There’s a story that Reporting Scotland’s or the Herald’s oh-so-concerned health correspondents might tell us.
In the Independent today, this shocking news:
Tory measures to stop “health tourism” on the NHS have been linked to the deaths of three pregnant women in a major report that was delayed until after the election. The women all died after delays in seeking help because they mistakenly believed that they would have to pay for care under the government’s strict charging regime. They sought help in hospitals too late and died as a result of complications.
I wrote about this in September, before England chose Tory brutality:
In the Guardian:
The safety of vulnerable mothers and newborn babies is being put at risk by NHS fees that deter undocumented migrant women from accessing care, a new report from Maternity Action backed by the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) has warned. NHS packages for overseas pregnant women start at £7,000 for antenatal, pregnancy and postnatal care, but can rise to thousands of pounds if the mother or child experience complications.
The situation in Scotland according to the BMJ in May:
Of course, care does not have to be restricted in this way. In Scotland and in Wales, a different approach is being taken. There, “refused” asylum seekers and migrants whose status is deemed “irregular” have the same rights and entitlements to health care as the general population. A recent systematic review reported that policies restricting welfare entitlements increased the likelihood of poor self-rated health and mortality. We propose that, in the absence of such data, approaches in Scotland and Wales demonstrate that the provision of healthcare can be separated from migration policy and align with the principles of ensuring universal healthcare coverage for all. This should not only be welcomed, but strongly encouraged.
Transparency is needed on NHS charges for migrants and data sharing agreements
By itself, this might not mean a great deal, other than to the mothers, but together with many other differences, it does:
Scotland IS a different place as its universities offer guaranteed places to care leavers
Abuse of women and the disabled far higher in England than in Scotland
Scottish Muslim students far less likely to report abuse or crime?
Terror de-radicalisation referral rate in Scotland less than one third per capita of that in England
Scientific evidence that Scots tend to be different from the other groups in rUK?
Who said Scots were not more left-wing than those in the rest of the UK?
Different Scotland in the UN report on ‘Workhouse Britain’
Scottish values making oil and gas firms a tad different too?
Are Scotland’s employers also different – more willing to pay a decent wage?
Another difference as UK small and medium-sized business people prefer Boris while Scots prefer…
Another difference between Scotland and rUK?
NHS England’s new motto: Who is laike us? Dem few and they err awl daid!
Scottish Government support for small businesses superior to that in non-Scottish parts of UK
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
The reason the Herod’s and Reporting Scotland’s ‘Health’ correspondents will not report what you have written is because, as you have demonstrated over several years, that, as the Reverend Spooner might have said, “they don’t give a fonkey’s muck about the truth, what they want is anti-Scottish propaganda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They need their ruckles napped?
LikeLike
Alas, you hear and read precisely what the Herod and Repressing Scotland want you to.
We live in a broadcasting colony, where “truth” is what some Oligarch said it is—and where oversight of Scottish reporting is routine and under the auspices of the British security services.
Even small, petty things. Remember David Cameron was on the BBC to talk about football? Ans Alex Salmond was BANNED from talking about rugby on that very same BBC ?
Or Cameron getting Embassadors to ask foreign governments to interfere in the Scottish referendum on his side?
LikeLiked by 1 person