Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder why people in England have to pay for prescriptions

185 replies

AtYourCervix · 01/04/2011 07:32

and in Scotland and Wales they are free?

Confused

How the fuck can that happen?

OP posts:
tabulahrasa · 01/04/2011 08:54

English students pay fees for Scottish universities

zippy539 · 01/04/2011 08:54

I think there is also an argument that the cost of administrating a varying charge system (some free, some not) is more expensive that giving everyone free perscriptions.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 01/04/2011 08:56

Agree with you OP, they should be free for all or chargeable to all. Personally, I think that we should all pay for prescriptions (or at least a contribution), nothing should be free. There isn't enough funding for cancer drugs (as an example) for everybody so nobody should be let off paying for their medication.

mummylouise · 01/04/2011 08:59

The free prescriptions in Scotland was an SNP pledge so they have to go throu with it. Not really sure were the money will come from. At the time Alex Salmond was spending money like a drunk man on a friday night!!
The prescription criteria should be widen as ppl on long term mediciation should be able to get it free - this was done in scotland a couple of years ago but only in limited circumstances.
Not sure if the removal of charges will work long term as there will probably be great abuse of the system. I am glad thou as on a lot of medication and will save me money.

mummylouise · 01/04/2011 09:00

i am diabetic and didn't get free prescriptions.

tabulahrasa · 01/04/2011 09:01

Well they only had to go through with it if they won and technically, they didn't

Declaring yourself the winner of an election shouldn't make it so

mummylouise · 01/04/2011 09:02

They won by one seat

tabulahrasa · 01/04/2011 09:06

one seat isn't winning an election

the conservatives won 39 seats more than labour at the general election - but they weren't allowed to simply decide they'd won

thatsenough · 01/04/2011 09:08

Unfair yes, but the truth is that England's population is too large for free prescriptions for all to be sustainable.

A fairer system would be a small nominal charge for every item, as this would ensure that medicines weren't over ordered and ultimately returned to pharmacies for destruction - A huge waste of a valuable resource.

mummylouise · 01/04/2011 09:10

The tory gov could of formed a gov with 39 majority. They decided on a coalation because that would mean a stronger gov and more likely to pass their bills etc. A majority of only 39 would of meant greater defeat and every important bill would of been more difficult to pass throu House of Commons. John Major's majority wasn't much more than 39.

Panda1234 · 01/04/2011 09:15

tabulahrasa - the SNP didn't just 'decide they'd won'. iirc, they spoke to the other parties - particularly the Lib Dems - and tried to form a coalition. When that didn't work, the SNP were the biggest party so formed a minority government with an informal agreement with the Greens.

The other parties had the right to try and form a coalition too but either they couldn't work together or the numbers didn't stack up.

It's more or less impossible for any one party to have a majority in the Scottish Parliament because of the odd voting system.

lesley33 · 01/04/2011 09:19

"The thing is, the higher spend per person in Scotland and Wales is because of geography - longer distances, smaller healthcare facilities, they cost more."

Sorry this isn't true. The amount spent per person in each country in the UK is not worked out based on a formula that takes into account ruralness, disadvantage, etc. It is worked out based purely on the amount of population, but because of historical anomalies, England gets much less.

Follow link below to read more about how it is decided how much finance each country gets.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula

At the moment, each country gets the followinga mount per person
England £7,121
Scotland £8,623
Wales £8,139
Northern Ireland £9,385

If it was divided out equally the average UK expenditure would be approximately £7362 per person.

I also read about a study that worked out a formula for allocating monies based on raralness and disadvantage. Under this Scotland would get a lot less, Wales a bit less, South of England about the same and the north of England a lot more.

FoxyRevenger · 01/04/2011 09:22

niceguy I don't think you can claim that they want to be free from central control but still take the extra cash. Hmm

Scotland didn't actually vote overwhelmingly for the SNP and they themselves are hedging on an independence referendum as they know full well what the outcome would be.

However, Scotland does do fairly well out of the Barnett formula, and has traditionally been much more left wing/Socialist in outlook so we are more inclined to use our budget on things like free prescriptions, free care for the elderly etc.

Jacaqueen · 01/04/2011 09:30

I live in Scotland but dont want Independence and didn't want devoloution.

I classed myself as British in the census.

However I have to agree that living in Scotland with a devolved Parliament under SNP control does have its advantages.

MollysChambers · 01/04/2011 09:32

This again? It's called devolution. It's called socialism.

May I suggest you try it rather than continually voting for the Tories?

FoxyRevenger · 01/04/2011 09:33

Jac I feel exactly the same.

I just don't see the point of independence. We would still want to be a part of the EU, NATO, etc, so independence is just not an option since globalisation. Not sure how not being connected to England would change that.

Fayrazzled · 01/04/2011 09:39

The West Lothian question drives me nuts. It is so unfair that Welsh/Scottish/NI MPs have a vote on matters pertaining solely to England.

I would be quite happy to let Wales/Scotland/NI totally devolve power from Westminster. Funnily enough though, I don't think they'll want to give up the financial support they get from England- we do effectively subsidise them.

lesley33 · 01/04/2011 09:43

I agree that the Scots tend to be more left wing and so get their parliament to prioritise some expenditure that the English parliament doesn't.

However that doesn't detract from the fact that Scotland does get more money than England for its population and thus it is easier for the Scottish parliament to pay for things such as free prescriptions. If the amount distributed to each country was fair, then I would have no problem with Scotland getting free prescriptions and England not.

TheSmallPrint · 01/04/2011 09:47

Someone explained the university fees earlier this week (can't remember which thread) but basically any EU member state can have free education in Scotland - so Germans can study for free in Scotland say - as it's part of some treaty or other we signed but because England is the same member state as Scotland then then can charge us as it doesn't apply within one state. Or something like that. It made more sense when the other person wrote it coherently! Grin

MoreSenseThanMoney · 01/04/2011 09:54

Mollys - I completely agree. I live in Wales and my English family are constantly complaining about this but also vote Tory and can certainly afford to pay for their own prescriptions.

Also, I wonder whether the fact that in the last census almost a quarter (23 per cent) of the population in Wales have a limiting long-term illness or disability is relevant here? Obviously certain regions of England do have high percentages of long term illness and disability (such as the North West) but the overall percentage is higher in Wales, indicating a greater need for free prescriptions. Not sure about Scotland, though.

A1980 · 01/04/2011 09:56

Don't have time to read all of this but the Barnett Forumla needs to be scrapped. If you don't knwo waht it is, google it.

The Barnett Formula is the reason why Scotland and Wales can afford what the English can't as our taxes are given to them while we get nothnig of their taxes. I'm really looking forward to paying out £7.40 per item now.

I can only imagine the outrage if the Enlgish got free uni, free nuring homes, free prescriptions, free eye tests etc and Scotland and Wales didn't. But the English just suck it up and say nothing even though they're for the most part disliked by the Scots and Welsh.

I really hope Scotland breaks away completely. Lets see if they can afford all their freebies without subsidies from the English.

phoebeophelia · 01/04/2011 09:57

Prescription charged at £3.00 in Guernsey.

Niceguy2 · 01/04/2011 09:58

It's called devolution. It's called socialism.
May I suggest you try it rather than continually voting for the Tories?

I don't have any problem with devolution. But the way it's done is blatantly unfair.

And as for socialism. Again. Be my guest. Except like most socialists, you expect others to pay. In this case, it's the English who are paying for your "socialism". If Scotland wants to be a bunch of socialists then fair enough.....just as long as they are willing to pay for it themselves.

NestaFiesta · 01/04/2011 09:59

zippy- I don't blame the English students for studying in Scotland. For many families it's either Scotland or no highter education at all as the cost is prohibitive, but student fees and their fairness would be a whole other thread I imagine!

WinterOfOurDiscountTents · 01/04/2011 10:00

Jealously is a horrible quality in a person you know. Move to Scotland if you're that cut up about it.