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”
andy
I think independence will come either now or once the oil has run out.
if we were costing london money we would have been made independent years ago
John
I am as much opposed to the UK leaving the EU as to Scottish independence. In any case, it is highly unlikely the Conservatives would have an absolute majority after the next election, so this referendum is hypothetical. But most importantly, leaving the EU in fact would not impose any of the above mentioned uncertainties and costs on my business. Feel free to show me where I am wrong.
Finally, whilst I generally distrust politicians of all parties, and I have no loyalty to any party, I believe you are too harsh on the Conservatives. They bit the bullet and sorted out our economy, despite the unpopularity of the measures they needed to take. To create 2 million additional private sector jobs since 2010, whilst at the same time cutting spending, is a huge achievement which I never considered possible. They also cut quite some red tape and taxes which really helped the SMEs, including my business. This has allowed us to expand business. Don’t you agree this is a good thing?
Arthur
I don’t think the Conservatives will have an absolute majority either. I think they’re more likely to form a coalition with UKIP. The referendum will happen at some point. English voters (led by a right wing press) do seem to be more against the EU than Scottish voters, as shown by the difference in UKIP results at the last European election. I have only ever seen this increase over time.
Well here’s two from your list: how to deal with a period of local business uncertainty due to difficult independence negotiations, dealing with rebranding.
I will always be harsh on the Conservatives. I’m sorry, but I see them as self serving thieves. The fact that some good happens under their administrations will only ever be because of oversights on their part. They didn’t sort the economy. They didn’t create any jobs.They did nothing that helped my business. Harsh? Surely that’s the very definition of Conservative?
Arthur
John, am I right in thinking your are the same John that said “It is not because I am against independence that I support the UKIP, BNP or Conservatives.”? I assumed this was a typo, and that you didn’t support the UKIP, BNP or the Conservatives. Please clarify – you don’t support the BNP do you?
John
The immediate business uncertainty will be very limited as the UK would in any case remain part of the EEA. The impact will be different depending on the type of business you are in. For instance for the finance industry, it will be pretty bad over the long term because if it wants to continue to benefit from the current passporting regime, it will have to accept all EU regulatory decisions without the UK having any say in them any longer, i.e. without the UK being able to defend its finance industry. That is why I believe this referendum is a cynical ploy to deal with the UKIP. I expect the majority of the Conservatives to argue to stay in, after they have talked to their friends in the City.