SNP hid the truth about NHS services before the election

The SNP hid the truth about NHS services before the election, Scottish Labour said today.

Speaking on a campaign visit to the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley today, Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale said that patients and staff deserved the truth about the future of local services. The call came as Labour publish a dossier of broken SNP promises on NHS services including:

  • Maternity services at the Vale of Leven Hospital
  • Children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley
  • Maternity Services at Inverclyde Hospital
  • Orthopaedics at Monklands Hospital in Airdrie
  • Lightburn Hospital in Glasgow

Later today Dumbarton MSP Jackie Baillie will hold a members’ debate on the future of local services in Scotland.

Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale said:

“Before the election the SNP were telling us that services were safe. Labour candidates who raised concerns about the future of maternity services at the Vale of Leven or Inverclyde Hospital were accused of scaremongering before the election, now we see that cuts are coming.

The SNP said it was a ‘fantasy’ that cuts would happen to the children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, now we see a downgrade proposed.

The SNP assured voters in Glasgow that Lightburn Hospital was safe. Now it faces closure.

In Lanarkshire, cuts to the Monklands Hospital in Airdrie were only revealed in the days before polling day.

That simply isn’t good enough to tell people one thing before the election and then look the other way when cuts are announced.”

Related Posts

48 thoughts on “SNP hid the truth about NHS services before the election

  1. Its all a bit vague and rhetorical though eh? The actual record of satisfaction with the NHS has increased substantially since 2007 in every single area.
    Its only Labour spouting off because this is what they think being the opposition is all about.

    SNP BAD because : (See miniscule trivial complaint taken out of context from a general overall performance of excellence). And there you have Labours opposition in a Nutshell. If we leave out the personal failed smear attempts of course.

  2. Of course the truth about Lightburn hospital is highlighted here.

    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14255958.Medics_claim_closure_threatened_Lightburn_Hospital_not_suitable_for_dementia_patients/

    Seems the idea to close the place was suggested by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde which runs in local partnership with the Local Labour council.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-35325639

    Its the exact same position with the Inverclyde Hospital Monklands and Vale of Leven.

    The proposals and decisions are all being put forward by Local councils through the NHS GGC.

    Its no coincidence that all of these Local councils are Labour run either.

    Seems its Labour who are trying desperately to hide the truth. YET AGAIN!

    Not satisfied with lying 3rd they push ever harder for that well within reach 4th place in Scottish Politics.

    You’ve no shame in you at all Duncan. No wonder you’re an online laughing stock.

    1. When your ignorant rants only embarrass yourself, Mike, I tend to ignore them. But in this instance you’ve created another utterly false story and it needs corrected.

      Here are the members of NHSGGC Board: http://www.nhsggc.org.uk/about-us/nhs-board/

      NHS Boards are not run by local councils. Their decisions are not made by or subject to the approval of local councils. Indeed as this Scottish Government page says http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Health/About/NHS-Scotland “each NHS Board is accountable to Scottish Ministers”.

      Your statement “The proposals and decisions are all being put forward by Local councils through the NHS GGC” is simply factually incorrect. It is dishonest, and such dishonesty does nobody any favours. The person who should be ashamed here is you, Mike.

      1. Except NHSGGC clearly states within its own website that it works in partnership with local authorities.
        That would be Labour then eh?

        1. NHS boards work in partnership with local authorities via Community Planning Partnerships, as it says on the page I pointed you at. NHS Boards make decisions on services, CPPs do not. You claimed “The proposals and decisions are all being put forward by Local councils through the NHS GGC”, which is flatly untrue.

          For once in your life admit that you’re wrong and that the SNP government needs to be held to account.

      2. Not seeing any members of the Scottish Government on that board Duncan yet your willing to attribute their decision onto the SG when its the local Labour council who is in Partnership with them and you wont link that at all.

        This is why yer a joke Duncan.

        1. “Each NHS Board is accountable to Scottish Ministers”. The fact that boards work with a range of local partners – not just local authorities but Third Sector bodies, other agencies etc. – makes absolutely no difference to their decision-making processes.

          Your argument is akin to blaming councils for operational decisions made by Police Scotland, because they too work together. But you know councils don;t make operational police decisions. And I suspect you also know councils don;t take operational NHS decisions either.

          You are so determined to spout “Labour baaad” you’re prepared to be flatly dishonest to do so.

          1. Was a Scottish Minister present for these “discussions” Duncan? Did any Scottish Minister have an input to the suggestion of consideration to closures during these discussions?

          2. No idea. I never claimed they did. Good to see you’re now asking questions rather than making baseless statements. All we need now is for you to acknowledge your original comment was a lie.

  3. And of course lets not forget the trickle down effect of Westminster imposed cuts to the overall Scottish budget.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14739147.Scottish_Government_s_budget__could_be_cut_by___1_6bn___according_to_report/

    Cuts Labour abstained on instead of opposing like they were voted in to do.

    Cuts a majority Miliband Government would have imposed as part of their own austerity program in line with the Conservative 30 billion cuts to public services.

  4. “All NHS Boards work together for the benefit of the people of Scotland. They also work closely with partners in other parts of the public sector to fulfil the Scottish Government’s Purpose and National Outcomes.”

    Except the Scottish Governments purpose and National Outcomes wont occur if these “PARTNERS” work against this SG purpose and National outcome and not with the NHS boards.

    Is that not fair to say Duncan?

    What we’ve seen since 2007 is the systematic open and overt actions of local Labour councils deliberately sabotaging Scottish Government efforts at local levels.
    We see it in our schools and education with teacher numbers within our NHS with staffing numbers our Policing our local transport in fact every public service in the land.

    They probably see it as their duty to their Party to behave such. Party before public service. The Labour way.

    1. Do you accept that these decisions are being made by NHS boards, not councils, Mike, or are you so determined to slag off Labour you’ll indulge in bare-faced lying?

      1. Are you really saying that local councils have no say or influence in local public services?
        Or are you saying Labour councils have no say or influence in local public services?

          1. That’s good then you agree with me that Labour councils have influence and say in local NHS services then.

  5. Scotland’s largest health board has said a leaked paper outlining £60m of possible cuts is a “discussion paper” rather than an “approved plan”.

    The bottom line once again is Labour falsely accusing the SG of going nuclear on hospital closures when the reality is its all based on an internal discussion with no conclusions within the NHSGCC board no doubt in consultation with their local “Partners”.

    Which is probably where the so called leak came from in the first place.

    1. Wait a minute, you said the council was responsible for the decision. Now you’re saying the decision hasn’t even been made? So you lied? Deliberately?

        1. You said “The proposals and decisions are all being put forward by Local councils”. Did you not mean “decisions” then?

      1. Duncan your piece above clearly refers to a “Decision not a discussion” My posts are directed at your article. So any confusion on the issue is squarely on your shoulders.

        1. From what are you quoting? The article doesn’t even contain the word decision. 🙂

          1. Where did I claim I was quoting?

            “now we see that cuts are coming.”

            That’s reference to a “Decision”

            “The SNP said it was a ‘fantasy’ that cuts would happen to the children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, now we see a downgrade proposed.”

            That’s reference to a “Proposal”

            “The SNP assured voters in Glasgow that Lightburn Hospital was safe. Now it faces closure.”

            That’s another reference to a “Decision”

            “That simply isn’t good enough to tell people one thing before the election and then look the other way when cuts are announced.”

            That could reference to an actual “Decision” already taken or simply a “Decision” made to be implemented in the future.

            Now let me see where in the article you reference or allude to a “Discussion”?

  6. “No idea. I never claimed they did. Good to see you’re now asking questions rather than making baseless statements. All we need now is for you to acknowledge your original comment was a lie.”

    You have no idea and you think that’s enough to allow you to throw around accusations? Not speculative possibilities but bare faced accusation!

    I have no idea but I’m going to accuse you anyway.

    Is this your idea of supporting your beloved party?

  7. Were any Labour council members present at this discussion? Did they have any input into the suggestion of possible cuts?
    The leak suggests somebody from Labour could have been present does it not?

    Seems strange that local public service matters of grave import are being discussed without the presence of Local public authorities.

    And if the answer is I don’t know again then the above article should be removed or edited at the very least don’t you think?

  8. You going to take down this highly inaccurate and badly thought out and written article Duncan?

    Or are you going to allow your already worthless reputation to nose dive beneath all possible ways to measure the fall?

    1. Haha. You’re now criticising *me* for inaccuracy? You are quite something, Mike. Quite something.

      No, I’m not taking it down. If you’re so upset by it why don’t you go and find another blog to hang out in the comments of.

      1. Oh I’m not upset. Its a new tactic in highlighting just how badly you actually spin and lie.
        I thought the idea was to make the lying believable if not at least plausible?

        It was far too easy to destroy the article above it was nearly boring.

        1. You didn’t destroy anything, Mike. You just made it very clear that you will blame Labour for things over which it has no control, and will never blame the SNP for anything.

          1. You failing to admit to reality has become just another badge on your lapel.
            It doesn’t actually mean anything it just sits there.

  9. So let me get this right , all these allegations are based on a discussion paper, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised its fits labours normal site stirring.

    1. A discussion where no evidence of SG presence or input has been established but which may have had a local Labour council presence who may or may not have been the source of the leak.

      Duncan at his very finest.

  10. “Where did I claim I was quoting?”

    You put it in quotation marks, genius.”

    Put what in quotation marks Duncan?

    1. Scroll up Mike.

      Duncan your piece above clearly refers to a “Decision not a discussion”

          1. Is that a

            “You didn’t but I thought id try to be a smart arse because its all I have and I refuse to let it go.”

          2. No, it’s a everyone can see that’s exactly what you said but I’m not in the least bit surprised you’re denying it now because you’d argue black was white if I said the opposite.

      1. Words within inverted commas do not necessarily mean a quotation but can be displayed to show emphasis of the words.

          1. Then why, Duncan, @ 2:08 pm do you write “Labour baaad” within inverted commas? Who said that within the thread? Or is it there for emphasis?

  11. Please change Duncan. for your own sake Son. Twitter meltdowns and clickbait blogging is no way to present yerself publically.

    Ask Siobhan McFadyen or David Torrance.

  12. “No, it’s a everyone can see that’s exactly what you said but I’m not in the least bit surprised you’re denying it now because you’d argue black was white if I said the opposite.”

    I’m not denying I said anything I’m simply wondering why you think you can divert away from the topic when the line of argument is still up there for anybody to read?

  13. As I was driving back from the dentist this afternoon it was mentioned on the radio that the budget for the NHS by the SNP government was going to be increased by the rate of inflation per year plus an additional £500 million by the end of the parliament.

    Perhaps the people running the NHS are trying to work smart, hence the discussion document, better that than trying to follow a labour direction ie “work stupid”.

  14. “Then why, Duncan, @ 2:08 pm do you write “Labour baaad” within inverted commas? Who said that within the thread? Or is it there for emphasis?”

    Duncan cant even out argue 4 year olds.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: