Ah! A duplicate thread!
I'll go further on what I said on the other one.
This is not The NHS its NHS England or the NHS in England.
I think it's just downright ignorant that the media, who should know better, take this line as if only England matters. Almost imperial like that in bygone days the UK was referred to as England.
It's a serious message (the article) discredited with a fundamental error.
I did say the message had merit.A Doctor in the South East, presumably London has the balls to speak out. Deary me. Come on here and tell me that the NHS in the devolved nations do not have exactly the same problems of long term underfunding, staff shortages, privatisation and I will take your reply seriously.
I did say the message had merit.
All 4 NHS are underfunded some more than others, only 1 of the countries of the UK has full control over its budget. The others have to mix and match with what they're allocated.
With that in mind NHS Scotland does quite well. More money spent on the NHS per head of population, more GPs per head of population, more hospital beds per head of population, you get the gist.
Privatisation is being used differently in Scotland and England.
In Scotland if there's a growing waiting list in a particular board then the excess will be sent to the NHS Golden Jubilee hospital for treatment. Only if that is being used to capacity will private hospitals be used to reduce that list. It means there's a flexibility to deal with different specialisms as they arise.
Quite different from England selling core services such as GP practices to private companies and underfunded Trusts competing for the bread and butter services while still having to fork out for the low volume/high expense stuff.
I know folk complain about staff shortages. I accept in some areas, both specialisms and geographically, there are shortages. Its perhaps reassuring though that year on year for a long while now there are more doctors, nurses, AHPs in NHS Scotland than there's ever been.
I can't speak for nor have any desire to say anything about the other 2 devolved nations, they have their own problems.
Can you tell me what a fully funded NHS would look like? And where would these funds come from?
Well we both know that's not going to happen while Scotland remains part of the UK. If we were independent the proportion of that saving alone would cover most of NHS Scotlands expenses over a year with a decent amount left over. £13/14bn the last time I looked.I believe in a publically owned economy under democratic control as opposed to the crisis ridden capitalist economic model.
In the here and now, with what we have, the scrapping of Trident would be a good place to start, to top up billions by taxation and NI and also retrain workers working on Trident to be retrained to be used to provide socially beneficial goods, which is possible if the will is there. A military manufacturing consortium was give a contract to produce 10,000 ventilators.
Cost of Trident
Manufacturing four Successor submarines – £31 billion
Contingency fund – £10 billion
Missile life extension programme – £350 million
Replacement warheads – £4 billion
Infrastructure capital costs – £4 billion
In-service costs – £142 billion
Conventional military forces directly assigned to support Trident – £1 billion
Decommissioning – £13 billion
TOTAL – £205 billion
It could spend more on the NHS if if spent less elsewhere, or raised the small proportion of tax it controls, but that could be counter productive if it can't control all aspects of tax raising/borrowing.Does "Fully funded" mean the budget is limitless?
The NHS is underfunded. In England and Scotland. In Scotland as a consequence of Westminster but if the Scottish Government wanted to it could spend more on the NHS in Scotland.
For too long the SNP have hidden behind Westminster.
Not saying it's easy Mark. However, I'd feel confident that additional resources could be found from the existing budget.It could spend more on the NHS if if spent less elsewhere, or raised the small proportion of tax it controls, but that could be counter productive if it can't control all aspects of tax raising/borrowing.
If they did find money from their existing money, it would only result in someone else being done over and probably quite rightly complaining, Whack-a-mole politics.Not saying it's easy Mark. However, I'd feel confident that additional resources could be found from the existing budget.
The bigger picture though is of course how the NHS Scotland could be. When last did we hear an SNP politician articulate that vision?
Why not a pledge to invest more as a % of GDP in healthcare than any other European nation?
It's for another thread but it really is time the Yes campaign outlined the realistic achievable vision!!
Agreed on the final point.If they did find money from their existing money, it would only result in someone else being done over and probably quite rightly complaining, Whack-a-mole politics.
The Yes campaign has nothing to do with the running of Scotland if independence was won, that's the job of political parties. which I guess is the main issue with the current Yes campaign- too closely wed to The SNP