Politics Modern Scotland is deep in socialism

Brainwrong

Spaktacuradge
Private Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Fucking atrocious bit of 'journalism' skewed to fit some kind of weird point scoring agenda that sounds like an extreme caricature of EeeGee.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/22031823-452/modern-scotland-is-deep-in-socialism.html

I mean, the opening couple of paragraphs actually sounds pretty good. Until she decides to describe the most extreme & grotesque shows in the fringe to highlight how insufferably loony Leftist we all are here. Well, not all Scots. No, just the biggest longest running festival in the country that's the livelihood of pretty much every customer facing business in Embra.

Detached from reality, desperate to be offended, at a loss as to what to write for her daily bread. We need less of these leeches.

Thoughts?

P.S. I'm not advocating a lack of free speech, I'd be happy if she had an actual argument.
 
In case you can't read the whole thing, here it is:

Modern Scotland is deep in socialism
BY MONA CHAREN August 19, 2013 5:36PM

Updated: August 19, 2013 5:56PM

In Duck Soup, one of the stuffy characters responds to Grouchos raillery with the protest: I didnt come here to be insulted! to which Groucho quips Oh really? Where do you usually go?

I went to Scotland. Dont misunderstand; the Scots were delightful hosts. The country is as beautiful as advertised, but a few days in Edinburgh during the Fringe festival is enough to bury images of thistles and bagpipes very deep.

Modern Scotland is deep-dyed in socialism. The Scottish parliament, revived in 1998 in the hope that a measure of self-rule would vitiate the independence movement, is dominated by parties of the left. The Scottish National Party, which favors (in addition to separation from England) free education through university, unilateral nuclear disarmament, steeply progressive taxation and the eradication of poverty, holds 65 of 129 seats. Labour, the Liberal Democrats and a couple of green parties hold 47 seats, while the conservatives claim just 15. Of the 51 members of the House of Commons representing Scottish constituencies, exactly one is a conservative.

Now, about the Fringe. Its a festival of performances, concerts, dance, circuses and street theater that dominates the city every August. Just based on the descriptions available in the local paper, The Scotsman, many of the offerings were repellent.

We could have seen a play titled The Radicalisation of Bradley Manning, which the Scotsman described as a shocking indictment of the brutal and relentless homophobia of U.S. military life and also a more subtle critique . . . of western culture . . . that reacts to any breach of discipline or convention with a fierce, repressive violence and a demand that we all conform, or be silent.

Alternatively, we could have dropped in on Bin Laden: The One Man Show that featured a well-spoken Englishman politely offering tea and biscuits to his audience. The play presents a different truth, a version we never get to see, free from projection, indoctrination and cartoon villainy. Cartoon villainy? Has anti-Americanism so distorted the moral reasoning of the playwright and the critic?

Bonk! provided audiences with serious and rather stomach-churning anatomical detail, as well as a faked female orgasm to knock Meg Ryan into a cocked hat. Nick Helm: One Man Mega Myth boasts an amazing set involving 13 London buses [to scale] and giant penises (not his own). Well, thats presumably because they couldnt book Anthony Weiner.

Why dont you guess what the play The Extremists is about? The Taliban? The Shining Path? Al-Qaida? No, the audience meets Norman Kreeger, author of Extremism in the 20th Century and Beyond. Hes a guest on a TV chat show, where he expounds his philosophy of free-market democracy and the necessity of the war on terror. He almost persuades you that there is an enemy out there . . . the only thing is, the more he and the TV anchor explain their beliefs, the more they become indistinguishable from the enemy they claim to share so little with.

Eastend Caberet: Dirty Talk is described as delightfully dirty as ever. The female star kicks off her stiletto heels and crawls through the audience, dragging men on stage to share their dance moves and sex noises.

Weve come a long way from the bonnie, bonnie banks of Loch Lomand.

American writer David Sedaris is on hand to share his fiction. One story, I Brake for Traditional Marriage, features a character so outraged by a gay marriage bill that he shoots his wife and daughter before stabbing his mother-in-law with an ice pick and driving into a pedestrian. What was that about cartoon villainy?

This is not to single out the Scots. The leftist tripe and cultural waste theyre enjoying is available in every western capital, including our own. The difference, while there still is one, is that the relentless leftism goes almost entirely unrebutted there.
 
I don't know whether or not to be flattered K!

I agree her point about the fringe is nonsense in blaming scotland - the fringe where it touches of politics or society is off course largely a one side affair. But that's rather to do with the narrow minded infantilism of the upper middle classes and the arts crowd in particular. I doubt you'd find a cultural event in the western world that was any different. In short scotland is merely the venue for it here.

Poltically scotland is clearly orientated towards social democracy and the many state and the recent nat pitch to disgruntled left wingers fleeing labour is wholly disingenuous - ie that independence will bring more of this - but I don't see a link between this and the identikit views of the arts establishment and its wannabes
 
I don't know whether or not to be flattered K!

I agree her point about the fringe is nonsense in blaming scotland - the fringe where it touches of politics or society is off course largely a one side affair. But that's rather to do with the narrow minded infantilism of the upper middle classes and the arts crowd in particular. I doubt you'd find a cultural event in the western world that was any different. In short scotland is merely the venue for it here.

Poltically scotland is clearly orientated towards social democracy and the many state and the recent nat pitch to disgruntled left wingers fleeing labour is wholly disingenuous - ie that independence will bring more of this - but I don't see a link between this and the identikit views of the arts establishment and its wannabes

Sorry, M!

It just sounded like one of your arguments done extremely badly, making what seem to be obscure connections. I totally respect yours [arguments] mostly due to the fact that you obviously think about yours, and research ( far more than this excuse for a journo). I'm 99% certain she's never even set foot in bonny Scatchlaaaan', never mind the shores of Loch Lomand (yes, that's how she spelt it).

I found it astounding that she could be pejoritive about Scotland and the SNP whilst stating:

"...The Scottish parliament, revived in 1998 in the hope that a measure of self-rule would vitiate the independence movement, is dominated by parties of the left. The Scottish National Party, which favors (in addition to separation from England) free education through university, unilateral nuclear disarmament, steeply progressive taxation and the eradication of poverty..."

Wow! I bet all the Yanks reading that will be infuriated & disgusted with Scotland and our flagrant dismissal of all things corporate & free market. A hateful, wasteful altrusim directed at our children's education and the betterment of them and the weakest in our society via our approach to poverty and the reprehensible free at point of service NHS.
 
Dear Mona,

Sincerest apologies for not opting to remain in a (mythical) 18th century tartan stasis.

Love,

Scotland.
 
This piece might get a generous C- at higher English. There is some sort of rudimentary argument in it, but given there is no real rebuttal of what she evidently just plainly despises nor any alternative offered the argument fails miserably and instead succeeds only as a boring hate-filled rant.

Is Scotland real deep-dyed in socialism? Even allowing for the writer's polemics and her typically American misuse of the term the claim just doesn't stand up. Social democratic? Maybe. Socialist! Nah! Nowhere near, luv.

Having failed in putting together an argument and fallen disastrously short as a political commentator the writer then has a go at being an art-critic. As she might have heard had she actually went to one of the shows she pulls to bits, don't give up the day-time job.

You would think she might have actually went to see the plays she so casually scrapes off the sole of her shoe. They might be good. They might not. My money would be on the latter. But if I was going to slate them in public I would afford them the respect of seeing them first.

Sadly, this kind of thing is very common in our newspapers. Thinly disguised rants, more often than not penned by women, disguised as opinion pieces. Still, I guess you've got to fill the paper somehow.
 
Personally I think she has it spot on. I have always thought this country is suffering from the sickness of socialism, it is my biggest argument against splitting up the UK. Glad to see someone speaking out about it.
 
Personally I think she has it spot on. I have always thought this country is suffering from the sickness of socialism, it is my biggest argument against splitting up the UK. Glad to see someone speaking out about it.

What is it that you think is wrong with the socialist-lite in Scotland? I'm no political brainbox, just interested. I reckon if someone suggests that the NHS is a bad thing then they have a seriously weird view on what constitutes society. At least certainly the version of society that I believe to be the only truly compassionate, including, sensible, realist one.
 
What is it that you think is wrong with the socialist-lite in Scotland?


There are a lot of changes I personally would make to schooling, the political system, prison system and penal system, migration and NHS for starters.

I haven't see it yet but I would imagine the 1949 benefits programme would be close to my view of improving that.
 
Personally I think she has it spot on. I have always thought this country is suffering from the sickness of socialism, it is my biggest argument against splitting up the UK. Glad to see someone speaking out about it.

I thought you were a socialist, just not of the marxist sort. Never seen a version of yer WP pish that is not socialist.

- - - Updated - - -

What is it that you think is wrong with the socialist-lite in Scotland? I'm no political brainbox, just interested. I reckon if someone suggests that the NHS is a bad thing then they have a seriously weird view on what constitutes society. At least certainly the version of society that I believe to be the only truly compassionate, including, sensible, realist one.
I humbly suggest you've bought into a lot of stuff here.

I suspect what you really think is important is healthcare free at the point of use - I would agree with that, but the NHS is far from the only way to provide that.

In a nutshell, what is wrong with scottish socialism lite? Well it's no more affordable than anyone else's version, and it also leads to the soft authoritarianism and democratic deficit that is intrinsic to the socialist package; the latter emerges as the state employs and funds more and more voters and thus statism becomes self-perpetuating.
 
There are a lot of changes I personally would make to schooling, the political system, prison system and penal system, migration and NHS for starters.

I haven't see it yet but I would imagine the 1949 benefits programme would be close to my view of improving that.

Without seeing it, what has given you the feeling that it is what you'd be after? I'll check it out but seems a bit pointless if you haven't either ;)
 
I humbly suggest you've bought into a lot of stuff here.

I suspect what you really think is important is healthcare free at the point of use - I would agree with that, but the NHS is far from the only way to provide that.

In a nutshell, what is wrong with scottish socialism lite? Well it's no more affordable than anyone else's version, and it also leads to the soft authoritarianism and democratic deficit that is intrinsic to the socialist package; the latter emerges as the state employs and funds more and more voters and thus statism becomes self-perpetuating.

I don't see it as buying into anything or being hoodwinked in any way. You're right, free at point of service is exactly what I mean. I haven't analysed the other options (are there any?) so I support what is doing that already which is the NHS.

I think the only way for a society to behave that is conscionable is via support, inclusion and almost a benevolent altruism. I'm not saying we've got it right yet, but what we have shits all over many, many systems worldwide (as far as I can see).

I know it ain't cheap, and that's a challenge. I think on our own, in an independent Scotland, we could really give it a go and have a high chance of succeeding.
 
Not sure if im following this right but... Fan of Mr Hilter agrees with a Jew that Socialism* is bad.


*not forgetting that once im sure Alex Salmon aka King Jowl once said he was a Nationalist and a Socialist. :doh
 
I don't see it as buying into anything or being hoodwinked in any way. You're right, free at point of service is exactly what I mean. I haven't analysed the other options (are there any?) so I support what is doing that already which is the NHS.

I think the only way for a society to behave that is conscionable is via support, inclusion and almost a benevolent altruism. I'm not saying we've got it right yet, but what we have $#@!s all over many, many systems worldwide (as far as I can see).

I know it ain't cheap, and that's a challenge. I think on our own, in an independent Scotland, we could really give it a go and have a high chance of succeeding.

Any number of ways that are alternatives to nhs, privately owned provision funded by a national insurance scheme just to give one example.

I agree with you on altruism but not the means - what we have seen in recent decades
Is an erosion in the things that supported altruism within the population. This places an ever greater demand on state provided services the affordability of which is further hit by similar trends which causes damage that require state intervention while eroding the ability to fund to begin with. Alongside it require ever more state dependency and employment creating votes for more of the same.

Narrow European critiques of the US misses these points - Americans are not selfish ogres rather their social and poltical cycle recognised this spiral, any these chose different evils. That said they are inexorably coming in line with Europe which is why the future may be heading south and east - or may not, plenty other problems there
 
Any number of ways that are alternatives to nhs, privately owned provision funded by a national insurance scheme just to give one example.

I agree with you on altruism but not the means - what we have seen in recent decades
Is an erosion in the things that supported altruism within the population. This places an ever greater demand on state provided services the affordability of which is further hit by similar trends which causes damage that require state intervention while eroding the ability to fund to begin with. Alongside it require ever more state dependency and employment creating votes for more of the same.

Narrow European critiques of the US misses these points - Americans are not selfish ogres rather their social and poltical cycle recognised this spiral, any these chose different evils. That said they are inexorably coming in line with Europe which is why the future may be heading south and east - or may not, plenty other problems there


Under such a system could the providers maintain current service levels at no additional cost? If not, would it be a true alternative?
 
We are being lectured here from the halfwit who was on the staff of First Lady Nancy Reagan, another halfwit, who used the mumbo jumbo of astrology to run a country. Right you are Mona, were all ears.

The bint is probably still raging over Megrahi.
 
Under such a system could the providers maintain current service levels at no additional cost? If not, would it be a true alternative?

That's a whole other debate - my only intention here was to distinguish the ends of free at point of use healthcare and the nhs model as a means.

UK and US are not the only options.
 
That's a whole other debate - my only intention here was to distinguish the ends of free at point of use healthcare and the nhs model as a means.

UK and US are not the only options.


In which case I will give your argument all the credence it's due.
 
It's not an argument it's a statement of fact - there are other ways to provide free at the point of use than the nhs model.


That it is possible to provide a free at point of use service is not disputed. But unless you can demonstrate that the alternative service can provide the same levels of current service then the statement lacks weight. It seems highly improbable that using some kind of insurance to pay private enterprise to provide a service would ensure the current quality of service is maintained at current levels unless the costs of the insurance rose above what people currently pay.

Anyway, you said 'there are any number of ways'. What are the others?
 
That it is possible to provide a free at point of use service is not disputed. But unless you can demonstrate that the alternative service can provide the same levels of current service then the statement lacks weight. It seems highly improbable that using some kind of insurance to pay private enterprise to provide a service would ensure the current quality of service is maintained at current levels unless the costs of the insurance rose above what people currently pay.

Anyway, you said 'there are any number of ways'. What are the others?

Tomsk - what I said was sufficient for the only point I was making here. Which way we should go is a product of any number of variables, but suffice to say I'm rather non plussed with the greatness of the NHS; I have near and dear who've worked in it for decades and I know all about the hardwork and the commitment and also the gross inefficiency. Meanwhile I personally know three young adults who have died or nearly died in the last few years with hospital acquired infections as contributing factors. Meanwhile the ugly political forces who chase the heels of any failure from a private provider give a free pass to farragos like staffordshire - emblematic of the dynamics of bureaucracy where preservation of the systems interests becomes far more important than people (see also the horrible fanatics trying to quash independent schools so as to hold onto their power)

Free healthcare at the point of use is a grand idea which I fully support - that the unaffordable, inefficient, not particularly stand out quality, immensely hardworking and committed NHS is the best way to do it is far from obvious to me - and scepticism of whether the NHS is the right way to go is hardly a demonstration of weirdness, the original point I was responding too.

What is the best option (and it may still be the NHS) is another question, and for another thread - be my guest if you want to start that thread. One way or the other this question is likely to come up in an independent scotland as the NHS will, I very much suspect, be unaffordable.
 
Tomsk - what I said was sufficient for the only point I was making here. Which way we should go is a product of any number of variables, but suffice to say I'm rather non plussed with the greatness of the NHS; I have near and dear who've worked in it for decades and I know all about the hardwork and the commitment and also the gross inefficiency. Meanwhile I personally know three young adults who have died or nearly died in the last few years with hospital acquired infections as contributing factors. Meanwhile the ugly political forces who chase the heels of any failure from a private provider give a free pass to farragos like staffordshire - emblematic of the dynamics of bureaucracy where preservation of the systems interests becomes far more important than people (see also the horrible fanatics trying to quash independent schools so as to hold onto their power)

Free healthcare at the point of use is a grand idea which I fully support - that the unaffordable, inefficient, not particularly stand out quality, immensely hardworking and committed NHS is the best way to do it is far from obvious to me - and scepticism of whether the NHS is the right way to go is hardly a demonstration of weirdness, the original point I was responding too.

What is the best option (and it may still be the NHS) is another question, and for another thread - be my guest if you want to start that thread. One way or the other this question is likely to come up in an independent scotland as the NHS will, I very much suspect, be unaffordable.

With all due respect, I don't accept that your previous statements are sufficient. You simply haven't backed up what you claimed.

Like you, I know a number of people who work in the NHS and many more people who have used the service, some of whom have had less than ideal treatment. For the sake of balance I also know many, many people who have received the very best of care and treatment. I don't know anybody who claims the NHS is perfect. But I don't see the point in replacing it with any other system unless by doing so we improve the service at no additional cost or match current provision with cost reductions. An optimum solution would improve provision and reduce costs.

I don't think those systems exist, which is which I why I asked you to expand on your claims; but if you have no wish to discuss this further I will leave it there, except to say whether an independent Scotland will ever have to face up to NHS affordability or not is something I hope never to see.
 
I think I have made one claim - that things can be done in others ways, which you agreed with. I haven't made claims about it being better or worse. I have also voiced one suspicion about affordability - I cannot prove that hence it being framed as a suspicion.

If you want to bounce around further: what do you think of Scandinavian approaches ?
 
I think I have made one claim - that things can be done in others ways, which you agreed with. I haven't made claims about it being better or worse. I have also voiced one suspicion about affordability - I cannot prove that hence it being framed as a suspicion.

To avoid repeating myself I refer you to my first paragraph in post 21.

If you want to bounce around further: what do you think of Scandinavian approaches ?

Trust me, I'm no expert. Are you talking about the model where health is provided locally and local authority taxation propped up by central grants provides the funding? I suppose that is a model that could be applied to Scotland if we went for devo max. You might have greater local accountability but perhaps at the cost of economies of scale. I can't see England buying into it. Already less is spend per head on health in England than in Scotland.