Wednesday, 15 October 2014

An Independent Scotland could be even closer.

One of the weapons the Unionist  used  in the campaign for a NO vote was  the fate of cross-border health care in an independent Scotland.
John Lamont a Tory , whose constituency is in the Borders,  published a letter from the UK government's Department of Health.
It says negotiations would be required for present arrangements to continue.
Buts Scottish Health Secretary Alex Neil  said agreements were already in place which would allow the current system to remain in place.
Thousands of people in southern Scotland and northern England are treated at hospitals on opposite sides of the border every year.
Mr Lamont said the letter from the Department of Health confirmed that this "vital" arrangement could cease to exist in an independent Scotland.
"Should Scotland vote to leave the union this September it is far from certain that Borders patients would continue to receive cross-border care," he said.
"I know that this will come as a concern to the thousands of Borders patients who every year benefit from being able to access health care in England.
"To lose this ability would not only prove to be a massive inconvenience to them, it could also restrict their access to important medical care.
If any one is still in doubt  the latest news from Ireland that  Northern Ireland's health minister has backed the establishment of an all-Ireland children's heart surgery centre in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland.
It means surgery in Belfast's Royal Victoria Hospital will cease.
Jim Wells made the announcement to the assembly on Tuesday, following a review of children's cardiac services.
In 2012, it emerged that services at the Royal were not sustainable with many operations taking place in either England or Dublin.
Mr Wells, a Democratic Unionist Party minister, told MLAs he was recommending the implementation of a new cross-border model of co-operation that would "deliver safe and effective cardiac care to children in Northern Ireland".
Its a pity that this wasn't confirmed during the referendum  run up as it may have swayed people who were influenced by project fear.
Still it shows that different Nations can work together on a equal basis and agree on a strategy that suits them both.
It goes someway to show how the Labour party in Scotland collaborated to mislead the Scottish people. with the Tories.

It becomes even clearer as we look at  the  so called Command Paper, published on Monday,  which pretended  to outline the parties' proposals for extra powers to the Scottish Parliament, perhaps?
So you would have expected at least a debate  about the future of Scottish devolution to see what was on offer
Or the very least, a "general debate" on where the UK currently stands, having come so close to splitting?
In the end, it took mere seconds of the opening speech by William Hague to see that this was to be none of those.
The Leader of the House told MPs that any new settlement for Scotland demanded a "balanced settlement" for the rest of the UK.
"Fairness for England" was now demanded, an end to the debate over the West Lothian Question.
Scotland watched as within hours of voting No the PM switched focus from answering the Scottish question, to answering an English one.
Gordon Brown and Labour may cry stitch up  announced that it would refuse an invitation from William Hague to contribute to the work of a cabinet committee.
But it is they who are going to answer to the people of Scotland.

. The Scottish first minister told the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme:

 “There is a huge gap that is emerging between the vow – the last-minute, desperate promise made under the guarantee of Gordon Brown by the three Westminster leaders – and what was suggested in the command paper, which was just a regurgitation of what has been indicated last spring, promises which were so weak they hardly featured in the no campaign.“Right now, the initial judgment that’s coming from Scotland is that people have no confidence in Tory guarantees and are absolutely fizzing about what looks like a preparation for a betrayal of a strong commitment made.”
A NO vote was expected to put an end to Scottish Independence's for at least a generation it may be that it makes it even more likely than if there had been a narrow YES victory. 

A Narrow YES vote would have led to Unionists insisting on a second referendum to confirm the negotiations leading up to Independence Day.

In just a few weeks the wholr game has changed.


  1. had there been a narrow victory for the yes campaign we can be sure the unionists would have moved heaven and earth to challenge the result, indeed the post ballot disputes in florida in the us presidential election in 2000 would have been as nothing compared to the british state's efforts to nullify a narrow yes victory.

    as it is we should perhaps not be too surprised by the eventual outcome of the independence referendum - the no campaign and its allies in the media, politics and the business world deployed every propaganda weapon in the book to scare voters in scotland, and in that respect its important supporters of self government for wales understand just what they can expect in the event of a similar referendum ever taking place here.

  2. I have absolutely that in the event of a YES vote Britannia would have waved the rules.

  3. How dare anyone suggest that the British State would ever do anything underhand to maintain the position of its elites.