Yes Scotland’s NHS scares and lies strategy

The Yes campaign has borrowed one of New Labour’s best tricks, and not in a good way.

The Yes campaign has borrowed one of New Labour’s best tricks, and not in a good way

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the latest turn of the independence referendum shows it to be true, as the Yes campaign has borrowed one of New Labour’s best tricks.

Those of us with long memories will recall various by-election campaigns in Tony Blair’s spell as leader of the opposition when Peter Mandelson would run a last-week leaflet bearing the headline ‘One Week To Save Our NHS/Hospitals’ etc.

This would appeal to the natural concerns of the local public who would then turn out to defeat the hapless Tory candidate who would be left shaking their head in bewilderment.

The Yes Campaign is now playing the same game, but with an important difference: where the New Labour case was based on genuine concerns, the Nationalists are spreading a pack of lies.

A further difference is that Labour was genuinely concerned about the future of the NHS, and later acted by doubling and tripling spending on the NHS and building a new generation of modern hi-tech hospitals.

In contrast, the interest of the Yes campaign in the Scottish NHS is solely to use it as part of its programme of attempting frighten people into voting for independence.

At the heart of the Yes Scotland NHS Scares And Lies Strategy are two assertions which are bare-faced lies of the highest order.

Big NHS Lie No. 1 is that the Scottish NHS is vulnerable to health policy decisions made in England.

The Truth is of course that for decades, the Scottish NHS has been run from Scotland by Scots, first through the Home & Health Department and now as a fully devolved service under the direct control and responsibility of the Scottish Government. The Truth is therefore that no decision made in Westminster can impact on the Scottish NHS.

Big NHS Lie No. 2 is that structural reforms of the NHS in the rest of UK can reduce the block grant available in Scotland, e.g., if parts of the NHS in England and Wales are privatised, the cash available (calculated by the Barnett Formula) would go down.

The Truth of this story is that even in the highly unlikely event of most or all of NHS treatment in England and Wales being privatised, it would still be paid for by the taxpayer. The Truth is that the bill for the NHS would not go down and so neither would the proportion allocated to Scotland.

There are two calculations behind the Yes Scotland NHS Scares and Lies Strategy.

The first is the knowledge that the usual drift of opinion in referendum campaigns is towards the status quo, and only exceptions are when the voters are convinced that only the change proposal can protect those things which they value. (The best examples are those of countries like Sweden and Austria joining the European Union in the belief that membership would protect their economies and social fabric better than isolation.)

So Yes needs to put fear into the voters to have any chance at all of winning in September. Hence the lies about threats to the Scottish NHS.

The second calculation is that they recall the way in which in 2011 Holyrood election the SNP took protest votes (overwhelmingly from Liberal Democrats) in the final weeks of the campaign. This time the party in the firing line is Scottish Labour, as the founders and saviours of the NHS – Scotland’s true party of the NHS.

So Yes needs to support its NHS Scotland Scares And Lies Strategy with a parallel onslaught of lies about the Labour Party’s record in office since 1997.

This of course ignores The Truth of Labour’s achievements of 10 years continuous growth, The Truth of highest-ever levels of employment, The Truth of rising living standards across all social and economic groups, The Truth of radical reductions in child and pensioner poverty, The Truth of big improvements in education and childcare, the UK’s largest ever programme of schools building, The Truth of improved maternity rights and statutory paternity rights, The Truth of the first ever Minimum Wage, The Truth of full employment rights for part-time workers, and The Truth of civil partnerships.

And, of course, in health matters it ignores The Truth that the NHS under Labour enjoyed its lowest waiting times and highest level of satisfaction ever, and embarked on the largest ever programme of hospital building, and The Truth that the Labour Scottish government took such bold steps as the early introduction of the smoking ban and the nationalisation of the Royal Jubilee Hospital.

It also neglects The Truth that Labour wrote off Glasgow’s housing debt, making possible the massive investment which has transformed the city’s social housing stock and made history of the old health hazards of damp and avoidable fuel poverty.

And it dismisses The Truth that devolutionto Scotland, delivered by Labour according to the wishes of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, absolutely guarantees that the NHS in Scotland remains a matter for the people of Scotland.

Pretty soon, Yes Scotland will put out the Mandelsonian message ‘x weeks/days to Save Scotland’s NHS’. However, voters are being asked to vote Yes on the basis of the Yes Scotland NHS Scares And Lies Strategy.

This is a proposition which is much more serious than a mere carelessness with the truth, or a little bit of tweaking it for a bye-election. It is an invitation to start a new state on a prospectus of lies.

There can be no doubt that Scots should all choose the rational truth instead, and vote No.

Peter Russell blogs at Planet Pedro!

173 Responses to “Yes Scotland’s NHS scares and lies strategy”

  1. MopMop

    Arthur, tell me how. So many Yes people go on and on and on about how we’ll be a new society for social justice and democracy… How? Tell me how. And no, not ‘we’ll choose who’s best for us!’ or ‘we can finally have a government we actually voted for!’ or my personal favourite, ‘one step at a time. Independence first’. Tell me a viable scenario for us to actually achieve it.

    Holyrood is based on Westminster. And it’s worse. And less democratic. No second chamber, no anything. SNP have been able to centralise public services, have infringed parental rights, have armed our police without a word from anybody else. They are also our government yet they got in with less than a quarter of the electorate.

    Are we planning on changing all this? How? Before or after the vote? Are we gonna storm the parliament and revolt? Or trust the party that gets in to change the system that allowed them the power? I have never seen even a POSSIBLE scenario to achieve this social justice beacon so many Yes people promise, nevermind a PROBABLE one.

    Will we be voting for Ol’ Bob down the street, cuz he’s promised us what we want and surely he can get it? UK parties who are against independence, who will always follow their UK counterparts? Odds and ends Yessers of UK parties who won’t be able to agree on a path for anything? Or Greens, who on surface level policy, mostly yay, but have no actual experience of actually running a state, especially a new state with people used to privilege and global standing.

    Tell. Me. How. Please!

    As for it ‘not being able SNP’…they will be starting an independent Scotland. Negotiations will be done by them. They’ve already written a Constitution that takes away people’s choice. You said ‘no nuclear weapons’…we don’t get a choice? Isn’t that against ‘freedom and democracy for all and we can all get what we want!’? To dismiss the reality and consequences of that for ‘oh we can fix it all later’ is ridiculous, and honestly, terrifying.

  2. Arthur

    I don’t know. I do know that Westminster could vote to dissolve Holyrood. I suspect that they won’t, but I do expect them to reduce Holyroods powers if there is a No vote. Gordon Brown has been talking about combining Scotland and England’s education systems into one, and I think I heard Andy Burnham talking about joining Scotland’s NHS with England’s. I suspect that neither of these gentlemen are proposing to put the combined entities under the control of Holyrood, so I assume they will be placed under Westminster control.

  3. Peter A. Russell

    To sustain the lies, there is a need to fall back on myths.

    The first is that the Barnett Formula is detrimental to Scotland, and the second is that it is imposed by Westminster, rather like Moscow’s central planners dictated to the Soviet Republics.

    Both assertions are misleading: Barnett has been accepted as fair to Scotland for decades (and even challenged as unfair to English regions as a result.) And these arrangements, including cross-border fiscal transfers are agreed by parliament including by Scotland’s MPs, not by colonial diktat.

    So yes, it is true that Scotland has the power to decide how to cut the cake, which is my point.

    It is also true that any promise of unlimited funding for the NHS or anything else in Scotland would be Lie No 3. The cake will always be limited, and under current plans for Scotland’s continued use the pound, its size would continue to be set at Westminster: the big difference would be that it would then be imposed with no say from Scots, a bit like, well, Moscow’s central planners dictating to a Soviet Republic.

    In any case, privatisation is highly unlikely, not least because it would not save money. And it would also be electoral suicide in 2015.

    However, the use of private contractors such as GPs for family doctor services , or charities for research, have proven to be effective and welcomed by the public. Again, the Scottish Government chooses the priorities in Scotland. (As far as I know, there is no proposal to nationalise GPs. Yet.)

  4. dougthedug

    1. I made no judgement about the Barnett Formula. I simply stated that it is based on English spending which is true. Please stop using straw man arguments.

    2. Scotland’s continued use of the pound does not set the amount available for public spending or limit Scotland’s economy and the resultant tax revenues. It will simply set agreed government borrowing limits which will also apply to England.

    3. Electoral suicide for the Labour party. However there is no guarantee that the Labour party will win the next election.

  5. Peter A. Russell

    1. Sorry you did not – but plenty of Yes people do, claiming that Scotland steals money from Scotland.

    2. Dollaristation means having no say and putting up with it.

    3. Electoral suicide for any party. Labour win not guaranteed but mosy likey outcome, btw.

    Anyway, off next door to watch 2014 Games opening.

Comments are closed.