You can’t win these days if you’re a Scottish Nationalist trying to get through these British Olympics unscathed. On the one hand, you have the Telegraph arguably overreaching in its criticism of Salmond’s support for ‘Scolympians’ and then on the other you have the Scotland on Sunday claiming that Danny Boyle’s Opening Ceremony “will drive support away from Scottish independence”.
The attempts to politicise sport in Scotland have grown increasingly weary since the SNP, albeit tongue in cheek, laid claim to McFadden’s wonder goal against France and the Scottish press, like a pack of wolves, tore into Sir Chris Hoy and Andy Murray at press conferences just to generate a puff piece for their papers.
Let’s be clear, the Opening Ceremony was wonderful and Danny Boyle is clearly blessed with some sort of genius to achieve what he did, but the overblown rhetoric regarding its impact on independence doesn’t really match reality.
First of all, a cosy celebration of a very public 60s-esque NHS did not encapsulate the sneaking privatisation and broken promises of the past few years. The public health services is already cracking at the borders. Dancing nurses and a giant baby won’t change that reality over the next few years. An argument that a Scottish NHS is the only way to ensure a public NHS will be more persuasive than Friday night’s TV.
My favourite bit of the ceremony was probably the Industrial Revolution segment, with the sublime Kennth Brannagh as Isambard Kingdom Brunel leading the celebration of that part of Britain’s history. It didn’t have any impact on my intention to vote Yes in 2014 though as the Industrial Revolution will still be part of Scotland’s history come what may. We’re changing the future with this referendum, not the past.
The Scotland on Sunday also talks of “the love of a shared culture” as a reason why people will flock towards voting No after the opening ceremony. Perhaps, but people wildly texting and dancing to 70s, 80s and 90s music doesn’t seem very central to the independence debate from where I’m sitting, and I’m sure that happens all across Europe anyway, even if that particular segment of Friday smacked of a lamentable The Only Way is Essex generation rather than some sort of glorious British culture that we all share.
The strongest argument that Better Together have with regard to the Opening Ceremony is Sir Chris Hoy holding the flag aloft with Team GB parading in behind him. Big, powerful, successful but nice as pie, Sir Chris is that rare A-list personality that comes with a unmistakable Scottish stamp and an unmistakable British stamp on him. Alan Cumming and Alex Ferguson making their feelings about independence known doesn’t really add up to much, Sir Chris Hoy would be a different kettle of fish altogether, and the visuals from Friday won’t have gladdened many Nationalist hearts, from a strictly political perspective at least.
But overall, I’m not really buying the significance. I mean, Murdo Fraser is welcome to place his confidence that a 5 second snippet of Gregory’s Girl on prime time TV will keep Scots in line with the unionists, but I reckon he’ll end up having to work a bit harder than that as 2014 approaches and the debate reaches crunch point.
Of course, even if these Olympics give the No vote a boost, this is to ignore one equally crucial but more timely factor: Scotland will host the Commonweatlh Games in 2014, with a Scottish opening ceremony and Scottish athletes. Who would dare bet that they won’t have a distinctly political edge to them?
As for the next few weeks, there is nothing wrong with supporting British athletes, there is nothing wrong with supporting only Scottish athletes and there is nothing wrong with supporting everyone and just enjoying the show. Maybe politics should take a backseat during the greatest show on earth.
#1 by Indy on July 29, 2012 - 9:28 am
It kind of encapsulates a big gulf in this debate. Because I was watching the opening show and keeping an eye on twitter as well and there were loads of pro independence people saying this is a great show, it’s fantastic – and loads of pro Union people saying this is a great show, it’s British, take that you terrible nats. As though you can’t like the NHS or Pink Floyd if you are a nat! Kind of bizarre if you think about it. Especially because that parade of nations – how could that be anything but a celebration of independence? To be clear I don’t think the opening ceremony will have any impact really on the referendum but if you were to look at it from a constitutional perspective it was amazing to see all those countries coming and coming and coming and coming and coming .. a wee lesson in geography for most of us I suggest and a very visible reinforcement of just how many independent countries there are in the modern world.
#2 by FormerChampagneSocialist on July 29, 2012 - 9:43 am
All I saw was the last throes of a dying power, desperate to prove a continuing global relevance. if anything it strengthened my resolve to vote yes and to persuade as many others as I can to do the same.
It also reminded me that we paid for 9% of this escapade, in turn for zero benefit, and have been cynically denied Barnett consequentials by Treasury claims that none of the expenditure was Barnett-able.
SoS’s article is just the usual pathetic/desperate Unionist propaganda. Not worth the read, much like the rest of the paper.
FCS
#3 by gavin on July 29, 2012 - 10:26 am
It just seems a very odd arguement. That if you syphon billions out of Britains periphery ( most of the UK, in fact ), and spend it in the richest corner of the country on a vast bread and circuses event, then that will convince Scots this is the best we can hope for. The real impact will be the relentless Britnat propaganda eminating from the south, allied to the Scottish media’s traditional servility to any outside authority figures.
#4 by Barbarian on July 29, 2012 - 10:38 am
I thought the ceremony was superb, and not a hint of unionist conspiracy in sight. Salmond’s comment about “scolympians” was patronising and petty, as well as opportunist.
The nationalists will politicise the Commonwealth Games, of that you can be sure. And the unionists will bitch about the cost.
Salmond is going to grandstand all over the Commonwealth Games. There will be guests of honour, all of them likely to be celebrity types who are in favour of independence, with the top slot going to Sir Sean.
The Commonwealth Games must not be used as a platform to promote either independence or unionism. Two weeks of running, jumping and throwing is not a valid reason for either choice.
Keep it to being a sports event. Using it to promote nationalism in order to win the Referendum will not work. Many people consider themselves Scottish but do not want independence, despite what Joan McAlpine thinks.
And it will be interesting to see who the main sponsors will be.
#5 by Jeff on July 29, 2012 - 11:17 am
Alex Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland and leads a party determined to achieve Scottish indepedence. Surely it would’ve been bizarre for him to wish Team GB well? It’s a non story, I’m surprised you think he’s being “petty and patronising” to be honest.
“Many people consider themselves Scottish but do not want independence, despite what Joan McAlpine thinks”
What an odd line. Of course there are Scots against independence, the polls alone tell us that much.
#6 by Indy on July 29, 2012 - 11:56 am
What I think is interesting about this though is the impact it has had. People are still talking and tweeting and analysing it 2 days later. Which is odd because it was a terrific show but it was just a show. To me it was a good show, well done Danny Boyle, but that was that and now it’s about the sporting side of things.
But people are going over and over it and analysing it not just in Scottish terms i.e. what effect it could have on an independence referendum but on some kind of pan-British level, in a kind of ponderous what-does-this-tell-us-about-the-state-of-modern-Britain kind of way.
To me, the answer to that is in the question. If modern Briatain seeks to understand itself better by analysing the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games there is something a little skew whiff about its sense of identity perhaps!
#7 by Jeff on July 29, 2012 - 12:44 pm
Good points Indy, in both your comments, particularly the wave after wave of countries that many have never heard of (Comoros anyone?).
I don’t think it’s so unsurprising that the Opening Ceremony is analysed in so much detail, it’s watched by billions around the world. No one sport at the Olympics can come close to matching that, and most people have an opinion on China 2008 or Barcelona 92 for example.
I do agree with you one respect, the ott enthusiasm with which people have latched onto Danny Boyle’s vision does suggest a rather hollowness/emptiness that has gone before. ‘The NHS, Mary Poppins! You see! We do have an identity after all!’. It suggests a lack of confidence and heart.
Oh, and Paul McCartney. Bloody hell….
#8 by Indy on July 29, 2012 - 3:10 pm
Yes I can see what you mean. I just actually think it’s sad in a way that so many people seemed to need a kind of reinforcement that there is much that is positive about Britain. And how weird is that? Considering I am a nat.
#9 by Doug Daniel on July 29, 2012 - 12:53 pm
Exactly, Jeff. I thought the ceremony was brilliant, and I turned it on expecting to be turning it off again after 5 minutes in disgust at it being a smorgasbord of “England is Britain is England”. But it wasn’t, it was madcap brilliance. And I must admit, a bit of me was always thinking “damn, this is the best advert for Britain I’ve ever seen – if BetterTogether get Danny Boyle on board, we’re stuffed.”
But then the procession of countries came along, and we kept hearing how long they’d been independent. “Jamaica, celebrating 50 years of independence this year” is probably the solitary memorable line from any of the commentators. The 205 countries walking out makes a complete mockery of the idea that Scotland can’t be independent. Comoros? Sao Tome and Principe? Kiribati? Saint Kitts and Nevis? Come on, these are countries I only know from watching Pointless and doing online quizzes, and yet somehow they manage to survive as independent nations, while Scotland would somehow be uniquely incapable of doing the same?
The look on the faces of the athletes from these countries just made me want independence even more. The pride was clear for everyone to see. These athletes weren’t thinking “I wish we were part of a bigger country so that we could get more medals”, they were just chuffed to be there. I want that for Scottish athletes. As someone said on Twitter, New Zealand – population less than Scotland – have 196 athletes at the games, whereas Scotland has just over 50 in Team GB. There’s arguably about 140 Scottish athletes being denied a chance of competing in the Olympics because we’re in the UK – it’s actually detrimental to our athletes! What better example of this than Chris Hoy being prevented from defending all three of his gold medals due to being overlooked for the individual sprint in favour of Jason Kenny?
But most of all, looking back at the ceremony afterwards, as you and others have indicated, this was a celebration of the past, not the future. Anyone who really thinks the NHS bit was “one in the face for the Tories” is fooling themselves. Is a “leftie multi-cultural” ceremony going to be the catalyst for an uprising in the UK, with people overturning the government and creating a socialist revolution that turns the tables on the neo-liberal forces that have controlled the UK for the last 30-odd years, forcing the cuts to stop and for government to govern for the people and not the markets?
Of course it won’t – “we’re” British.
(Nice to see Aberdeenshire’s Evelyn Glennie at the ceremony by the way – her mum was my dad’s maths teacher, as I’ve been told several hundred times in my life.)
#10 by Jeff on July 29, 2012 - 1:10 pm
Doug, I never even thought about Scotland being denied Olympians due to being part of Team GB, but it makes sense. Similar in a way to Scotland being arguably under-represented by MEPs at the European Parliament.
#11 by Allan on July 29, 2012 - 11:42 pm
… but Scotland aren’t being denied Olympians. Any Scot who qualifies represents their (current) country, Great Britain.
As for missing out on 140 athletes, you will probably find that New Zealand spend more on their sport (and put it further up their list of priorities realising the health benefits) than we do here in Scotland and in the UK. As Hoy himself said four years ago, he wouldn’t have won his 3 gold medals with out the backing of the BOA and the construction of the Velodrome in… er… Manchester.
#12 by Indy on July 30, 2012 - 3:05 pm
What are you talking about???
Surely we would have more athletes as an independent country – because Scottish athletes would be competing to qualify for team Scotland not team GB.
Look at it another way. Imagine British athletes competed as part of Team USA. Would there be as many British athletes competing in the Olympics as there are now?
#13 by Allan on July 30, 2012 - 7:36 pm
Er… no, it doesn’t work like that. Certain sports have qualifying standards, while certain sports (like track cycling) restrict the size of national teams
#14 by Doug Daniel on July 30, 2012 - 5:00 pm
You’re missing the point, though. 205 nations are competing, and for many of those athletes, there’s simply no chance of them getting anywhere near a podium. But they still get great pride in representing their country at the Games.
How many of those athletes would be getting this chance if they were still under colonial rule or whatever? Bearing in mind there are almost four times as many countries this time as there were the last time the Olympics were held in London.
Would Hoy have won his three golds last time round if Scotland was independent? Depends if Scotland had placed emphasis on cycling (and there’s every chance we may have tried to find the next Obree.) But even if not, he’d still have been able to compete. He’s not even getting to compete in the Individual Sprint this time around. Don’t forget, there’s a velodrome being built in Glasgow for the Commonwealth Games – we may see a whole new generation of Scottish cyclists, trained in Scotland rather than Manchester.
#15 by Iain Menzies on July 30, 2012 - 6:06 pm
What’s your point? That as many people should get to compete as possible? Why? its not like there arent enough as it is.
I guess Hoy may be wanting to compete in certain events that he isnt getting the chance to. But if he isnt getting the chance to then why is that? My money would be on it being because whoever is selecting the competitors thinks someone else has a better chance of a win.
It doesnt really matter if he would have won if scotland was indy, since he did and it wasnt.
As for the colonial point, well there are at least 20 (i got bored counting) from what are de facto colonies. Like the Virgin Islands, both of them. Or special administrative areas like Hong Kong.
Other than your not liking Scots standing behind the Union flag…what exactly is the problem?
#16 by Allan on July 30, 2012 - 7:42 pm
But you are missing the point Daniel about qualifying standards… those 170 odd New Zealand athletes have obviously passed the set qualifying standard for the sports they are participating in, the same as the 50 odd Scots athletes within the Great Britain team.
On Hoy, yes there is a velodrome being built in Glasgow, but to all intents and purposes this is replacing the one Edinburgh City Council are demolishing. Need I mention that we have only one Olympic sized pool in this country.
#17 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on July 29, 2012 - 1:06 pm
To those outside the “UK” this was a manifestation of the English/British at there dottiest. To those within it was a shower of cold rain as it became evident that Boyle had nothing to say about the ancient, extant, indigenous multi-ethnicity of the now failing British state or the place of Scotland and Wales within it other than that neither figure in the broader scheme of aggressive NuBrit nationalism. The often whimsical themes were entirely anglocentric and wholely backward looking. Nostalgia for a lost world (the sixties?) indeed. As a hard line republican nationalist the spectacle simply confirmed that the sooner we get out of this slow-lane,toxic relationship and into the fast-lane of the modern world the better.
#18 by Robert Tyler on July 29, 2012 - 1:32 pm
“the sublime Kennth Brannagh”, do please take it easy….
#19 by Jeff on July 29, 2012 - 1:55 pm
Ah come on, he was brilliant. As ever, just staying on the right side of the over-acting line.
#20 by Indy on July 29, 2012 - 3:12 pm
Oh I am with you on that one. Everything Kenneth Brannagh does is brilliant. He is just brilliant.
#21 by Bill Pickford on July 29, 2012 - 9:30 pm
And I concur – Kenneth Branagh IS brilliant!
He made ‘THOR!!’
#22 by Allan on July 29, 2012 - 11:44 pm
Loved the voguing “corks”… (a “cork” is one of the bosses at the mill’s)
#23 by Iain Fleming on July 29, 2012 - 1:45 pm
“An argument that a Scottish NHS is the only way to ensure a public NHS will be more persuasive than Friday night’s TV.”
But we already have a Scottish NHS, and have had since its inception (as a result of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947). It’s a legally distinct corporate body, and wholly under the control of the Scottish Government.
#24 by Jeff on July 29, 2012 - 1:57 pm
That’s fine Iain, but the Scottish Government is under the control of the Westminster Government. Think of it is this way, as things stand the NHS budget is dictated by the Westminster budget. If the Westminster NHS budget reduces as a result of privatisation, Scotland is then faced with the prospect of keeping the NHS public with a shrinking budget thanks directly to the decisions taken at Westminster.
For me, that’s not good enough, so I say again, the best way to ensure the NHS stays public is to break the link with London entirely.
#25 by Iain Fleming on July 29, 2012 - 2:13 pm
Oh, I agree with you entirely on the question of full independence, but it’s still important to see the positive side of the current situation, and what it has achieved – like free prescriptions, and no hospitals given away to the private sector to make profits from (well, other than those mortgaged under PPI by Labour).
And the NHS Scotland budget is not directly tied to the English NHS budget. Yes, the English NHS budget is used as part of the Barnett block grant calculation, but how the grant it is allocated is up to the Scottish Government.
#26 by Ken MacLeod on July 29, 2012 - 2:15 pm
Alex Salmond is the First Minister of Scotland and leads a party determined to achieve Scottish indepedence. Surely it would’ve been bizarre for him to wish Team GB well?
No. It would have been polite.
#27 by Indy on July 29, 2012 - 3:14 pm
Well it would be polite to wish the athletes of all 205 nations the best of luck. And I do!
The really great thing about the Olympics – and it is great for all the corporate crap and all the rest of the nonsense – is that for the vast majority of athletes it is the taking part that counts.
#28 by Nikostratos on July 29, 2012 - 3:29 pm
Personally I just would like to see the best athlete win what Nation he/she comes from is totally irrelevant to me anyways.
some people should really get a life.
Ken Brannagh as Isambard Kingdom Brunel far to tall
#29 by Indy on July 29, 2012 - 6:25 pm
Hear hear. And politicians who think it captured the essence of Britishness should just go away and have a wee lie-down.
#30 by Dubbieside on July 29, 2012 - 6:45 pm
Jeff
You really have to hand it to Seb Coe and the organisers of the London Olympics.
How they managed to disguise all these corporate vips as empty seats so the whole affair would not look elitist was a master stroke.
P.S. Does it not show the lack of any argument for retaining the union, that some people think a three hour show, no matter how good, that will be forgotten within months is going to be the catalyst for a mass movement towards retaining the union? Or are they just clutching at straws?
P.P.S. I think political response to either London Olympics or Glasgow Commonwealth games is overblown. Its sport for goodness sake, not life as we know it.
#31 by Dubbieside on July 29, 2012 - 6:52 pm
If anything does the opening of the Olympics not highlight one of the major differences between an SNP run Scotland, and a Tory of whatever colour run UK.
After all 38 Scottish Labour MPs voted for a Labour resolution in support of further privatisation of the NHS in England.
If you value the NHS and the ethos that was behind its creation, the only way to safeguard the Scottish NHS is by voting for independence.
If handled properly the opening ceremony could be a gift to the Yes campaign.
#32 by Craig Gallagher on July 29, 2012 - 6:56 pm
Danny Boyle managed to penetrate even my deep and lasting cynicism about the Olympics to have me laughing in delight at the giant Voldemort, and giving a genuine standing ovation to the inclusion of Sir Tim Berners-Lee. The Industrial Revolution bit was also visually stunning, and although at the time I was wondering why the devastation of the land is something you’d want to emphasise, once I saw them forging the rings and them ascending to the sky, I was just agog at how cool it looked. And as for Daniel Craig and Lizzie Windsor, bravo. That was world-class British self-deprecation.
In the aftermath, I and many others have been reflecting on what it all meant. The clubbing-in-Britain scene was a pretty novel take on modern London, but authentic, I thought. But it was the only part of the ceremony where anyone said “Here is who we are, warts and all”. Everything else spoke of a deep nostalgia for things of the past, particularly the NHS segment. It was a lovely vision, but it bore little relation to reality. I can’t see this having too much bearing in the long run on the independence debate. With the Jubilee, the Royal Wedding last year and now the Olympics, I think it’s much more likely that we’re witnessing the high watermark of modern British sentiment, and that from here on out the political entity of the United Kingdom is destined for fragmentation and then renewal.
But even in that event, Danny Boyle has taught us something. Whatever our political allegiance, when it comes to celebrating British culture, there’s something for everyone, something to tug the heartstrings even of the most ardent Scottish Nationalists. That doesn’t have to disappear with Independence, and we should work to ensure it doesn’t.
#33 by Doug Daniel on July 30, 2012 - 11:46 am
“The clubbing-in-Britain scene was a pretty novel take on modern London, but authentic, I thought. But it was the only part of the ceremony where anyone said “Here is who we are, warts and all”. Everything else spoke of a deep nostalgia for things of the past, particularly the NHS segment.”
The fact that the clubbing bit was the only bit that ventured into the present day was telling. You could have done that for any western country, and indeed, such scenes will be repeated throughout the British Isles regardless of whether Scotland becomes independent in 2014 or not. So those who were tweeting that the ceremony was a big “GIRFUY” to the SNP (including, seemingly, a senior press officer for the 2014 Commonwealth Games – not exactly the best move, that) were kind of missing the point. The increasing interconnectedness of the world is leading to a homogenisation of culture to a certain extent, which is why there is a big deal being made in the SNP as to the difference between the political union and the social union. That section in particular reminded us of the great shared culture we have in terms of music, films and TV, but the very same interwebz that was being celebrated in that section means there is no reason for Scotland to be run from Westminster in order for us to keep sharing our music, TV and films. After all, it hasn’t stopped U2 being considered a massive part of British culture, and I distinctly remember hearing U2 songs during the ceremony, despite being an Irish band.
We don’t have to be united with the US or Scandinavia to enjoy their music, TV and films, so anyone who thinks a celebration of British culture including a quick flash of Gregory’s Girl or having Emeli Sande give an amazing rendition of Abide With Me somehow brings a sledgehammer to the case for independence is, frankly, deluding themselves. It just highlights how weak the case for the union is if it needs to be built upon such false premises.
Totally agree with the end of your second paragraph there – this summer seems increasingly like some sort of swansong for the UK, an end to an era which will lead to a new era of working together voluntarily, rather than being joined together forcibly. Time for Britain to finally step out of the shadow of the Empire and join the rest of the world on equal terms.
#34 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on July 30, 2012 - 12:59 pm
I was unaware that the SNP made a big deal of the difference between political and social union. However if that is the case what exactly does “social union” entail? If this refers to some sort of cultural commonality or sphere of influence it strikes me as of rather more importance than the political. The slow drip feed of anglophone culture on Scotland during the last four centuries and more has led to the decline of our indigenous cultures to the near extinction level in which we now find them. If we are to regard this influence as benign even beneficial then those who decide cultural policy in the SNP betray a naivety of quite monumental proportions for the cultural is by its very nature “political” in that it forms the intellectual structure in which everything else functions. To neglect that and continue with some species of rather cosy relationship with the old order would mean the wolves were still in the chicken coup however autonomously redesigned.
#35 by Calumn on July 29, 2012 - 8:40 pm
On the NHS front, is Scotland really that different to England?
After all, NHS Lothian will be using private hospitals for the next 3 years to get waiting lists down. Or is that only acceptable when carried out for political reasons?
It’s ironic too that those who argue that the NHS segment of the opening ceremony was one in the eye against “privatisation” overlook that the hospital Danny Boyle chose to highlight has long had a significant private income.
It’s apparently evil for a hospital treating NHS patients to be private yet nobody minds that a large proportion of the NHS budget is handed over to private for-profit businesses in the shape of GP practices?
What the reaction to the NHS segment really demonstrates is just how many in political circles believe the point of the NHS is to be “public”. It’s not, the point of the NHS is surely to provide medical treatment to those who need it, free at the point of need (paid by taxation).
It’s implied that the 60-esque NHS was a golden age. Indeed the 1960s saw the first widespread construction of NHS hospitals – up until then the hospitals of the NHS were the old nationalised voluntary, wartime and local authority hospitals. These District General Hospitals were supposed to provide most if not all specialties for their area and effectively redefined the NHS as the National Hospital Service. Meanwhile prevention and Health promotion fell by the wayside.
And now five decades on it is an article of faith that this is how the NHS must remain – regardless of what the clinical evidence might say. Today there are not only cheaper but also far more effective treatment options outside of the DGHs – whether in the community (including charities) or at centralised tertiary care departments.
We have too many patients in secondary care hospital beds (the most expensive form of way of treating them) when what they really need is better social care. Likewise we have surgical departments that lack the resources (particularly in providing 24/7 consultant presence) and patient numbers to be safe.
In London, St Barts Hospital imported the concept of a Major Trauma Centre – all the trauma specialties on hand and patients bypassing local ill-equipped A&E departments. The model has been extended across London to create 3 other MTCs for London. It’s now being rolled out across England too where it’s estimated it would save 3,000 lives annually. Even up here in Scotland, the success prompted medical professionals to reassess their previous conclusion that it wasn’t suitable for Scotland, instead calling for a similar Scottish trauma network to be rolled out ASAP.
But god help any medic who has to convince politicians – whether red, blue, yellow, orange, green – to downgrade unsuitable A&E departments – even with overwhelming clinical evidence.
If anything, the cancer of politics is the biggest threat to the health of the population. But you won’t see any politician debating that.
#36 by Indy on July 30, 2012 - 8:32 am
Are you for real???
Do you seriously not get the difference between the NHS in Scotland making (very limited) use of private facilities to keep down waiting lists and up to 49pc of beds in NHS “foundation” hospitals down south being reserved for private patients to raise money?
#37 by Iain Menzies on July 30, 2012 - 4:11 pm
Since when were half of english hospitals being reserved for private patients? The only news ive seen that goes anywhere near that hospital was saying that hospitals CAN provide up to half of the care they provide on a private basis. Do you seriously not get the difference between a hospital making the choice for itself and a hospital being forced from on high to do something?
Anyway whats wrong with private care in otherwise NHS hospitals? If someone wants to pay twice for medical care why is that a bad thing? It means more money in the healthcare buget over all.
If a hospital think it can raise money that way, and as such invest in facilities and staff that will also benefit other patients where is the problem?
Short of banning every hospital doctor in the UK from doing private work you cant get the private sector out of healthcare. And if you did i dont think you would like the standard of doctor that we would be left with.
Instead we get the utter stupidity of free prescriptions.
#38 by TH43 on July 30, 2012 - 4:34 pm
Yes the English NHS is all but privatised… against the wishes of the English representives in the Britisher Parliament.
If we had an English Parliament we wouldn’t have Foundation Hospitals or a University Tax.
The WLQ at work
#39 by Calumn on July 30, 2012 - 4:48 pm
Do you get the difference?
Scottish NHS Boards like non-FT English NHS Trusts don’t have a cap – they can earn as much private patient income as they like.
And it’s a cap on income, not “beds being reserved” – quite an important distinction since a very significant proportion of PPI has nothing to do with beds.
The cap can include income from associated charities (e.g. GOSH or the Sick Kid’s Friends Foundation), treating foreign patients where there is no bilateral agreement, using excess laundry capacity, income from joint ventures, and royalties for IP generated by research in the NHS.
That last one is a biggie – even here. After all, it’s more or less the raison d’etre for the Little France. University Medical Schools, Bioquarter, TMRI, SHIL…
And that’s not even mentioning the “private” income that isn’t included in the cap. Claiming the cost of treating road accident victims back from motor insurers, providing ambulances to private events for a fee, to name a few. And if receiving income from non-NHS bodies distracts NHS bodies from their NHS duties then we better close the Armed Forces centres too – we can’t have hospitals prioritising the Armed Forces over NHS patients can we?
As for “very limited use of private facilities to keep down waiting lists” that’s precisely how they started in England (well, not counting all those private services that have existed in all 4 National Health Services since Day 1 almost).
And if it’s acceptable to use private facilities to reduce waiting lists, why isn’t it also acceptable to use private facilities when they can improve patient care in other areas too?
Perhaps because politicians care more about waiting list promises than actual patient care. (just like they did in England).
Like I said, in political circles the NHS isn’t about clinical evidence and patient care; it’s about structure and politics. And that is the biggest threat to our Health.
#40 by Charles Patrick O'Brien on July 29, 2012 - 10:10 pm
Well no surprise that the Olympics have been made into a political hammer to use against people who have a different view? Unionists or bully boys? of all the nations that are at these games how many were under the rule of Westminster? and how many want to go back under Westminster rule? To use INTERNATIONAL games to prove that its better to be British seems a wee bit crazy to me.Cant they enjoy the games (if you like them that is) without making really cheap political jibes? I will be going for independence I have thought that way since I was 15 in 1967,its the way forward invigorate our nation and probably help the other nations in these islands.
#41 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on July 29, 2012 - 10:49 pm
With respect to some of the sentiments expressed here I am at a loss to understand why proponents of Scottish independence would feel any emotional attachment to Britishness even in its self-parodying Boylesque absurdity. Is Scottish nationalism losing its bottle or what. Those that can’t live without Corrie and Enders, the state pension and the comfy embrace of North Brit provincialism really ought to look elsewhere. Frankly I can’t wait to dance on its grave. Just as unionists, read those London newspaper blogs, would dearly love to dance on ours…if through ideological weakness we give them the chance.
#42 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on July 29, 2012 - 11:02 pm
I am amazed that any proponent of Scottish independence should feel an emotional attachment to Britishness whether of the self-parodying Boylesque variety or the less than amusing real stuff. Personally I can’t wait to chuck it in the dustbin of history……
#43 by Doug Daniel on July 30, 2012 - 4:50 pm
That’s a bit harsh, and it’s hardly the way we should be looking at things if we’re to inspire undecided voters that Scottish independence is not incompatible with any residual feelings of Britishness they may have. The music was the same music people from all corners of this island have grown up listening to, as were the TV shows and films beamed onto the sides of that house thingy during the clubbing section. I’ve wanted Scottish independence all my life, and parts of Boyle’s show even had me feeling wistful for the past. But that’s all it was, the past, and it’s important people aren’t scared into thinking that they’ll somehow lose their connection with this past by voting for independence, because that’s one of the ways Better Together will try to scare people into voting “no”.
None of what Boyle celebrated has to be chucked into any dustbin of history. Most of it is in the past already, and what remains of the English NHS is very quickly being chucked in the bin anyway by the Tories and Lib Dems, thanks to the work done by New Labour before them. But to say that people who want Scottish independence can’t feel an emotional attachment to any of that is something I would disagree with wholeheartedly.
#44 by Alasdair Frew-Bell on July 30, 2012 - 8:45 pm
Boyle’s surreal agitprop seems to have worked. The affective heartstrings of sentiment appear to have been well twanged. Now I comprehend where the writer of the SoS article was coming from. Some independentist Scots appear to be like the Bolshevik who wept at the loss of the Romanov “Little Father” and the supposedly secure and ordered world that icon represented. Sooner rather than later the SNP has got to cease pussyfooting around with dishonest notions of systemically modified independence, lite, no pain, whatever and stick to the agenda, towit the dissolution of the straitjacket union that created the British state and relegated us to the backwoods. It is this ambivalence towards aspects of the current order, Britishness to be precise, that manifests the weakest point in SNP initiative; and the noes will have loads of fun with it unless the focus sharpens and the strategy smartens up. This is a cultural question of profound import. It may be intellectually rather “foreign” to the British political mindset to engage with culture in such an ideological manner [not so in continental Europe] but if the emotive “argument” for sticking with the status quo is not scotched by something more imaginative and culturally mind blowing then ça n’ira pas.
#45 by Allan on July 30, 2012 - 12:18 am
I thought that it was small p Political ceremony, which is probably why Danny Boyle managed to get away with so many attempted pricks at the Westminster Government’s conscience. As for the advert for Great Britain, Boyle pulled off the trick of never falling into Anglocentricity.
The ceremony highlighted lots of shared achievements/cultural references between the four countries, though not if you are Aiden Burnley MP. The funny thing is that while we Scot’s think that this was some sort of advertisment for the Union, I don’t think that was Danny Boyle’s intention. I think he was just showing how we got here and who we are now. I think that a lot of the reaction from abroad was also largely positive as well, with the only dissenting voice coming from Zimbabawe.
Whether this is the high point of the UK revival remains to be seen, and really depends on the tactics and performance of the “Yes” camp.