave Simmonds

The mainstream press in Scotland can still come up with a truth or two. For example;

The Prime Minister talks about the ties that bind the Union, in other words, but heads a government and a parliament that barely seems to register Scotland’s existence, except at those rare moments when we threaten the Union with imminent extinction; and to say that this is no way to run a mature and functioning democracy is to understate the case.

The truth is that over the last generation, Westminster has become increasingly unrepresentative of anyone except a narrow caste of career politicians; has become steadily more dependent on funding by wealthy individuals and corporations; has – as a consequence – largely ceased to offer a real political choice between neo-liberal orthodoxy and other approaches to creating a good society; and has been found guilty of spectacular levels of greed and corruption in relation to its own expenses system.

… there are questions to be asked about how far we should allow our decisions on Scotland’s future to be shaped by the representatives of what is essentially a failed financial system, now propped up only by taxpayer subsidy taken out of our own pockets.

And not only are those structures still in place six years on, but they are still seeking to impose their failed ideology on ever-larger swathes of the planet. The next scheme, courtesy of global corporate lobbying, is the so-called TTIP, or Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, an imminent EU/US deal which will effectively forbid governments from running public services, and force them – regardless of the views of voters – to open up all services, including the NHS, for commercial exploitation.

And this is the paradox at the heart of the referendum debate, as we reach its final hours. On one hand, we are told of what are clearly real economic risks associated with independence. Yet, on the other, we cannot help but be aware that those risks are often being imposed, and even engineered, by corporations and structures whose power needs to be challenged – thoroughly, bravely and soon – if democracy is to have any chance of surviving and thriving in the 21st century.

To vote Yes next Thursday, in the spirit of the remarkable grassroots campaign for re-empowerment that has swept Scotland over the last year, is to throw down that challenge and to accept the consequences, whatever they may be.

   (http://www.scotsman.com/news/joyce-mcmillan-democracy-will-be-the-real-winner-1-3539203)

Genuine democracy at work is something rarely seen today, when political campaigns tend to be run by lobbyists in the pockets of the ultra-rich. An opinion poll predicts that next Thursday more than 80% of the electorate will cast their votes. Since when did a general election in any Western “democracy” come near to such a figure? This energy has been generated by the Yes Scotland campaign, not by the Westminster politicians currently rushing to Scotland in desperation – behaviour reminicent of lemmings rather than people.

By the standards of any fair society, Yes deserves to win.

REALITETER I STORBRITANNIEN

 

I den första posten för denna blogg påpekade jag hur den politiska dominansen av sydöstra England kastrerade skotska politikers inflytande på Westminster. Om vi vidgar det geografiska området till södra England blir dominansen ännu större, enligt följande (avkortade) inlägg på en länk:

Ultimately, all Westminster parties are deeply influenced by the political culture prevalent in the south east of England.

Below a line drawn from The Wash on the east coast of England to the Bristol Channel on the west coast there are 302 Westminster parliamentary seats – almost half of all seats in the House of Commons.

Winning a UK election means pitching your appeal and your policies at that southern electorate.  That stark electoral reality has drawn all of the Westminster parties on to the same political terrain as outlined above.  We can only break with their socially unjust policies if we first break with the British state itself.”

I sig själv räcker det som argument för ett självständigt Skottland. Nej-sidan har försökt skrämma skottarna med budskapet att Skottland är för litet för att klara sig bra, att ekonomin kommer att sjunka och att folket kommer att få det sämre utanför ”Storbritannien”. En rapport från den oberoende Credit Suisse torpederar effektivt budskapet från ”The Campaign of Fear” (http://78.110.165.228/index.php/scottish-news/9637-scotland-ahead-of-ruk-even-without-oil-says-credit-suisse-report). Slutsatsen är att små nationer klarar sig fint, ett budskap som vi i Norden kan skriva under.

I ett inlägg har Rikard Ovin frågat varför Shetland och Orkney inte skulle kunna bli självständiga från ett självständigt Skottland och återansluta sig till rUK. Det hänger på att Orkney och Shetland inte har varit självständiga nationer under historisk tid. Därför sträcker sig deras andel av oljan bara ut till den nationella gränsen, d.v.s. 12 sjömil från kusten, ett område hittills utan fyndigheter. Men det finns andra inkomster från oljan som kommer öarna tillgodo om resultatet blir ett Ja (http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/8714-salmond-offers-seabed-revenue-to-islands).

Under den senaste veckan har diskursen handlat mycket om vad som skulle hända sjukvården efter en Ja- respektive Nej-vinst. Sjukvårdstjänster levereras av “The National Health Service” (NHS). Den nuvarande regeringen har aviserat ett program för besparingar inom många sektorer. För NHS bygger dessa på en ökad privatisering av sjukvårdsleverantörer och en avgiftsbeläggning av vissa tjänster (http://www.futureukandscotland.ac.uk/blog/state-debate-would-nhs-and-welfare-state-be-%E2%80%98safe%E2%80%99-independent-scotland). Ja-sidan har lovat att de skulle fortsätta med fri sjukvård för iSkottland. Här finns många lärdomar att dra från Sveriges erfarenheter av privatisering inom offentliga tjänster.

På senare tid har mycket skrivits om de stora medierna är oväldiga eller inte. The Scotsman, The Guardian, the BBC, alla ger mer ”spin” till “The Establishment” och Nej-sidan än till positiva argument för självständighet (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sara-sheridan/bbc-bias_b_5546493.html och https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/john-robertson/bbc-bias-and-scots-referendum-new-report). Trots dominansen av negativa nyheter i MSMs fortsätter Ja-sidan att växa. Denna blogg har tidigare rapporterat en stort övertag för ”Nej” bland tipsare (”bettors”). Men bland skotska tipsare satsar 80% på en Ja-resultat och liknande siffror rapporteras från Wales och Nordirland (http://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/Independence-Debate/Punters-backing-Scottish-independence-11082014.htm).

En skotte röstar där hen satsar sina pengar!