Never mind the quality, feeeel the cheapness.

One of the basic fundaments of UK politics is that parties don’t expect us to take anything contained or promised in their manifestos too literally but still, this proclamation from "Lynn of Co Antrim" does fall down on two crucial points:

“My DUP has delivered free prescriptions for everyone in Northern Ireland, the most generous scheme in the UK”

First, whose idea was the free prescription”?
Under the aegis of whose “ministry” was it introduced?

Secondly, both Wales since 2007 and Scotland (admittedly the day after Lyn of Antrim made her claim) since this year have also offered free prescriptions, so it’s not strictly accurate to call it the "most generous” scheme in the UK.

Incidently, I hope Lynn does indeed come from Antrim and not somewhere like Little Muck, Arizona....  the DUP did have one or two problems on that score before.

But as I said, no one reads manifestos, never mind believes the nonsense inside them. More important is how, as touched on by Owen Polley here, we look to improve upon the delivery of our health service and (management, trade-unionists and bureaucrats hold your breath now) ultimately “empower” patients and doctors (ie provide better healthcare, more efficiently)

In England, as the CEP have been quick to remind us this week, prescriptions have gone up from 7.20 pounds a week to 7.40.

On bare facts, devolution has, once again, delivered an unfair state of affairs.

However, despite those discrepancies in prescription prices:

Historically Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have had higher levels of NHS funding per capita thanEngland. The research confirms this but shows other striking and troubling differences between the four nations, some accentuated since devolution.

In particular, these were higher numbers of doctors, nurses and managers per head of population, lower crude productivity per staff member (particularly in Scotland), and a higher percentage of the population waiting for care in Wales and Northern Ireland than in England.

The analysis presented in this report suggests that England’s NHS spends less and has fewer staff per capita than the health services in the devolved countries, but that it makes better use of its resources with respect to delivering higher levels of activity and productivity and lower waiting times. Comparing the devolved nations with regions of England that are similar on a range of health and socio-economic indicators, the differences highlighted in the analysis are even more pronounced.

I posted that finding from the Nuttfield Trust just over a month ago.

So, English patients do pay prescription fees but also receive a better quality service than that “enjoyed” (or make that “endured”) by their fellow Brits in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Why?

Well, in my opinion, prescription prices, like University Tuition fees, have become the Devocracy’s populist rallying call in the hope that the short-term dust the debate throws up blinds the electorate to the fact that in both areas nasty truths have only been temporarily postponed.

Actually, it’s only one nasty core truth- society is not prepared to pay the extra money needed, or make the sacrifices required (eg unemployment resulting from streamlining the NHS or less students attending university) to deliver the kind of high-quality health service or third level education system they demand.

The Devocrats in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales know that fact and as a consequence have taken the coward’s way out:

“You get a worse health service than the English and it’s getting worse but hey, we don’t charge you prescription charges"

or:

“The quality delivered by our universities is going down the pan but sure, if we don’t charge you to attend them in the first place who cares?”

In the ideal world (ie around about one generation ago) we could get away with free (OK, that was always a misnomer because somewhere down the line someone did have to pay) university education and prescriptions. We’d all also be 100% happy with the service offered by the health service and third-level educational institutes.
But both demographically and economically, we most certainly don’t live in that ideal world.

 I don’t want to pay for my prescriptions and in the far-off future, I don’t want to have my offspring paying to attend university. But I also demand better than adequate healthcare and high-quality third-level education- how do the devocrats in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh propose to square that circle?
Shush- I think I can just about hear the pitter-patter of a tactical retreat.

Overcharge the goose and the golden egg will be laid elsewhere...

From the Scotsman:

"We could end up in a situation where it makes no sense for English students to keep coming to Scotland in the same numbers they do now."

...a prospect which is delighting at least one of the cybernat xenophobes:

Good, allowing Scots to be educated in our universities in greater numbers.

Currently some Scottish Universities have less than 50% Scottish students.

The argument the SNP are putting is slightly more nuanced than that of such monoculturalist supporters. It's not that they don't want outsiders in Scottish universities; in fact the fines fees they would be expected to pay for being English/N.Irish/Welsh are essential for the financial well-being of the Scottish system:

Quote of the day

Mark Devonport on the continuing Devolved Tuition Fees Scandal:

Not so long ago David Cameron was declaring his "passionate" unionism and the need to end Northern Ireland's "semi-detached" status. But the contrasting policies on fees being considered by the various UK administrations look set to treat UK citizens in radically different ways if they seek to be educated in a different UK region from the one where they were born.

University tuition fees, the clock ticking for the Scottish Lib Dems?

It's a wholly justifiable comment with regards to Ms Swinson:

“A remark was made that Ms Swinson and the LibDems had as many faces as the town hall clock so why was anyone surprised by what they did?"

Ms Swinson being the Scottish Lib Dem MP whose attitude on university tuition fees depended on which audience and country's electorate she was addressing.

However, her local colleagues are at least showing a more consistent approach:

SPLITS have emerged between local LibDems and MP Jo Swinson over the explosive issue of student tuition fees.

However, during the debate, LibDem group leader Ashay Ghai went public with the unease it is believed many local activists feel about the LibDems’ stance nationally, especially after opinion polls showed their support in Scotland crashing ahead of this year’s Scottish Parliament elections.

Councillor Ghai said: “The LibDem members of this council do have personal views of conviction on the matter and in this case our leanings were towards voting against the coalition government.

Personal "views of conviction", now there's an interesting concept.

Scotland to be the best option for learners. But only if you're Scottish learner.

Further developments in the devolved tuition debate:

Free education for Scottish students has been protected at the launch of a Green Paper setting out a range of options for university funding.
The recent tuition fee hike south of the border has prompted the SNP to prevent what they have called fee refugees from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Government’s education minister, Michael Russell:

"We do support raising fees for students from the rest of the UK, to ensure Scotland continues to be the best option, not the cheap option, for learners.”

Note the SNP support the raising of fees from the rest of the UK; a fact which Liam Burns seems to have missed in his analysis:

Liam Burns, President of NUS Scotland said: "If fees go up in Scotland for students from the rest of the UK, it will be directly down to the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Conservative MPs that voted for the trebling of fees in the rest of the UK"

*Directly*?
Nothing whatsoever to do with the SNP then?