Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Pettytyrant101]

The short answer is yes.
The longer answer is, Scotland already controls its own health service which is seperate from Englands- but right now we get our money allocated by Westminister.
The difference is in what the two countries spend it on.
In Scotland we have stuff ike free prescriptions which England doesnt have- not because they couldnt but because the Westminister government chooses to spend the money elsewhere.

As our funding of the Scottish NHS at the moment comes from the Barnett formula the upshot is the figures say we already pay more in than we get back, so if we kept all our money we should in fact be able to inject further capital into or NHS if we need or want to.

Another major difference since the Tory/lib government took over is in England the NHS is being sold off to the private sector in small bits, and there is much more involvment of the private sector in other areas, and they have made dramatic changs to the duties of a GP- turning your Doctor into a drugs broker for the big pharmacutical companies.

None of this has happened here where the NHS has stuck to its funding socialist principles. And is unlikely to change after independence if it happens.

[Orwell]

Excellent news. Will Scotland be fully self-supporting in other areas? If so, why didn't you become independant yonks ago? Oh yers, will you be independant like Australia is - that is, still part of the Commonwealth - or absolutely independant like America?

[Pettytyrant101]

Oh no we are a proud Commonwealth country- we host the games this summer.

And yes our finances are actually very healthy and we have a wealth of natural resources from our huge marine resourcs to oil and gas. And we have a healthy world export market in foodstuffs- Aberdeen Angus Beef, whisky, salmon, Harris Tweed ect
We also have a strong banking sector with RBS and Bank of Scotland both international players.
If you take Scotlands bank balance over the last decade we outperform England across the board.
There are no financial reasons for Scotland not be independent- hence the Unionist strategy of playing up uncertainty about how things would be divided up instead: debt, assets ect rather than trying to tell us we cant afford it- they know thats not a argument they can win.
But scaring people with everything from you wont be able to watch your favourite BBC programs any more to England will have to bomb your airports to prevent terrorist threats to them (both genuine scare tactics used so far) seems to be having a better effect for the Unionists.

[David H]

If so, why didn't you become independant yonks ago? Oh yers, will you be independant like Australia is - that is, still part of the Commonwealth - or absolutely independant like America?

Oh no we are a proud Commonwealth country- we host the games this summer.

You don't need to be so hasty.
There's always room for a 51st state.

[Pettytyrant101]

Private Health Care- no monarch- no parliamentary democracy.
Sorry Dave I dont think its for us.

[Pettytyrant101]

Two stories from the female end of the news persepctive- one I have a view on I will give, the other I wll reserve a view as I am very curious first to hear what the female forum members think on it.

First story is that a UK group called UK Feminista are claiming that the selling of 'lads magazines'- like FHM ect should be be banned in shops as it 'exposes staff and, in some cases, customers to publications whose handling and display may breach equality legislation. Displaying lads' mags in 'mainstream' shops results in the involuntary exposure of staff and, in some cases, customers to pornographic images."

Firstly FHM ect arent porn- they are allowed to show as much skin as a UK tabloid newspaper- in fact The Daily Sport was much more 'porno' like than any lads mag is.
I also expect the biggest backlash to this will come form the women who appear in such magazines (same as the time page 3 was atacked by feminists only for the page 3 models to unite against them)- last I checked the actresses, models and tv starlets that tend to appear in their pages were not forced into at gunpoint.

The second story, and the one I would be interested on your thoughts on, is of a more serious nature.
A well known UK criminal investigive journalist has said that whilst in modern times we view 'rape as rape' its a false position, and there are different shades of rape- and he basis that on the views of victims- "The real experts, the victims, know otherwise."
"Half of all women who have had penetrative sex unwillingly do not think they were raped, and this proportion rises strongly when the assault involves a boyfriend, or if the woman is drunk or high on drugs: they went too far, it wasn't forcible, they didn't make themselves clear."
He adds: "For them, rape isn't always rape and, however upsetting, they feel it is a long way removed from being systematically violated or snatched off the street."
Sarah Green, campaigner with the End Violence Against Women charity, said: "It's really disappointing - more than that, it's horrible - that a reputable journalist like Nick Ross, with expertise associated with crime through Crimewatch, is trotting out with the same spurious myths about rape."
His research found many victims did not regard what happened to them as rape, "even though in law it plainly was", he added."In other words victims themselves plainly see gradations in rape."


So thoughts? Should the law treat snatching a women in a park and assualting and raping her in a bush as exactly the same as an overly zealous boyfriend going further than his partner wants when both parties involved are very drunk? Right now the law says they are same- rape is rape is rape. But should there be different categories of rape in our legal system too?

[Mrs Figg]

in my opinion it depends on this. is there force involved and does the woman consent or not, if she doesnt consent and makes it very clear and in no uncertain terms, then its rape, if she is drunk or unconscious its very hard to estblish and is probably a minefield. but in my mind, if there is physical force involved its pretty clear its rape because women dont have the strength to resist. when you say 'over enthusiastic', if she doesnt have a choice if its forced,and she says no, then its rape. I dont think there can be degrees, it just seems worse if its a stranger in a park, domestic rape is actually the same act but in a familiar setting which makes it seem less severe or scary to outsiders, but for the woman its probably worse because you dont feel safe in your own home.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just to clarify I used the pharse 'over enthusastic' as summing up really of the point the journalist makes when quoting victims- 'they went too far, it wasn't forcible, they didn't make themselves clear."

In these caes the sex doesnt seem forced on them, just not what they would have ideally wanted if they had been sober/not high enough to articulate themselves.

I think when both parties are intoxicated the whole thing becomes a nightmare to prove either way.
I know from my own past that there have been occasions when I have had sex so drunk its amazing I managed anything at all (in fact one not so memorable occasion I passed out in the middle of the act)- and she was just as drunk- were either of us in the best place to make any decisions? Id say no looking back on it now.

There also seems to be a difference when its reversed- without going into to much detail I once had a drunken female attempt to perform a sexual act on me in a pub- whilst we were sitting at a table and her boyfriend was sitting next to her!
If I had done what she tried it would be sexual assualt- but I cant conceive of a man going to the police and saying a women tried to give me a handjob against my will in a pub- we just wouldnt and Id be very suprised if the police took it seriously and charged her.

Once alcohol in particular enters the mix it all goes into more shades of grey it seems to me. And it also seems that modern women can be more sexually aggressive at times than men and get away with more in law because men dont tend to think of it as an assualt.

[David H]

Private Health Care- no monarch- no parliamentary democracy.
Sorry Dave I dont think its for us.

I think you're jumping to conclusions, Petty. As a state you'd have every right to provide full state healthcare to the Scottish people as long as you can fund it within the state budget which doesn't sound like it's a problem, and I don't think it would be impossible to build parliamentary democracy into your state's constitution. It's just a matter of hiring the right lawyers to draft it.

The monarch thing might take a bit more legal doubletalk, but in the end I think you'd be able to keep her if you're prepared to feed and house her. (I guess I don't know much about monarchs really. They're just a kind of expensive pet, right? I honestly don't see the problem as long as you're prepared to clean up after them! )

[Pettytyrant101]

We keep the monarch in Balmoral or Hollyrood Palace for more official stuff- expensive kennels really. But yo get it back in international busineess and tourism and it means no politicians as head of state- always a good thing.
The Church of Scotland recently debated and passed a ruling that if there was a Independent Scotland the Monarch would be crowned in Scotland seperatley from England. And in fact if we really wanted to annoy the English we could prevent them from haivng a proper Monarch at all by withholding the Stone of Destiny and not allowng its use in the english crowning- no King Making Stone, no legitmate King.

"you'd have every right to provide full state healthcare to the Scottish people as long as you can fund it within the state budget "- David

Thats sounds supicously like what we have now - someone else takes all our revenue and gives us pocket money back to spend. I think I'll pass on that.

[David H]

I guess I'll weigh in on the rape discussion while I'm here.

I'm going to say that if somebody feels they've been raped, they've been raped. If they don't think they have, then they probably haven't. It really should be more about the victim than the perpetrator.

Of course like every crime each case is different, just like with every crime. Is it worse to rob somebody of $20 with a knife or gun, to break into their house and steal their computer, or to con them out of their life savings like Bernie Madoff? Can you really compare these things? It's why there are judges and juries.

[David H]

Thats sounds supicously like what we have now - someone else takes all our revenue and gives us pocket money back to spend. I think I'll pass on that.

The difference is that most of the state money is never touched by federal hands. As it is right now, each state designs and implements its own healthcare laws and funds them directly from their own state taxes. The federal government just augments certain types of programs from the federal budget. It's really very much like what you're talking about moving to I think.

[Pettytyrant101]

So whats the benefits of it over being completly independent? Central protection in a crisis?

[David H]

Certainly central protection. Only a few of the individual states are big enough to have sustained the impact of some of the natural disasters recently. Actually lets throw manmade disasters like the BP oil spill and the financial collapse into the pot.

Basically we function as one country economically, but for more personal issues like education, healthcare, drugs and alcohol, marriage etc we each can make our own laws within reason as long as we're prepared to fund them ourselves. My state of Washington just legalized marijuana and same-sex marriage for example.

Of course it's never quite that simple, but the basic idea is to have the best of both worlds.

[Pettytyrant101]

So how come not a single state has an equivelent of an NHS-why is it all private health care in the US?
Isnt there is a single state with socialist leanings? Ive always found that odd- like football not being popular- when so many Americans came there from countries with strong socialist principles (and a love of football!)

[David H]

There's no simple answers to that one. There have always been the two warring factions of public vs. private, with many battles won and lost on both the state and national level.
To try to put it all in a nutshell, I'd say that we were once well ahead of much of the world with national Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as many very progressive programs in the individual states, but the Cold War with it's extreme costs and heated anti-socialist rhetoric tipped the balance more toward private healthcare and we're only just recovering.

[Mrs Figg]

just to go back to the Royal family, I think Queen Victoria pretty much invented going fishing and shooting/hunting in Scotland during the Summer, its brought a lot of money to the Highlands and owners of rivers and work for the locals, its probably one of their main industries I think, so losing Balmoral would be a bad thing. I am not an expert on it but I would think they want to keep ties with the English Royals.

[Eldorion]

So how come not a single state has an equivelent of an NHS-why is it all private health care in the US?

Because socialism has been a dirty word across America ever since the endless propaganda of the Red Scare(s) and the Cold War. It's worth noting that some states do have considerably more government involvement in health care, though. Massachusetts comes to mind.

Isnt there is a single state with socialist leanings? Ive always found that odd- like football not being popular- when so many Americans came there from countries with strong socialist principles (and a love of football!)

The bulk of European immigration to the U.S. occurred before football or socialism became especially ingrained or popular.

[Pettytyrant101]

the Cold War with it's extreme costs and heated anti-socialist rhetoric tipped the balance- David

Because socialism has been a dirty word across America ever since the endless propaganda of the Red Scare(s) and the Cold War.- Eldo

I find that interesting if not entirely plausible.
The Uk was in the same cold war and arguably much more exposed to attack than mainland USA ever was but it never manifested itself as fear of socialism like it did in the US- for that matter it never effected Europe in general in that manner.
If it was a major cause of US thinking I wonder why?
Could it be because you were freer to be more paranoid and more fearful and therefore more reactionary precisely because you were physically distant from the threat, whereas Europe was joined to the threat?

Mrs Figg- Queen Victoria and Sir Walter Scott are probably the two individuals most responsible for the tourism business from England.
The English, being naturaly subservient followed their monarch- if she holidayed in Scotland and loved the place then the court followed suit.
These days the Highlands- whilst tourism is still a big part of the economy, its more green energy development and managing wildlife than it is just grouse shooting for the nobs and the like.

[Mrs Figg]

''The English, being naturaly subservient followed their monarch''-

OI!!!!!

[Pettytyrant101]

[Eldorion]

I find that interesting if not entirely plausible.

Just look at all the people who use "socialist" as a slur against Obama despite him being a center-right politician.

If it was a major cause of US thinking I wonder why?
Could it be because you were freer to be more paranoid and more fearful and
therefore more reactionary precisely because you were physically distant
from the threat, whereas Europe was joined to the threat?

That's possible, I guess. Part of it was probably down to religious paranoia about the atheist Communist menace (the Cold War is when "In God We Trust" became the US motto and "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance). The legacy of the Korean and Vietnam Wars might have something to do with it as well. I don't know for sure though.

[Pettytyrant101]

I just find it intriguing those physially closest to the threat had the more balanced reaction- America went, well frankly crazy, what with the brutal trials and all that and reds under the bed.

I suspect its easier to create that atmosphere, generate that fear to such hysterical pitch if the thing you fear is distant and you have no real history with it (America being too young a country) or understanding (no offense but Americans in general arent known for their keen interest in world affairs).
Its always easier to turn an unknown into the biggest threat ever than something you know.

[Mrs Figg]

I think it was a case of Conservatives being rattled by demands for more equality in society of the time, the Unions getting power and women and Black people demanding rights. they probably used Communism as a scapegoat to suppress these things.

[David H]

There are so many factors with a country geographically large and culturally diverse as 20th century America that almost anything you can guess would be right for some group at some time.

Let me throw one more major factor out there as to why the Red Terror. At the beginning of the century we'd been extremely isolationist. The rest of the world could blow each other up as much as they liked as far as most Americans were concerned. But we were slowly dragged into the Great War and some of our innocence was lost. The myth is my grandad's time was that the rest of the world would have destroyed itself if we hadn't gone "Over There" and saved it. But that now we'd saved the world we could withdraw and never have to do THAT again!

Then along came the next world war for the next generation to fight. Again our soldiers came back (or not) from a war not of their own making, but now there was a growing sense that the seeds were already sown for the 3rd World War for their sons to die in, and now rather than being able to withdraw into ourselves we had become the Keepers of the Secrets of nuclear weaponry which could literally destroy the entire world. If a third World War were going to start, it was reasonable to assume that it would be with a preemptive strike against our technology.

That put a lot of pressure on a very few people. As insane as it all looks now, I have to say they did OK considering the circumstances. It's still amazing we all lived through the Cuban missile crisis.

So in the context of living perpetually on the brink of open Nuclear War, a bit of anti-Socialist rhetoric I'm sure seemed reasonable at the time, even if it impacted our future healthcare system.