NHS must be protected from politicians who seek privatisation
They now have issues with the complexity of the tax systems.
Reform UK are playing on this angst. With both of these issues visible now, Reform UK PLC are positioning themselves as the 'cutting the red tape' party.
This is the party with the same leader that formed Ukip and told us that the EU was robbing us and stopping us doing what we wanted and need to do to unleash our industry, enterprise and become a global entity. This is the same party that morphed into Leave and Brexit then Reform UK.
By most accounts, Brexit has been a disaster and has cost our UK economy some £100 billion each year since leaving the EU. Most people view these huge numbers as 'interesting but they don't really affect me'. What we all need to be aware of is that the Reform Party and unfortunately the UK Labour Party also have eyes on privatising the NHS, but what does this mean for us, the not-so-wealthy?
First, you will need to understand the term deductible. Private health insurance is a bit like insuring your car. If you insure your car, you will be asked where you live and you will be asked what you are willing to pay out of your own pocket if you make a claim against the insurance policy.
If you make a claim, the next year's premium could/probably will increase. This is a deductible.
If you need heart surgery in the US, it can be $200,000 to $300,000. I have seen a quote that a UK heart operation could cost £78,000, and a new hip could cost £15,000, as examples. If you took on a deductible of 20% then you must pay this before the surgery.
For a hip operation, it would be £3000 before the surgeon even starts, and you will still need to pay the monthly direct debit. For a heart operation, the deductible grows to £16,000. This is very costly for most people. This is what Nigel Farage's party, and possibly Wes Streeting of the UK Labour Party, want to implement if they get a chance.
In the UK, we don't have people declaring themselves bankrupt, but the US reports 500,000 bankruptcies every year, when people cannot afford to pay the hospital bill the deductible did not cover.
We need to support our NHS by not voting for parties that are intent on privatisation.
Alistair Ballantyne
Angus
I MUST agree with John Baird's criticism of the SNP strategy (?) of trying to convince Labour voters to vote SNP in order to keep Reform out. It's misplaced effort and draws attention to Reform. Where's independence in the campaign? Has it been mentioned?
This is reminiscent of Sturgeon's Brexit campaign efforts, trying to persuade the English to vote against leaving the EU. It seems the only people who talk about independence these days are the Unionists.
The SNP having morphed into a devolution party, with independence only held out like a fly paper to catch voters. Too many MSPs seem comfortable with the Holyrood set-up and are unwilling to upset the apple cart. Or should that be gravy train?
Drew Reid
Falkirk
THE letter from Jim Stamper, in Friday's National was like a breath of fresh air on the independence debate.
Jim's observations and interpretations are spot on, when in relation to the petition, number PE2135 currently on the Scottish Parliament website, he points out, 'this would clearly increase the democratic rights of the people of Scotland to make decisions on how their country is run, including the rights to hold referendums'.
The power to accept this petition, and to put it into Scots law, is in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. The Tories want to reject it which they have made clear, but what do the SNP and the other 'independence-supporting' MSPs intend to do?
Could they possibly reject the demand to give the Scottish people their full UN human rights entitlement? If they did this to curry favour with the UK Government, could they still pretend to be independence supporters?
Paddy McCarthy
Beith, North Ayrshire
IAIN Wilson (Letters, June 2) writes that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise debating homelessness and the NHS, over its own toilets, and I completely agree.
But the 'debate' about access to toilets last month was actually questions to Christine Grahame MSP, as representative of the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body (SPCB).
It took less than 15 minutes, tacked on to the end of the day's other parliamentary business, at 5pm. No other business was delayed or affected at all. SPCB questions happen from time to time – they take up in total far less than 1% of parliamentary chamber time.
They are the way that MSPs oversee the effective operation of the Parliament as an organisation, and especially the welfare of their staff.
No business or other organisation can afford to neglect those things, and it seems reasonable, in fact necessary, to me for MSPs to spend that very small amount of time ensuring they are done properly.
Tim Hopkins
Edinburgh
IT is whispered that Reform UK are looking for a Scottish leader.
They expect to do well in the coming by-election and have high hopes for 2026 Holyrood elections.
This may be exactly what Douglas Ross is up to. He has been acting up in Holyrood for a few months now. Getting his face out there?
John Dunn
via thenational.scot
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
15 minutes ago
- The National
Don't believe the spin – Davy Russell suffered no 'classism'
DAVY Russell came blinking into the sunlight, wiping soot from his sleeves on Friday morning. As he emerged from Lanarkshire's last remaining coal pit, the injuries of having suffered through 'classist' abuse during the Hamilton by-election campaign were nothing compared with the honour that awaited him above ground. He, Davy Russell, was to become a member of the Scottish Parliament. His heart quickened at the thought of Edinburgh's bright lights. Auld Reekie! Would the empty suits understand a bowls-playing, karaoke-crooning, shandy-sipping, authentic, real-deal guy such as he? I could go on. This is the story that Scottish Labour and some dewy-eyed commentators would have you believe. But Russell is no working-class hero. By all accounts, he is a pillar of the community in his new constituency of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. This does not make him Keir Hardie reincarnate, leading the charge against the condescension of the Holyrood elite. (Image: Craig Foy - SNS Group) Russell had a long career as a top bureaucrat in local government, becoming chums with the Glasgow Labour old boys during their time at the top in Scotland's biggest city. He used to run a business with former Rangers captain Barry Ferguson (above) and Asim Sarwar, brother of Anas. His style seems more wining and dining in the Ibrox directors' box than watching the dog racing before a few pints and a punch up down the local, or whatever similarly patronising image of 'working-class leisure pursuits' Anas Sarwar has in mind. Most pundits, myself included, had their arses handed to them on Friday morning after calling the Hamilton by-election badly wrong. READ MORE: How did Labour win the Hamilton by-election with an 'invisible man' candidate? But this was an SNP loss, with their vote halving, not a Labour victory, given they were down 3620 votes on their losing score in 2021. Russell's was a local campaign for local people, though the high drama of an unpredictable campaign – in Morgan McSweeney's back garden – set tongues wagging in Westminster, too. Scottish Secretary Ian Murray (below) and the Prime Minister both made election pitches on the floor of the House of Commons on Wednesday, each warning about the SNP's plans to downgrade the Wishaw neonatal unit. Labour's spin machine has it that it is this focus on local issues – apparently Russell spent the night before the vote addressing the Hamilton Accies Supporters Association – wot won it. If that's the case, then McSweeney's strategy which took Labour to victory on the tightest vote efficiency ever last year is very much still in play. It's less that Russell won people around to Labour; more that he managed to get most of the people who backed them last time around to do so again while SNP support collapsed. Scottish Labour are of course perfectly entitled to make the argument that voters rejected the SNP – they did – but not to try to silence their critics by accusing them of 'classism', as Sarwar did at the count in Hamilton. Criticism was levelled at Russell in the first instance because he ducked media scrutiny and because videos posted by Scottish Labour gave the impression he could barely say his own name without difficulty. It is not 'elitist' or 'classist' to point out that having some rhetorical skill may be an advantage to an aspiring politician. It is elitist to suggest that the reason someone comes across as thick is because they are from a working-class town in Scotland. And that's the argument that Hutchesons'-educated Sarwar went with. You can get the Worst of Westminster delivered straight to you email inbox every Friday at 6pm for FREE by clicking here.
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Between ‘rollover UK' and ‘retaliatory China': will EU hardball secure trade deal with US?
In Brussels' corridors of power, quiet optimism is growing that the EU's hardball strategy to secure a US trade deal is working. While Britain quickly moved to try to cushion the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs with a deal agreed last month – and US-Chinese relations are a tit-for-tat situation – the EU has taken a different stance. 'We are positioning ourselves between 'rollover UK' and 'retaliatory China',' said a Brussels source. The stakes are not just the £706bn in transatlantic trade between the EU and US but the fallout from what diplomats and businesses say is a dangerous assault on the global rules-based system that governs western democracy. 'The only thing that appeals to Trump is power. Amid all the nausea and uncertainty here, there is a significant chance the EU will go the whole way and not do a deal,' said a diplomat in the Belgian capital. 'If the EU doesn't stand up to Trump or demand the rigours of rules, the question will be: what is left of the international rules based system?' the source added, noting the risk to employment rights, free speech, social welfare and public care. The EU's steadfast strategy is high-risk, and has weeks to play out before the 90-day pause in Trump's threat to impose 20% tariffs on all EU imports ends in July. He has already slapped a 10% tariff on all exports, with more on autos and steel, which this week went to 50%. 'If in the end, if we are the only ones on the pitch, people will start to say we should have been more like the Chinese,' said one EU official, with demands for retaliation expected to arise 'very quickly from member states'. The biggest pothole in what threatens to be a bumpy road ahead may be a Nato summit on 24 June when Trump, who has shown visceral antipathy towards the EU, may find fault in what he considers freeloading allies. Right now, EU member states are united in their resolve not to capitulate in the face of his demands, which include the removal of non-tariff barriers such as food standards. 'What the US is doing has brought us together, and there's a sense of urgency of that cooperation within the 27 that is quite important,' says one diplomat. There is even a growing acceptance that US tariffs of more than 10% are a long-term reality. 'Ideally less than 10%, so it doesn't look like we have rolled over,' says one Brussels official. Before Trump took office for the second time the average tariff on US imports in the EU was about 2.5%. The EU's chief negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič, said on multiple occasions this week that he was 'optimistic' a deal would be done, but back at base, trade war preparations continue. 'We are keeping the gun on the shelf. We don't want to use it, but we want them to know it is there,' said one diplomat. Šefčovič said on Friday he had held another call with the US secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick. 'Our time and effort fully invested, as delivering forward-looking solutions remains a top EU priority. Staying in permanent contact,' he wrote on X. Meanwhile, twin talks took place this week in Paris at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in Washington with a team of EU officials led by Tomas Baert, trade adviser to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen. Those talks helped 'clean the slate, clear the table', Šefčovič told a conference organised by the European Policy Centre, a thinktank, on Thursday in Brussels. He added that he had also discussed the continued threat of sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors with the US trade representative Jamieson Greer in Paris. Šefčovič said his message was that the US and the EU had mutual interests in re-industrialisation on both sides of the Atlantic, and in minimising China's unstoppable rise in key sectors such as electric vehicles and steel. 'Any obstacle in the middle of the Atlantic would simply make them less competitive and more vulnerable. This is the diplomatic, political but also very technical discussions we are having,' he said. Up to now negotiations have been somewhat hampered by the parallel universe occupied by the US president, and White House and EU officials. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Last month, Trump, out of the blue, threatened and then unthreatened to slap a 50% tariff on all EU imports, claiming Brussels was dragging its feet 'to put it mildly'. 'This came as a surprise to Maroš, because he had been in talks since February,' said one source. 'But because this is an imperial court, it is the emperor who will decide when talks are happening.' The volatility in the transatlantic relationship on European business is unprecedented. 'I have been here 10 years and I have never seen this level of nervousness, not during the pandemic, not after the invasion of Ukraine,' said a director at one trade group representing dozens of multinationals in Brussels, who declined to be named. Luisa Santos, the deputy director general at Confederation of Business Europe, which represents 42 national business federations, said trade would, like water, find its course but investment could prove the collateral damage. 'The whole basis of trade is WTO [World Trade Organization] rules,' she said. 'We agreed on the rules and they were accepted the consequences. Now the rule is the power game: 'I will impose what I think is best for me, and the bigger players with more power determine the rules and that is a huge change.' Santos added: 'I think the biggest shock in Europe is that we were supposed to be the traditional allies. But now we are basically put on the same basket as China.' Kyle Martin, the vice-president of European affairs at the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, whose members include Boeing and Airbus, said tariffs would end a 45-year-old US-EU agreement that aviation construction, which relies on a global supply chain, was duty-free. A Boeing 787 gets its front fuselage from Italy, its wings from Japan and doors from France, with assembly at home in Seattle, he pointed out. 'I don't see this having a positive [outcome] for either Boeing or Airbus or any other manufacturer. Everyone will be impacted because everyone's got an interconnected supply chain.' But while negotiations with the US continue, new EU agreements with India, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa and Australia are also on the cards. Ultimately it is the profound shift in the world order that is bothering many in Brussels. The US was behaving 'like a very unevolved state', said one EU source, like a developing country that relied on customs duties for national revenue in the absence of income tax, corporate tax and VAT. 'Maybe this is what Trump wants, a smaller, leaner weaker state where everybody has to pay for themselves,' they said.
The National
41 minutes ago
- The National
This result shows the time has arrived for make-or-break move for SNP
We didn't need Professor Curtice to highlight that SNP fortunes haven't improved since the General Election. It was readily apparent to anyone who followed this SNP leadership contesting Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse as a supposed party of 'independence' and yet not relying on it to garner support. At a time when national polling for independence is reckoned to hover around 54%, Swinney's SNP managed to garner just 12% support from Hamilton's electorate (only 29% of those who actually voted). Doesn't this prove beyond any doubt he and his party are getting it woefully wrong? At a time when the independence movement is straining at the leash for real campaigning political leadership, itching to get the campaign into full swing, hasn't the SNP's campaign chief, Jamie Hepburn, signalled indy being kicked down the road once again when in Laura Pollock's report (June 6) he states: 'Next year, we're going into a General Election for the Scottish Parliament ... the fundamental question will be who's forming the next government ... who's going to be the next first minister ... either John Swinney or Anas Sarwar.' READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely There we have it. This SNP's clear intention is to just play regional politics, presumably to secure their own positions, rather than fight the 2026 election as the de facto referendum the movement demands and the polls suggest the public desires. I suspect the new strategy SNP may be heading towards claiming that the de facto referendum should be at the next General Election and promising to make it so ... just as long as we elect them to Holyrood next year so they can 'deliver' it. Well, let's head that one off at the pass. If 2026 is ignored as the legitimate platform for Scots to determine their national status, or fail to force the referendum our democratic rights deserve, then who doubts the SNP will be soundly defeated and the independence movement will need to start from scratch to fight for independence without them; trust in the SNP decimated and Scotland's independence prospects truly parked for another generation – victory for the Unionists? If Keir Starmer, as seems likely, is about to scapegoat Rachel Reeves to secure his position, isn't it time for the SNP to scapegoat their current leader and his influencers in order to elect a leader in time for 2026 who has independence at heart, has the drive to deliver it and can persuade 54% and rising of Scots that they can do so? Hasn't the Hamilton election result shown the time has arrived for, if no serious independence leadership and drive for it, then no SNP? Jim Taylor Scotland THE loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making, a fiasco that reeks of complacency, strategic idiocy and the kind of centrist dithering that has come to define John Swinney's leadership. This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable sum – Swinney, that master of inertia, chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75% of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. One wonders if he imagines history's great emancipators –Washington, Bolívar, even the wretched Garibaldi – paused to consult focus groups before acting. When Starmer, that most unctuous of Westminster careerists, declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are Unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. Worse still, Swinney has perpetuated the worst excesses of the Sturgeon era: the cult of secrecy, the slavish deference to corporate interests (see: Flamingo Land's desecration of Loch Lomond) and the systematic sidelining of anyone with a spine. Sturgeon's legacy was to ensure that no competent successor could emerge – only loyalists and mediocrities, of which Swinney is the apotheosis. The truth is stark: the SNP have no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs Dundee
