Is Scottish independence a &#x27;good or bad&#x27; thing?

Original post by MatureStudent36

My god. I've git a nationalist saying that only his political party can save our future.

You've mentioned life expectancies. You may need to do a little reasearch that one braveheart. Even with a 100% free at source healthcare with comparable government spend per capita than most other European nations ( but without the additional private health cover that Europeans are forced to pay for on top) we have some of the lowest life expectancies in Europe.

In fact, in many respects we're going backwards. We know have the highest death rate through cancer in the past seven years.

http://m.scotsman.com/news/health/scottish-female-cancer-deaths-at-7-year-high-1-3250005

Well none of the other parties offer free tuition fees down south as it is do they? The SNP are the only viable option to saving this policy.

Just did research it...the UK is 19th in europe and 27th in the world according to my source. 10 years higher than the lowest in europe and 2 years less than the healthiest in europe. So above average as it stands. Hardly the "lowest life expectancies in europe"

You admitted that in many respects we are going backwards, yet at the same time claim that privisation is working? Explain that one to me.

Cancer rates are going up as deaths from other causes are going down. Thats happening everywhere.

Reply 4882

MoD 'places' its toxic tank shells in Solway Firth

Original post by cowsforsale

Since we are being critical about SNP's treatment towards rUK students, what do we make of this?

Scottish lives considered cheap by UK defence bosses

Made up by a headcase.

As far as I understand it, there are no current plans for DU testing at Dundrennan. This has indeed happened in the past, however. As the MOD have made clear, this has always been in line with procedures of bodies like SEPA.

What's worth noting is that the toxicity of DU shells was an issue in the early 2000s. This led to a report from the WHO showing that contamination risk was minimal. Actual contamination risk comes chiefly from the firing process, not contact with the shells themselves.

Either way, to suggest there would actually be a public health risk from this is nonsense. You could put pretty highly radioactive waste in a pool and swim in it without risk of harm. Water is a very effective barrier against radiation. Science and that.

I don't like the SNP's luddite scaremongering over nuclear technology. It's backward and lacking in basic scientific knowledge.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4883

CFL2013

Original post by cowsforsale

Since we are being critical about SNP's treatment towards rUK students, what do we make of this?

Scottish lives considered cheap by UK defence bosses

MoD 'places' its toxic tank shells in Solway Firth

Same MOD that has been headed by three different Scotsmen in the last 15 years? :rolleyes:

Reply 4884

Original post by 1tartanarmy

Cancer rates are going up as deaths from other causes are going down. Thats happening everywhere.

Probably more so in Scotland, where Barnett consequentials from the Cancer Drugs Fund in England have not been invested in improving our low level of cancer drug availability, despite the fairly modest cost.

Reply 4885

Original post by 1tartanarmy

Privisation will ruin our much envied health service.

Funny how the majority of NHS services that a person has contact with - GPs, dental treatment, eye tests, pharmacy - have always been private then, eh? You'd think if privatisation was so bad, it would already have ruined things.

With a UK parliament going down this route more and more, Scotland can only resist for so long.

Except of course the use of private services in NHS Scotland increased by around 60% in 2012-13: a huge sum in a single year. The Scottish Government is resisting nothing.

The same fear could be said about tuition fees. Thanks to the SNP i'm going to leave university with very very little debt. I want others to benefit from this like I have.

Yeah, instead now everyone is saddled with your debt and instead of you - the person who benefitted - paying, the rest of society (including those who didn't get a comparable education) have to as well.

Anyway, you believe in 'free' tuition. Fine. In that case, why does it only fund a first degree? Surely the benefit to the economy of masters degrees is far greater than a first arts degree? As these are usually gateways to the professions, why are they being paid for? Why is there no student support available during this time?

One arbitrary cut-off for when you'll provide 'free' education is really no better than another.

Reply 4886

Original post by L i b

Probably more so in Scotland, where Barnett consequentials from the Cancer Drugs Fund in England have not been invested in improving our low level of cancer drug availability, despite the fairly modest cost.

The cancer drug fund allows drugs that have no significant cost-effectivness analysis done on them to be given to patients. That will likely result in money wasted that could have been spent else where.

Furthermore it is not exactly fair. A health service that puts importance on particular conditions ultimately results in the minority being discriminated against because they don't have a big enough public exposure to have its own fund.

Lastly, there is the IPTR process in scotland, individual patient treatment requents function in the same way as the cancer fund, but patients with other conditions can also use the service. It allows patients to get drugs that are not deemed cost effective to the entire population, but in their circumstances may be cost effective to them.

Go and read up before posting stupid news paper headline esqe comments about drug access.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4887

Original post by L i b

Funny how the majority of NHS services that a person has contact with - GPs, dental treatment, eye tests, pharmacy - have always been private then, eh? You'd think if privatisation was so bad, it would already have ruined things.

Except of course the use of private services in NHS Scotland increased by around 60% in 2012-13: a huge sum in a single year. The Scottish Government is resisting nothing.

Yeah, instead now everyone is saddled with your debt and instead of you - the person who benefitted - paying, the rest of society (including those who didn't get a comparable education) have to as well.

Anyway, you believe in 'free' tuition. Fine. In that case, why does it only fund a first degree? Surely the benefit to the economy of masters degrees is far greater than a first arts degree? As these are usually gateways to the professions, why are they being paid for? Why is there no student support available during this time?

One arbitrary cut-off for when you'll provide 'free' education is really no better than another.

Yup they are private you are correct, I can tell you exactly why they are not as good as you make them out with an example. Pharmacists working in NHS hospitals have time to focus on patients healthcare need and has adequate time to have consultations with the patient.

However, pharmacists working in a retail company have to constantly cut advice short, pick and choose which patients are on the surface more important (which could miss life saving intervention situations) and have to have one eye on store targets.

All pressures from the profit making organisation.

Edit: on phone so cannot possibly address all your points, the majority of which were stupid anyways.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4888

Original post by 1tartanarmy

Yup they are private you are correct, I can tell you exactly why they are not as good as you make them out with an example. Pharmacists working in NHS hospitals have time to focus on patients healthcare need and has adequate time to have consultations with the patient.

However, pharmacists working in a retail company have to constantly cut advice short, pick and choose which patients are on the surface more important (which could miss life saving intervention situations) and have to have one eye on store targets.

All pressures from the profit making organisation.

I've never encountered a pharmacist with sales targets in the private sector. However I have encountered waiting targets for patients in the NHS. Rather seems what you suggest is completely the opposite.

Anyway, to suggest that a profit-making company would compromise service for through-put is daft. Patients choose the service most appropriate to them in a free market - which means quality of service is just as important as quantity of customers that a business can cater to.

Edit: on phone so cannot possibly address all your points, the majority of which were stupid anyways.

It's all right. You're probably more suited to messaging people about lolworthy cat pictures on Facebook anyway.

Reply 4889

Original post by 1tartanarmy

The cancer drug fund allows drugs that have no significant cost-effectivness analysis done on them to be given to patients. That will likely result in money wasted that could have been spent else where.

Furthermore it is not exactly fair. A health service that puts importance on particular conditions ultimately results in the minority being discriminated against because they don't have a big enough public exposure to have its own fund.

Yet we are talking about a health service with a considerable gap in cancer drug prescribing compared to comparable countries internationally. Of course you should focus on individual conditions when there is clear evidence that individual conditions are not being adequately catered for. That's not about public exposure, it's about statistics.

There are genuine issues of why QALY costs cannot adequately cover rarer ailments effectively. The treatment of orphan medicines has demonstrated that beyond all doubt.

To suggest that thousands of patients in Scotland missing out on clinically effective cancer drugs which can be evidentially demonstrated to prolong their lives is 'waste' is obscene. It demonstrates the sort of depths to which the rabid SNP supporters have sunk.

Lastly, there is the IPTR process in scotland, individual patient treatment requents function in the same way as the cancer fund, but patients with other conditions can also use the service. It allows patients to get drugs that are not deemed cost effective to the entire population, but in their circumstances may be cost effective to them.

The IPTR system is not remotely comparable - but if it was, you'd actually be conceding the principle again. In point of fact, IPTRs - which, let's not forget were an absolute shambles until very recently - are there for the treatment of exceptional cases. Not simply for treatment where it is of justifiable benefit to the patient.

This is why there were assessments showing numerous different treatments that were available in England through the CDF, but were refused to patients in Scotland.

Reply 4890

Original post by L i b

I've never encountered a pharmacist with sales targets in the private sector. However I have encountered waiting targets for patients in the NHS. Rather seems what you suggest is completely the opposite.

Anyway, to suggest that a profit-making company would compromise service for through-put is daft. Patients choose the service most appropriate to them in a free market - which means quality of service is just as important as quantity of customers that a business can cater to.

It's all right. You're probably more suited to messaging people about lolworthy cat pictures on Facebook anyway.

I have, in fact I have met many many pharmacists with sales targets and prescription targets. Which are of course different things.

Some towns patients have no choice. Pharmacy is the kind of profession where often one is enough per town, do those patients have a choice? realistically they don't. In fact as the multiples grow patients are having increasingly less options. Unsurprisingly these multiples have a massive say in the NHS now, profit making organisations having their input into healthcare is a recipe for disaster in terms of generating the best health outcomes.

Lastly, I hate lol cats. I don't find it amusing. I do however enjoy vines and talking about them, some are pretty creative!

Reply 4891

Original post by L i b

Yet we are talking about a health service with a considerable gap in cancer drug prescribing compared to comparable countries internationally. Of course you should focus on individual conditions when there is clear evidence that individual conditions are not being adequately catered for. That's not about public exposure, it's about statistics.

There are genuine issues of why QALY costs cannot adequately cover rarer ailments effectively. The treatment of orphan medicines has demonstrated that beyond all doubt.

To suggest that thousands of patients in Scotland missing out on clinically effective cancer drugs which can be evidentially demonstrated to prolong their lives is 'waste' is obscene. It demonstrates the sort of depths to which the rabid SNP supporters have sunk.

The IPTR system is not remotely comparable - but if it was, you'd actually be conceding the principle again. In point of fact, IPTRs - which, let's not forget were an absolute shambles until very recently - are there for the treatment of exceptional cases. Not simply for treatment where it is of justifiable benefit to the patient.

This is why there were assessments showing numerous different treatments that were available in England through the CDF, but were refused to patients in Scotland.

My point was that it is unfair to have a separate fund for one health condition, whether its adequately catered for or not. Cancer isn't the only condition not catered for as it stands. These inadequacy's can be tackled without setting up a private fund for one condition that is not cost-effective.

Paying money for drugs that have a benefit is good, I agree. But paying money for drugs that are of benefit, when there is another that would give more benefit is ridiculous, unethical and unfair. We aren't just saying "you can't have that", its a case of saying "You can't have that there are more cost-effective alternatives" and that "these drugs have not been fully evaluated".

Furthermore you are slandering me again with your last point, which I hope you realise is something I never to do anyone, despite how easy it may be. As a debater I thought you would know what was fair debating and what was just arguing?

I want to make this clear. I fully supports giving people drugs if it will help them. I don't however support giving people drugs that are not evaluated properly, when at the same time someone else is suffering and there is a drug waiting that WILL work.

One last point...You continuously state that the house of lords and nuclear weapons are not a "big expense". How many patients do you think could have their drugs with the money used in funding these? thats 70 million per year for the house of lords (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9221538/Cost-of-running-reformed-Lords-to-soar-peers-claim.html) and 2 billion for trident (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_trident_nuclear_deterrent-28864)

Would £2070000000 buy a lot of drugs? I reckon it would.

Reply 4892

Original post by 1tartanarmy

My point was that it is unfair to have a separate fund for one health condition, whether its adequately catered for or not. Cancer isn't the only condition not catered for as it stands.

Really? Well if you care to point out other areas which are inadequately funded, I would certainly be more than willing to set up separate prescribing funds for them. I'd say where we are shown to be inadequate, we should address that as a matter of urgency.

Paying money for drugs that have a benefit is good, I agree. But paying money for drugs that are of benefit, when there is another that would give more benefit is ridiculous, unethical and unfair. We aren't just saying "you can't have that", its a case of saying "You can't have that there are more cost-effective alternatives" and that "these drugs have not been fully evaluated".

That's not what's happening. QALY costs are an extremely blunt instrument.

These was talk after the Routledge Review of them reassessing the priority given to end of life treatments - where a higher QALY cost can be justified. The CDF already effectively does that, and has been doing that since 2010.

But more importantly, QALY cost assessments are essentially discriminatory. A medicine has a lower cost value if it is for an ailment which is more common. That doesn't mean the medicine is less effective, or will have a greater impact on the person's life, it just means it costs more. If the NHS is indeed to be a universal service, then we should frankly be making allowances - within reason - for such cost disparities.

Furthermore you are slandering me again with your last point, which I hope you realise is something I never to do anyone, despite how easy it may be. As a debater I thought you would know what was fair debating and what was just arguing?

Now, I was thinking of making up a little list of all the insults, personal abuse and general ill-tempered bull-**** you've thrown around recently. But I really can't be arsed. Needless to say, my response is somewhere between 'har har' and 'get it up you'.

One last point...You continuously state that the house of lords and nuclear weapons are not a "big expense". How many patients do you think could have their drugs with the money used in funding these? thats 70 million per year for the house of lords (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9221538/Cost-of-running-reformed-Lords-to-soar-peers-claim.html) and 2 billion for trident (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_trident_nuclear_deterrent-28864)

We could do it within the framework of the current NHS budget. Indeed, as I've said, Westminster gave Holyrood the money as Barnett consequentials from the Cancer Drugs Fund.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4893

Midlander

Original post by 1tartanarmy

My point was that it is unfair to have a separate fund for one health condition, whether its adequately catered for or not. Cancer isn't the only condition not catered for as it stands. These inadequacy's can be tackled without setting up a private fund for one condition that is not cost-effective.

Paying money for drugs that have a benefit is good, I agree. But paying money for drugs that are of benefit, when there is another that would give more benefit is ridiculous, unethical and unfair. We aren't just saying "you can't have that", its a case of saying "You can't have that there are more cost-effective alternatives" and that "these drugs have not been fully evaluated".

Furthermore you are slandering me again with your last point, which I hope you realise is something I never to do anyone, despite how easy it may be. As a debater I thought you would know what was fair debating and what was just arguing?

I want to make this clear. I fully supports giving people drugs if it will help them. I don't however support giving people drugs that are not evaluated properly, when at the same time someone else is suffering and there is a drug waiting that WILL work.

One last point...You continuously state that the house of lords and nuclear weapons are not a "big expense". How many patients do you think could have their drugs with the money used in funding these? thats 70 million per year for the house of lords (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9221538/Cost-of-running-reformed-Lords-to-soar-peers-claim.html) and 2 billion for trident (http://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_trident_nuclear_deterrent-28864)

Would £2070000000 buy a lot of drugs? I reckon it would.

The pharmaceutical industry in the UK is dying because the government wants the NHS to buy the cheapest drugs rather than the best quality ones and will not subsidise the cost of R+D for delivering new drugs to market. As a professional scientist I now have to pursue work either in another industry or abroad.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4894

Left Hand Drive

18

Original post by MatureStudent36

Their own one that they're developing.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Economy/SNAP

plus the GOvernment and Expenditure Revenue Scotland (GERS)

http://m.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-economist-attacks-evidence-in-debate-1-2857358

Can you explain where exactly and why its flawed? Can you point out the inaccuracies in the figures and please provide the correct ones and with sources?

Reply 4895

cowsforsale

15

Original post by MatureStudent36

As for Di rounds. DU rounds aren't toxic in solid form. Its when they're fired and hit a solid target like a tank that there is a belief that the impact of the round creates uranium oxide which is believed to be harmful.

The Ministry of Defence has been evading an international ban on dumping radioactive waste at sea by redefining thousands of uranium weapons fired in the Solway Firth as "placements".

Am I missing something?

MatureStudent36

Those rounds are at the bottom of the sea and would involve a huge salvage effort at great cost for no benefit.

Yes, let's leave decaying radioactive material to sit in the sea.

Original post by Midlander

A debate with Salmond would inevitably include the fat bigot saying 'How can an Englishman know what is best for Scotland?', and you know it

No, I just know Salmond would rip Cameron to shreds (please please please don't take that literally!!!!)

Fat bigot? You just can't help yourself can you...

Seeing as 56% of the poll are from people in UK want the debate (19% undecided), then surely DC must know it's in everyone's interest that the debate happened.

Much more reasonable would be a debate with the actual leader of the BT campaign,

No, First minister of Scotland should go toe to toe with Prime Minister of the UK. Leader of BT goes against leader of Yes campaign.

I am not proposing to break a union and create a new country. The SNP are, and for it to be convincing they must have a definitive case for it-they don't, and don't even want full independence from the evil UK as far as currency is concerned. Do you think it does much good for trade with Scotland's number one customer to spend years telling them what nasty people they are?

Do you think it'd be better for rUK trade wise if there wasn't a shared currency? AFAIK, it's only temporary.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4896

cowsforsale

15

Original post by CFL2013

Same MOD that has been headed by three different Scotsmen in the last 15 years? :rolleyes:

To be honest I'm still reeling after you posted this..

Original post by CFL2013

I don't really care if Scotland stays or goes from the Union, but as an English person working in the North Sea, it always amuses me when the anti-Union boys try and shoe-horn O&G revenues into their budget projections. However, they never seem to take into account the fact that by about 2030 decommissioning liabilities for all the infrastructure will be greater than the projected revenues from the fields. So I guess they'll be wanting to come back about then.

Would love to see some proof that backs that up.
Scotland seems to be the only nation that will be worse off after striking oil lol.

Reply 4897

Good bloke