Cassie: You would not be able to cite one example to support either your broad theory or particular example. If we wanted free prescriptions, or free anything else, already available to the Scots and Welsh, we could have them, should that be the will of that Parliament at Westminster. Your example about going blind/ Alzheimers, etc. are wholly irrelevant, for such people would not be required to pay for their prescriptions under those circumstances which you describe. Although a lot of emotive nonsense is generated on the subject of prescriptions, only a tiny percentage actually pay that charge even in England. As I have argued previously on this thread, the economic argument for the abolition of prescription charges and education loans, on economic grounds alone are self-evident. I would, however, in respect of education grants, impose a graduate tax band, at about half a percent, above basic tax level over the graduates' working-life. This would be cheaper, and certainly less bureaucratic, than an ever increasing army of paid and pensioned bureaucrats, to collect loans on behalf of private loan companies. Can you expalin where my reasoning is in error? I genuinely want to know. I would even add to the list for abolition, residential charges in care homes for the aged. Many of your perceived injustices, were introduced by Conservative governments
between 1979-1997. when they had substantial majorities provided by English constituencies. They are not the consequence of increased internal control in Scotland, and Wales.
Remember what the Black Report said; ' A prejudice, is an opinon or belief, unsupported either by experience or evidence'. What would be your reason for rejecting that definition?
This suppose to be a friendly debate, by the way.
|