BS: Lucky escape for Scotland

Subject: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 05:14 AM

All the bluster and bull around North Sea Oil making an independent Scotland a reality?

Tartan finances

And Salmond, the oil economist who promised a bright future? Oh, he wants to join the Westminster gravy train and swear allegiance to the Crown and Westminster Parliament. Assuming if he gets in as an MP and isn't chosen to be a minister, he will be a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

You couldn't make it up.

But a minority of Scots tried doing so...

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 05:33 AM

alec salmond has always been very careful not to upset her maj- he wouldn't be the first to go to westminster and have to sit on his principles a bit.( i think he is in favour of the monarchy withering away following the queen's death?) as for the drop in oil prices -it's all good, cheaper petrol and cleaner air. perhaps more effort put into renewables, of which scotland happily has an abundance. anyway, as the unionists have always claimed that scots are dependending on english taxes and subsidies, they don't have to worry about scotland - they will do fine til the prices rise again. it is nice of the unionists to be so worried about the state of the (united) country - but as we are united then a drop in the price of oil is going to be bad for the tax UK receipts as a whole. wouldn't have thought that was much of a reason for crowing or sniping at the scots.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 05:39 AM

Nobody is crowing at the economic situation behind your cheap fuel (enjoy..) but it is fucking hilarious seeing the basis and financial footing upon which he would have bankrupted the country for his Rob Roy fantasy get ripped to shreds so soon, and whilst voters can make the link.

There again, Vince Cable is an oil economist too. Makes you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Mr Red
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 05:52 AM

And they have the best bankers! Far from ignoring the fact that their subsidy is greater than other parts of the Kingdom, what did Fred the Shred ever do for us? Yea yea, gave us the recession. And Scotland wanted to keep the pound! Of course they did, perturbations in their economy would be buffered by the larger partner's inertia. Without the control from the major contributor. And there is nothing more volatile than oil (figuratively speaking).
As one local wag put is on the rear of his Van It's not a recession, its a robbery!
At the end of the day Alec Salmond is a politician. Need I say more?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:20 AM

i'm sure we have been around the tenements with this argument a few times. suffice to say we are -aparently-one of the richest countries in the world - the whole question of the economy is not one of how much we have but how fairly our resources are shared and used for all our benefits. (or should i say 'benefit'?!)

how about moving forward, say 10? years

would you rather live in an independent scotland, in the EU, with a functioning health service, social care and education and an accountable parliament dominated by centre-left, progressive debate.

or perpetual austerity supported by all major parties and presumably dominated by the nasty little-englander debate between johnson and farage?really, there isn't much to get enthusiastic about in english politics is there?

should i fail in my efforts to turn the whole country red and green or get the border moved to include cumbria i'm awa' back north as soon as i can get a free bus pass and (more of) the bits start dropping off

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:43 AM

So, let me get this right, GUEST,achmelvich. You are proposing that Scotland should become independent because it is better for the people while the people in England, apart from those who are rich enough to enjoy it, continue to suffer the deprivations "supported by all major parties and presumably dominated by the nasty little-englander debate."

Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you for wanting it, but from this side of the border it seems rather selfish and un-neighbourly! Divide and conquer is a well known ploy of those in power. Looks like the Scottish Nationalists have fallen for it hook line and sinker :-( Us ordinary working people (I assume you are or were?) need to stick together!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:59 AM

still working but i despair at the political scene in westminster and increasingly look north. of course i would love to see ordinary people in england enjoy all the advantages that the scots seem to be working so hard to get but it isn't really the job of the progressive tail to wag the reactionary dog here. my hope is that a fairer, greener, nuclear free and more open scotland will act as a good example for the english. 'why can't we have some of the advantages that scots are enjoying?' 'well, we can - and we have a good chance to make a start in May' It has nothing to do with all that EVEL nonsense, it is, as it has always been, about taking power away from the 1% and working together for a fairer world (ideally without borders)

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Triplane
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:11 AM

Its the same the whole world over
Isnt it a rotten shame
its the rich wot gets the pleasure
and the poor wot gets the blame

Its Jeux sans frontiers

People in Gordon rejected the First Minister's independence plans overwhelmingly at the referendum. I am sure that they would be delighted to have the chance to reject him again in May. Bring it on.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:12 AM

Amen to that GUEST,achmelvich. I disagree that starting to separate will help improve things but if we all agreed life would be very boring! We can agree to differ on that as long as we agree to, in your own words, work together for a fairer world. I would also include cultural, religious and any other divisions along with geographic borders in the last part:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 10:29 AM

i genuinely cannot understand why alec salmond seems to attract such a lot of (knee jerk) critcism - mostly of a personal nature. i look forward to seeing him in parliament. while i am not particularly keen on his politics (or nationalism in general) he seems a particularly astute and able politician, particularly in comparison with other prominent politicians today.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 11:28 AM

Looking at the breakdown of the referendum, it seems 80% of Galloway and Dumfries know more about oil economics than Salmond.

I mention that region as it is about as far away as you can get from the oil fields.

😹

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 11:59 AM

i wouldn't concern myself about that lot -this is where the only tory MP in scotland was elected. maybe they enjoy the notoriety - or they could be just taking the piss.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:03 PM

oh come on Musket - the entire country is virtually empty.
-

its undeveloped. it missed a chance to slip the restraints of a government that threw away its ship building, motorbike industry - visited on it council tax a year before everywhere else, gives support to Japanese Scotch - and keeps the rest of the country as a private park for the stinking rich.

more fool them. things won;t change til they get away from the public school mafia at Westminster.

won't change much for us either...

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 12:33 PM

You've made up the 80% figures Musket. 66% of folk in Dumfries & Galloway voted to retain the union which amounted to around 57% of the actual electorate. Where do you get 80%. Salmond is a royalist and was during the said referendum no change. He's planning to donate his FM pension to salary if he draws a salary from Westminster. He has a history of that when he donated one of his salaries when a member of both houses. Why should the SNP not stand at Westminster. We are in the UK and the polls show 45% to 48% of Scots backing the SNP in said election. It is called democracy. Scots have as much right as anyone else to be represented by the party of their choice. Lastly the NATs continually said that oil was a bonus to an independent Scotland and not the basis of independence conceding that the price would fluctuate.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,DTM
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 01:51 PM

I agree with the honourable member of the Conn party (above) on this issue. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:00 PM

I could be wrong but didn't Musket say 80% of people know more about oil economics and the point was it is a long way from the oil fields? Not 80% of people voted for or against anything? This is how arguments start - People don't read things properly!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:25 PM

after the last few months i know far more about salmond than i do about oil economics (100% of Correspondents From Cockermouth Know Not Much About Oil Economics))

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 02:54 PM

I must admit, I got it from a Labour councillor in Kirkudbright who does those awful "our year" newsletters with their Xmas card, and of course, mentioned the referendum as something that has exercised them over the year.

So (just had a look) they did put Galloway & Dumfries. Might be they got it wrong, might be they got it right and you got it wrong, might be they mean't their sub region, council area, ward..

in any event, 100% of people in the whole of Scotland must be wondering what might have happened if Rob Roy had his day and this happened, which it would have as it is about something slightly bigger and more important than a region of the UK.

I have no problem with people standing for Westminster. they are paid by taxpayers to represent, scrutinise and pass legislation that is in the interest of The UK. (Hence this silly Westlothian question that has always bemused me. I have no problem with Scottish MPs voting on affairs affecting my county and vice versa. It's what UK government is about, and what is devolved is devolved.)

So.. What price Scotland standing on its own two feet anyway? I'll just have a look in my wallet, see if I have any loose change.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 18 Dec 14 - 07:54 PM

what are you on aabout, musket? well, it is getting late.....

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:05 AM

I like Cockermouth - Spent may a happy hour along that stretch of coast from Millom upwards. Of course you have to avoid Whitehaven, Workington and the lovely warm waters off Sellafield...

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 03:34 AM

a place as delightful as the name suggests. apart from when the river cocker is running through our house

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:28 AM

"I could be wrong but didn't Musket say 80% of people know more about oil economics and the point was it is a long way from the oil fields? Not 80% of people voted for or against anything? This is how arguments start - People don't read things properly!"

Guest it is you who didn't read the post properly and who is arguing? I simply pointed out some points.

Besides he didn't simply say 80% of the people know more about etc! What he said was "looking at the breakdown of the referendum it seems 80% of the people of D&G know more about oil economics than Salmond" So he is inferring that 80% of the people voted against independence which simply isn't true! Not only that but he's suggesting he knows why these people voted against independence, ie because they know about oil economics and disagreed with Salmond. Again that is just not so either. People vote for all different kinds of reasons.

Here in the south of Scotland people tend to be a bit more pro-union than many other parts of Scotland. It isn't because they know more about oil economics than other Scots. There are various factors. They tend to be more conservative (with a small c) than many other parts; the Conservative Party itself is more prominent here and hence local Tory politicians hold more sway over opinion than in other parts. There is a distrust of central belt politicians in general. Plus there is the geographic fact that we are on the border. Plus there are the demographic issues. We have an older population than many other parts of Scotland - and the elderly are more emotionally attached to the idea of union. We have a much bigger percentage of incomers from England than most other parts of Scotland and yes I know that there were many English born people supporting the Yes side but proportionally they were much more likely to be No voters. My own wife did some work for Better Together and I can assure you she knows nothing about oil economcis and would concede that herself. She was born and brought up in the south of England and is emotionally attached to the idea of the union. So there are a whole host of different reasons why people vote!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 04:48 AM

Too true Allan. But what can't be ignored is the main thrust of the thread;

People were told oil alone would pump prime the social programme they promised for many years.

The credibility being a leader who as an oil economist knows this to be a financial fact.

Could you imagine the negotiations that would be going on now and how the oil profit slump would affect the position of the Scottish negotiators?

My my my, said the spider to the fly.

(Best bit is, Salmond and Cable in the same room explaining to each other the situation) 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:55 AM

An independent Scotland would certainly be a better and safer place, even with falling oil prices.
The oil revenues were a "bonus", this was stated often by Mr Salmond before the referendum. Scotland is an enormous brand and our economy will prosper when we cut the UK ties.

I vote for independence in order that we at last get some sort of representation, for too long the views of the Scottish people have been ignored, and side lined by self serving Westminster M P's Labour, Liberal, and Conservative.
I vote for independence to see WMD's removed from our soil.
I vote for Independence in the hope that we will eventually remove ourselves from NATO and no longer risk our young people's lives in wars which have destabilised half the world.

The situation in the Middle East today(extremely dangerous) has much to do with idiotic Western involvement in Libya and Iraq. We actually assisted to power the beheaders of IS, in the foolish belief that we could spread "democracy and liberalism"

Aye that'll be fuckin' right!!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 07:42 AM

"Lastly the NATs continually said that oil was a bonus to an independent Scotland and not the basis of independence conceding that the price would fluctuate."

I didn't ignore the main thrust of the thread though! It was addressed in the sentence copied above. You may feel Scottish independence is dependent on oil but the Nats never claimed that their plans for independence depended on oil so a falling oil price does not blow their arguments away. In fact the current price is still higher than it was for periods during their first term in office when they were trying to get the referendum organised in the first place. It was as low as $47 a barrel in 2009 during their first term and further back as low as just above $16 a barrel at the end of the 1990s. It fluctuates dramatically they know that! In fact the current $54 per barrel is still higher than it was at anytime between Feb 1991 and 2004. So yes the price of oil dictates how keen companies are to invest in North Sea and of course in fracking too. That is nothing new!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 08:12 AM

Fine, Alan, thanks for the explanation. We both relied on interpreting what was said and it appears I interpreted it incorrectly. Sorry if I misrepresented you but it was an honest mistake. My earlier point still stands. A union of ordinary people against the fat cats, without the false borders devised by them in the first place, is preferable to separate nations fighting each other. I think the 'NATs' (is that the right term) are falling for the smoke and mirrors of Westminster and also find it somewhat disconcerting that the Scots, who, in the main, have always been the allies of the downtrodden, are considering leaving their Southern brothers to their fate rather than helping them to fight the current corrupt administration. Still, as I said earlier, we are all different.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:04 AM

Understand where you're coming from Guest but I just see it another way. Of course we don't want to be fighting each other but no-one in the SNP was suggesting we should be. They continually said they wished to maintain the social and family union etc with the rest of the UK; Salmond suggested better a good neighbour than a sulky lodger; and no-one on the Yes side was suggesting we should put up borders etc. In fact the strange thing is that the SNP are more welcoming to incomers, more Euro-friendly, and happier with the idea of open borders etc than either of the two main unionist parties in the UK. Plus the very people who criticised the idea of independence the most vehemently (ie often Tory and UKIP politicos) were often the most hostile to the idea of open borders etc.

As to leaving the southerners to their fate. Sorry again I just don't get that. Yes there is the odd exception when the vote has been close - but for the most part in the past the UK got the gvt that England voted for. Anyway the English are perfectly capable of deciding their own future and don't need the Scots to show them the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:13 AM

Aye, the majority of the vote does, understandably, come from England but I believe the proportion of Scottish Labour MPs is quite significant. I could be wrong on that of course and you could always wave Gordon Brown at me to put me off inviting any more... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:44 AM

Just checked and MPs from Scottish constituencies are as follows -

Labour Party                        40
Liberal Democrats                11
Scottish National Party         6
Conservative Party                1
Independent                         1
Total                         59

So, had Scotland been independent at the last election, the Conservatives would have had an overall majority. Things may have been even worse!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 09:48 AM

The people of Scotland voted democratically to reject independence.

If the vote went the other way, the (temporary but showing the volatile) oil price situation would cause more nervousness than the promised exodus of banks and industrial investment.

A time for a sigh of relief.

(Interesting that the vote was for independence but many people without the intellectual capacity to understand voted as if it were for a particular party and their policies. An independent Scotland wouldn't deliver leaving NATO etc. A political party winning an ensuing election could only negotiate that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Dec 14 - 06:20 PM

The coming general election will almost certainly guarantee Independence in the very near future.

While Westminster pulls the strings the muppets will never negotiate withdrawal from NATO.
The party who governs an independent Scotland will....they will owe allegiance to only the Scottish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 02:22 AM

Scotland rejected independence rather emphatically. Sturgeon has made it clear that negotiating devolution of powers is the aim of The SNP.

Don't blame her really. In fact, now Scotland has decided it's future, the goals of nationalism alter to "strong voice" in UK wide affairs such as defence. Maybe helping secure jobs as Robertson repeatedly said when head bod at NATO.

Now that oil price is less of a potential concern for the residents of the Scottish counties of The UK, the regional government of the day might prefer to look to issues affecting its people rather than how to lose jobs and inward investment?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Dec 14 - 08:17 AM

I might add, Westminster will never allow their WMD's to be removed from one of the most populous areas of Scotland.

Where are they going to put them? Just outside London?
I don't think so......the English would never be daft enough to allow it!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 03:50 AM

Guest I did say for the 'most part' the UK gets the gvt that England votes for. This time was one of the exceptions and for there to be an exception the result need to be really close. England voted for a Tory gvt and you ended up with a Tory gvt in coalition. So not so far away. The main point made to Nat supporters during the referendum though from some English Labour supporters over this issue was "you will condemn us to perpetual Tory rule" which of course is nonsense. All the Blair/Brown gvts had working majorities if based solely on English seats. And anyway my point stands. The English are just as capable of choosing a gvt for themselves as anyone else is!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 04:31 AM

The referendum was lost but it was in no way emphatic! In fact it was much closer than the unionists would have liked! Out of a room of 20 Scots who voted 11 voted to retain the union whilst 9 voted for independence. That is in no way emphatic especially considering that the No side started off with a much larger lead.

Ake is exaggerating too, or perhaps being a bit hopeful, when he says the coming election will guarantee independence. However I don't think many in the rest of the UK really appreciate the massive sea change in Scottish politics. The result was much closer than the vast bulk of commentators thought it would be and no-one expected the aftermath. That is that it is not the SNP who look like the defeated force. In fact they have even strengthened their position. They are still way out in front in Holyrood polling but really for the first time ever we are going into a Westminster election with Labour trailing quite some way behind the SNP in Westminster polling too. The core support for independence has greatly increased amongst Scots from even a couple of years ago. Membership of both the SNP and Greens has rocketed. The demographics show too that the debate will go on and could get much harder for the No side. The No side did have an emphatic victory amongst one group. That is the elderly! Basically they've won the initial political battle but it was a lot closer than they'd expected or hoped for and it is clear that the debate will go on.

As to Sturgeon. Yes she's conceded that the voters have spoken and she'll look to work for Scotland within the union - but at the same time she has left the options open. She refused to rule out another referendum and has said circumstances and the Scottish people would decide that. Recent polls have showed most Scots are not averse to another vote. In an STV poll at the end of October only about 31% of Scots were against another vote within the next 10 years. About 66% would be happy with another referendum within the next 10 years regardless of any circumstances.

So an emphatic win would have been one where they won convincingly and put the argument to bed for a long period. Not a win where the polls closed dramatically during the campaign resulting in a much close result than unionists would have initially predicted and one where they needed to do a complete you-turn on their initial stance that the vote was only about in or out and nothing to do with further devolution. An emphatic win would not have left the main unionist party in Scotland wounded whilst the two main nationalist parties are both dramatically on the rise!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 04:51 AM

Interesting that you add the greens to the argument.

Giving a bloody nose to complacent major parties is fashionable these days. I remain convinced that some of the SNP vote reflects that also. That said, as a party running a regional government, SNP have decent policies based on social justice and equality. In fact, everything Labour used to offer but fail to deliver.

We can see from a post or two above, some people don't have the capacity to distinguish between voting for day-to-day manifestos within any given constitution and lending support to a fundamental aim.

You speak of a sea change in voter attitude. You aren't talking about Scotland, you are talking about UK in general. Other EU states too for that matter. Look at UKIP. Getting votes with no policies to offer, pantomime candidates and promises built on false fears.

Yes, the people of The UK are sick of indifferent out of touch government at Westminster and yes, the Scottish Parliament is in a position to make things better for the counties they have devolved powers for.

But have they improved versus England's counties? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 12:09 AM

Cur amach an Sassanach agus leig astigh an cu!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:07 AM

I've noticed that too since coming up here to live. You get the odd native clearing their throat but not actually saying anything.

It was worse when I did some locum work in North Wales mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 14 - 05:59 PM

Nach'eil e gorach? Chan'eil e tuig moran idir. Tha e lan cac!

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:46 AM

Try Buttercup Syrup?

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 05:54 AM

I take it Gaelic is another thing you know nothing about guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:01 AM

Perhaps its you who needs the BS? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 06:30 AM

Dunno. Most people living in Inverary and surrounding villages speak English. In fact, most of us are...

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: Mr Red
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:22 PM

The problem with independance or partial versions thereof is demonstrated by the health service in Wales.
Their preference is to employ Welsh speakers, thus limiting their choices. The effect on the quality of service has to be a diminution. Hard to prove. But the fact is that a large number of hospitals in Wales are refusing to do certain operations on cost, the money having gone on prescription charges of zero. The up-shot is that hospitals in England are taking a lot of those dis-enfranchised patients. This cannot be good over-all.
My comment about the pound and perturbations have a parallel - seen being acted out in our health service as we speak.

Politicians will duck the blame but.... j'accuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Lucky escape for Scotland
From: GUEST,Some bloke in Scotland
Date: 23 Dec 14 - 02:44 PM

The differences between the NHS policies of the different parts of The NHS are a good example of different approaches politically generally. As a doctor, although an academic these days rather than in practice, I have worked in England, Wales and Scotland.

The infection issues affecting hospitals in Wales and Scotland were England's issue eight years ago. The mortality rates of acute hospitals in Wales would put eight of them in the top ten worst list of England if you included them. One in ten consultant posts in Scotland remain unfilled.

And yet.. The differences are minimal in reality. Senior clinical posts attract the best regardless of where they come from. In other words, doctors don't look for the best jobs within a ten mile radius of home, they move home. The referendum and the time leading up to it made it difficult to recruit to posts. The situation in Wales of insisting on people assimilating to Welshness just means life expectancy in Wales drops. Simple as that. If the best don't wish to work there, you either lower your standards (Wales / NI) or fail to appoint, (Scotland.)

England doesn't have the best anything, and some cutting edge excellence is found in other UK areas, but a few political decisions make for a few fundamental differences.

(Out of interest, most people in healthcare cannot understand why English politicians don't promise free prescriptions. The vast majority are free to patients anyway, (children, pensioners, hospital patients) that the cost of administering the commercial aspects costs about the same as they rake in!)