Treating An Independent Scotland In English Nhs Hospitals

[naomi24]

This is not news – but depending upon the answer, come Thursday it might be. I read an article today stating that, annually, some 43,000-plus people from Scotland are treated in NHS hospitals in England. The Scottish government and the ‘Yes’ camp maintain that, should Scotland opt for independence, this arrangement will continue to be protected under EU directives, but since an independent Scotland will no longer be part of the EU, that arrangement will surely cease to exist? This article is from last March, but it illustrates the point. Can anyone throw any light on this?

//The Scottish government pointed out that reciprocal treatment arrangements already existed with a large number of other nations and that EU directives protected access to such treatment.//

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-26747397

[douglas9401]

Mr Salmond bases his projections on the co-operation of others, imagining that they see him as a lovable, cuddly wee soul bearing more than a passing resemblance to Droopy the put-upon cartoon dog.
He's big on talk and seems to think that a blanket 'it'll be fine' is politically astute.
trouble's brewing if it goes his way.

[mushroom25]

not sure it's exclusively the EU - a similar reciprocal arrangement exists with Norway, who've never been EU members.

[Baldric]

So, Scottish Health Tourists eh?

[ToraToraTora]

another one of a 1000 things the yes camp have no answer to. All that matters is that blue face paint is in the shops and mel Gibson is on standby.

[naomi24]

Mushroom, but an agreement with Norway would have been negotiated independently. The comment from the Scottish government appears to suggest that the reciprocal arrangements it's talking about are designed specifically to offer cross-border medical care solely to members of the EU.

[EDDIE51]

Yet another point Salmond has just 'forgotten' to mention, and says ''just trust me and it will be alright''
It will have to be arranged during the negotiations if there is a 'Yes' vote.
But remember it works both ways, people from England especially the border regions are treated in Scotland. The NHS regions do not follow the border .

[IggyB]

I was sure the NHS regions DID follow the boarder hence NHS England and NHS Scotland

Either way it would be in both countries interests to agree on treatment provision for 'foreign' citizens in each others domains. The arrangement is in place within the EU with member states being cross charged for treatment their people had in different countries, a similar arrangement would be agreed between an independent Scotland and England.

Still would Bea waste of NHS resources doing all the accounts and admit to keep it working though

[Ellipsis]

The cake and eat it response would be:

Scots, as ongoing UK citizens (yes, really, some do think that), would have access to the English NHS. It's the English, who won't be Scottish citizens, who won't have access to the Scottish NHS.

[KARL]

While I have no insight into the accounting systems within the English/UK NHS or the Scottish NHS (they are said to be entirely separate entities and funded separately), I would be most surprised if there is not a financial reckoning overall on services provided by one for/to the other, just like there is truly internationally. If I am wrong, then there is all the more reason to get these things sorted out - as independence would/will ensure. It is of course possible that currently, as with so much else within the UK, these issues are in a total muddle and nobody knows what is going on so everything becomes conjecture and hearsay, fertile ground for mud slinging, accusations and scares - and all this is managerially hopelessly impossible to deal with.

There are obviously those who do not understand that the process Scotland is going through is virtually unique and that not only is there little or no precedent but there are lots of issues that will have to be addressed and sorted out, that there are unknowns and unknowables. The same group will include those who insist on precise replies to how life will be after negotiations which have yet to be carried out. Had anyone suggested completing such negotiations before agreeing a referendum and in case there is a yes outcome, they are highly unlikely (certain not to) have found any agreement to start and even if they had they would almost certainly have got nowhere at all on any single issue. Therefore, the rather obvious choice was always going to be to have a referendum first and see if negotiations would be necessary, i.e. whether there was a yes result. That is indeed what has happened.

The choices voters are to decide on is whether or not Scotland is to run its own affairs entirely independently or else permanently leave at least some of them (all of them if devolution is at any time fully reversed by Westminster, for example in an "emergency" act) in the hands of the Westminster government.

The aftermath of a yes outcome would/will of course call for a lot of effort from all parties and the outcome will be uncertain until negotiations are complete. Those who support a yes vote (not just Mr.Salmond) trust in the ability of Scotland to govern itself and co-exist in harmony with other nations, including their former partners in the UK. They, in the event of a yes outcome, also have faith in good sense prevailing throughout and in particular that the rest of the former UK will treat them properly (not be vindictive or engage in deliberate obfuscation, obstruction or sabotage) in all future matters, including sorting out the separation.

The yes voters thus trust that both they themselves and their "fellow family members" possess the same amount of good sense and good will, that all matters will be dealt with harmoniously. In fact, they are confident that after separation the two parts of the former UK will be better friends than before, on completely equal terms as independent nations/countries. None of the matters that will have to be solved/settled are insoluble, in fact they are much easier to deal with than issues faced by long term sworn enemies.

Or is the yes camp's faith in their "family" south of the border misplaced ?

[Ellipsis]

> Or is the yes camp's faith in their "family" south of the border misplaced ?

Yes. Totally misplaced.

It wouldn't be misplaced if the outcome was the utopian win-win that you depict.

But in the much more likely scenario that a Yes voted resulted in a loss (e.g financial or emotional) for those in the continuing UK, then don't expect them not to act in their own best interests going forwards ...

[KARL]

Ellipsis, it comes down to what comes uppermost, pragmatics or conflict, doesn't it ? Yes, all parties will seek to protect their interests but everything hinges on whether anyone is implacably selfish or not. If what I read as your sentiment prevails then there may be trouble ahead - but like so many I believe that there is a natural law for balance and that one's unreasonableness eventually comes back and hits you in the face.

I am reminded of a saying that I was told of in one of the countries I have worked in: "Be sure you count your fingers after you shake an Englishman's hand". I think the inference is pretty clear.

[Ellipsis]

Thanks KARL ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J39bBV7CBJk