Indyref 9

[IrnBruTheNoo]

...

See my comment above-I'm not so sure it does?

And it is down to WM government, not Scottish government

Yes, it states that the EU country government could choose to define NHS Scotland as a regional level monopoly. But it needs to either exclude that from a positive list, or include in a negative list?

It would certainly come under a monopoly operating at a regional level and exempt from competition - if the present government had decided to opt it out. But it hasn't. And the SP doesn't have the power to opt it out during the negotiation process. Devolution means nothing under TTIP.

I'm not against TTIP as a whole, but the exclusions EU governments can make are important, and this government is not excluding public health services.

And a wee bit of light relief
www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/the-siege-of-balamory?bffbuk&s=mobile#26txvde

That bit is badly worded but I'm not entirely convinced that it's saying that as the example below looks like there is some blurb about monopolies that they might well use something similar to. So it might be that monopolies are out, and it's the next level down that you have to specifically exclude, and you can change that at any time.

Given NHS Scotland is a totally separate body to NHS England, the UK govt could not enter in to any actual contracts on behalf of NHS Scotland I don't think (unless we get in to doomsday devolution revocation scenarios.) So if NHS Scotland as a monopoly body did not enter in to any contracts with providers then no compensation would be due for withdrawal, surely?

Given NHS Scotland is a totally separate body to NHS England, the UK govt could not enter in to any actual contracts on behalf of NHS Scotland I don't think (unless we get in to doomsday devolution revocation scenarios.) So if NHS Scotland as a monopoly body did not enter in to any contracts with providers then no compensation would be due for withdrawal, surely?

I don't know. As far as I can tell the UK gov wouldn't be entering into contracts, just saying they could/couldn't be entered into. This is all being done over Scotland's head, so I would still interpret it as UK gov would have to specifically exempt NHS Scotland because ScotGov can't do it?

That's kind of what I was saying - it's still only a trade agreement, right?.It doesn't, that I can see, say you have to offer companies the right to tender for a service which is not being put out to tender IYSWIM?

That's kind of what I was saying - it's still only a trade agreement, right?.It doesn't, that I can see, say you have to offer companies the right to tender for a service which is not being put out to tender IYSWIM?

I think towards the bottom of the link though it says that countries either produce a list of services up go for tender, or a list of things not up for tender. I think the latter is being used for TTIP and thus NHS Scotland would have to be specifically exempted, or it would by default be up for grabs?

www.ibtimes.co.uk/ttip-unions-lobby-nhs-exemption-free-trade-agreement-1464575
"Last week, IBTimes UK reported that Lord Livingston, the Trade Minister, would not be using a veto option to exempt public service from the wide-reaching agreement, fuelling fears that the UK will be left open to legal action from third-party companies should national health regulations impede on their profits."
www.ibtimes.co.uk/ttip-unions-lobby-nhs-exemption-free-trade-agreement-1464575

I think the positive/negative list would be those services which are included/excluded i.e. where the US companies would have the right to tender. The bit about monopolies and the example clause is kind of badly explained so I can't be sure whether it is or isn't automatic for monopolies.

However, it still only gives a right to tender - it looks like it's basically trying to level the playing field and make the US a bit like an EU country in terms of being able to tender for work in other countries. But there would still need to be a decision made, separate to the TTIP, to offer a particular part for tender. If you don't put something up for tender at all, then nobody can bid for the work. I don't think that they would be able to march up and say "I know you've not put them out for tender but we want to provide your ambulance services. You must let us."

England's in a ropier situation because their bill has already created the situation where these tenders will exist - and as you say once they have them it's harder to get shot without paying lots.

England's in a ropier situation because their bill has already created the situation where these tenders will exist - and as you say once they have them it's harder to get shot without paying lots.

And as more private companies provide services to NHS etc cost to WM becomes less. Which results in cuts to Scottish NHS funding.

Only if the private services are actually cheaper. Which lets face it, we know from past experience they blooming aren't in the long term! Usual scenario - oooh we've save 5% that's a bargain...couple of years later "it's time to renegotiate...oh, you no longer have the equipment to do it yourself...here's our revised price list"

Look, I'm not saying it's a non issue. But I think it's being blown up beyond what it actually is for Scotland. Yes campaigners are quick enough to shout "scaremongering" at anything negative whether it's a little true, quite a lot true, or total bloody fact. But it happens on both sides and looking at it, it doesn't suggest that it's half as definite or clear cut as some of the pro indy sites are making out. I think, having looked yourself, you would possibly agree with that?

Evening all

Hi santana how's the babies?

Lawyer friend who has been involved in some of the contract negotiations within the English NHS: he says that it's all very well the private sector (deliberately) shaving a small amount of the tenders - but when it comes up for renewal after a few years' time, the NHS has lost the expertise and the private companies have them over a barrel.
He does well from a professional perspective as it's extra business for him but he doesn't approve (he doesn't get to choose what work he gets allocated).

don't think that they would be able to march up and say "I know you've not put them out for tender but we want to provide your ambulance services. You must let us.

The problem is, that on rereading yours and other links, I think that unless the NHS Scotland is specifically exempted they probably could.

Of course the other issue is, that the very good link you posted, continually refers to the EU government. ScotGov has absolutely no say in this at all, as we are not an EU member in our own right.

"But there is a further threat facing the NHS. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is the fruit of long-running negotiations between the EU and the US over trade liberalisation. One of its fundamental principles is that services, including state services, should be open to private competition from American multinationals. According to Garcia Bercero, the EU Commission official with responsibility for TTIP, health services in Europe will be opened to private competition, but only where privatisation is already established. In other words, where there is an existing state monopoly, foreign companies cannot sue the government in question for unfair competition.

But the UK Health and Social Care Act opened the UK system to TTIP because it explicitly introduces a private market in health provision in England. After a No vote, private providers and insurance companies may argue that, since Scotland is not a sovereign state but a region of the UK, it cannot be exempted from competition for health provision. We are a long way from that being tested in law, but what is beyond doubt is that the UK has made the NHS in England TTIP compliant. It seems highly likely that the Scottish system will be seen as an unacceptable anachronism in a unitary state.
www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/comment/columnists/forget-the-latest-scare-story-the-real-threat-to-our-health-service-is-a-no-vote.24735142

Growing wonderfully, thank you! Wee buggers are both doing star shapes, I'm massive already

"the NHS has lost the expertise and the private companies have them over a barrel." - pretty much what I was saying above - it's not really cost cutting in the long run

Reading Macwhirter's tweets he looks like a far from unbiased commentator.

More gratuitous headline writing from the BBC, and I feel as the wife of an employee of the financial services sector in Edinburgh that I have to highlight this.
The actual story in the article is that Lloyds have confirmed something that is blatantly obvious to anyone who thinks about it, that they’ll need to set up some new legal entities in rUK after independence.

The only actual quote from a financial organisation here is this from Lloyds:
"While the scale of potential change is currently unclear, we have contingency plans in place which include the establishment of new legal entities in England. This is a legal procedure and there would be no immediate changes or issues which could affect our business or our customers.”

These legal entities are normal practice. Santander are a Spanish bank, who have a legal entity called Santander UK which trades here. No doubt they’d be setting up Santander Scotland after independence. It doesn’t mean they’re moving their headquarters here.

No-one can know the future and I’m not saying it’s impossible that Lloyds or RBS will move staff between Edinburgh and London or other locations in the future. But this applies with Scotland as part of the UK or as an independent country. What I don’t believe is that either of these companies would simply walk away from 35 thousand skilled financial services staff in Edinburgh – and no company has said that they would. Companies like this go where the skilled labour is, that’s why Tesco Bank and Sainsbury’s Bank have set up large parts of their new operations in Edinburgh in the last few years and why Virgin Bank are still planning to do so in the next couple of years.

So don’t let headlines rule your head, especially when they misrepresent the actual content of the article. Companies will have to change some things in the event of independence, and they may have to adapt to a few of the changes that come after independence. But the day that corporations start determining our politics rather than adapting to it, democracy really will be lost.

I presume you got the message from your CEO on the intranet too statistically, that no jobs or operations are to be moved? You must be relieved?

Reading Macwhirter's tweets he looks like a far from unbiased commentator.

No. He's a firm yes. But his point that Scottish devolution is effectively not recognised in the EU/TTIP deal is a fair one. The Health and Social bill has opened up UK healthcare to privatisation.