Remember that, in the Daily Torygraph too? It was on 30th October 2017. How many have been sacked?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/29/theresa-may-will-sack-cabinet-ministers-found-sex-pests-13-mps/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb

 

Or this in June 2018? Two former Tory mayors were convicted of multiple child-sex offences in just 48 hours. One of them was found guilty of raping a young girl, while the other admitted to over 20 counts of child abuse.

https://www.rt.com/uk/430317-tory-mayor-sexual-assault/

Or that one in 2014? Sir Nicholas Fairbairn and former party Scottish chairman Dr Alistair Smith were named as suspects in the historic abuse of underage boys. Labour justice spokesman Graeme Pearson said a public inquiry “cannot afford to leave any stone unturned and it must have the confidence of the victims”. Four years later, any developments?

I could go on and on for the Tories with their trail of slime disappearing back in time.

Labour, in sharp contrast, have been all over the Salmond case. Though somewhat less ‘active’ than the Tories, they’d do well to remember these unresolved matters:

 

I’ll stop there.

 

Not mentioned in the TV broadcasts and absent from the website, the Deltapoll survey shows support for independence at between 50 and 52%, depending on the question. The 52% for Yes (49% for No when don’t knows are removed) headline being featured is, of course, compromised by the leading question which asks if respondents would vote Yes once the UK has left the EU. I’d imagine BBC Scotland are working on debunking the results using this reservation.

However, another question asked:

‘In a referendum on independence for Scotland held tomorrow, how would you vote?’

This more neutral question still drew an encouraging response:

Scotland to remain as part of the United Kingdom: 50.6%
Scotland to become an independent country: 49.4%

This is too close to call and is clearly the best result for Yes-supporters so far, though, given the Brexit context, it can’t be compared directly with earlier polls.

Is this the beginning of the expected shift toward support for Independence we’ve all been expecting to happen as the Tories stagger from one disaster to the next and as Labour show their inability to exploit them. I’m sure, like me, many have been thinking it should have happened long ago.

The timing of the fieldwork is not apparent so we cannot be sure of this, but it is now ten days since the beginning of the media feeding frenzy on Alex Salmond, so it is possible that it was done in that time period and so suggests that support for independence has not been damaged by it.

Update: What might the ‘don’t knows’ mean? See this from Prof Curtice in 2013:

The precise meaning and accuracy of each of these questions is perhaps open to question. But all in all the pattern of responses they obtain suggests that is not unrealistic for the Yes side to believe the Don’t Knows could eventually be persuaded to swing disproportionately their way.

At the same time those who have yet to make up their mind seem more favourably disposed to those who are advocating independence than they are to those are arguing the case for the Union. As many as 51% think that Alex Salmond has ‘been acting with the best interests of the people of Scotland at heart’, while only 18% feel he has not. At 41% and 15% respectively the equivalent figures for Nicola Sturgeon are also clearly positive. In contrast, David Cameron emerges with a negative balance of 5% to 60%, Alistair Darling with one of 16% to 33% and Johann Lamont, 7% to 28%.

The SNP’s top duo evidently have a credibility in the eyes of undecided voters that no unionist politician currently enjoys. That could well prove invaluable in the Yes side’s efforts to win them over.

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/2013/10/which-way-might-the-dont-knows-go-evidence-from-the-wings-poll/

Update 2: The full data:

 Coming after evidence that social or affordable housing is growing in Scotland at twice the rate, per capita, of that in Tory England (SNP Government builds affordable/social housing at almost twice the rate of Tories in England) , we hear evidence that Scottish social landlords are performing well across a range of standards. Readers won’t be surprised to hear that in post-Grenfell, Tory England, standards are not being met.

See the above summary chart and this below, from Scottish Housing News yesterday:

‘Scottish social landlords continue to show strong performance across most of the standards and outcomes of the Scottish Social Housing Charter, a new Scottish Housing Regulator report has found. Published today, the Regulator’s report gives the headline findings of its fifth, national analysis of landlords’ performance against the Charter standards and outcomes. It shows that overall, landlords continue to perform well in the service areas that matter most to tenants.  Tenant satisfaction remains high, with nine out of ten social housing tenants satisfied with their landlord’s overall service.’

http://www.scottishhousingnews.com/23293/regulator-praises-continued-strong-performance-of-scottish-social-landlords/

Unfortunately for those few able to live in English social housing, the situation is far from re-assuring. See these two recent reports from the Guardian and the Independent, with the usual conflation of England with the UK, of course:

‘Grenfell Tower tragedy shows social housing system has failed UK citizens. In the housing system, cost-cutting and reckless decisions were made with little fear of anyone being held responsible. The 2012 national planning policy framework, often described as a “developers’ charter”, has given precedence to expensive private development while discouraging social housing. The result is that through land-banking, slow build-out rates and using the housing market as an investment, house prices have risen way beyond the reach of most average-wage earners. At the same time, an increasing proportion of the incomes of the lower paid is spent on rented accommodation, which is often of poor quality.’

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/25/grenfell-tower-tragedy-shows-social-housing-system-has-failed-uk-citizens

‘More than half a million social homes in England fail to meet basic health and safety standards, an analysis of official government data by The Independent has revealed. Just weeks after the Grenfell Tower fire raised serious questions about the state of housing in the UK, new statistics show that 525,000 social homes currently do not meet the national Decent Homes Standard – almost one in seven of all social homes in England. Of these, 244,000 properties are deemed to have a category one safety hazard – the highest category of risk — which includes potentially fatal hazards such as exposed wiring, overloaded electricity sockets, dangerous boilers, leaking roofs, vermin infestations or inadequate security.’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-social-housing-health-and-safety-standards-failures-england-a7845961.html

Yet, support for the Tories is largely unchanged in the polls. What do they have to do? A Merkel like influx of migrants right into Tory safe seats might do it.

(c) sheffieldparentcarerforum.org.uk

Note: Thanks to reader, the urgent BIGJON999, for alerting me to this.

Permanent school exclusions from Scottish schools have been falling in the period of SNP government. In 2006/7, 248 pupils were permanently excluded, and the figure has fallen steadily to only 5 in 2016/17.

https://www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/exclusiondatasets/exclusionsdataset2017

In England, even national figures from the Department for Education indicate that 6 685 pupils were permanently excluded in 2015/16. That would be a staggering one thousand three hundred times more than in Scotland, but the problem may be even more serious:

‘A study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank claims these figures mask the true scale of the problem, with pupils forced out of mainstream schools by informal methods that are not captured in national exclusions data. The report, published on Tuesday, says 48,000 pupils are being educated in the alternative provision (AP) sector, which caters for excluded students, with tens of thousands more leaving school rolls in what appear to be illegal exclusions.’

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/10/school-exclusion-figures-date-england-only-tip-iceberg

If correct, English schools are permanently excluding pupils at nearly ten thousand times the rate in Scotland – 8% of the population but only 0.010416% of the permanent school exclusions.

Just one of the reasons why school exclusions need to be minimised is revealed in a further Guardian article:

‘Excluding children from school may lead to long-term psychiatric problems and psychological distress, a major new study has shown. The research by the University of Exeter also finds that poor mental health can lead to school exclusion. The study found a “bi-directional association” between psychological distress and exclusion: children with psychological distress and mental health problems were more likely to be excluded but their exclusion acted as a predictor of increased psychological distress three years later on.’

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/aug/19/school-exclusion-linked-to-long-term-mental-health-problems

Previously, I’ve written about possible differences between life in Scotland and that in England with a view to suggesting Scotland is becoming a more collectivist, communitarian, inclusive place, maybe even a ‘better nation’, while poor England, especially under (under is the word) the Tories, is becoming a more divided, unequal and brutal place. Here are earlier reports suggesting a difference that makes a difference:

Scotland takes nearly 26% of Syrian refugees settled in UK with only 8% of the UK population

58 000 baby boxes to help increase life chances and now Scotland will be the first country in the world to provide free sanitary products to ‘end period poverty’. This is the kind of country I want to live in.

Scots the least respectful of the upper classes: More evidence of a difference that makes a difference?

Scientific evidence that Scots tend to be different from the other groups in rUK?

Racial hate crimes increase by 33% in England & Wales while falling by 10% in Scotland: Who says we’re not different?

‘Scottish tooth fairies are the most generous.’ See, even more evidence we are different.

Who said Scots were not more left-wing than those in the rest of the UK?

 

 

 This was announced on BBC Scotland News this morning but then quickly buried under a foul-smelling heap of reservations. In contrast, balanced and better written, from Insider today:

Business confidence among firms in Scotland has remained steady for a second month in a row, a survey suggests. Economic optimism stood at 9% in August, an increase of seven points on the previous month, according to the Bank of Scotland’s Business Barometer.

Bank of Scotland’s regional director also said:

‘To see overall confidence holding firm demonstrates the continued resilience of Scottish businesses during uncertain times.’

https://www.insider.co.uk/news/bank-of-scotland-business-barometer-13166801

Reporting Scotland prefers you to think of these as free-standing events unlinked to any wider trends of positivity about the Scottish economy, so, for your own contentment, see these:

63% fall in large business insolvencies as Scottish economy reveals strength

See this Douglas? Business investment in Scotland up 250%!

Scottish Business Strength No.77: Small Scottish construction firms’ growth up 17%

Scottish small businesses still more confident than those in non-Scottish parts

Business activity soars to four-year high across manufacturing and service

Business confidence in Scotland soars by 24% while it sinks 29% in non-Scottish parts of UK

Scottish businesses more likely to be stable than those in rest of UK: News from a parallel universe unknown to our mainstream media

Scottish Government supports economy with new business rates unique in UK

Scottish business confidence higher than in any other region of UK

Nuff said?

 

 

A Clegg tries to bite the SNP on the bum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXShvJIdUC8

The Daily Record’s David Clegg talked, on BBC Newsnight two nights ago, of ‘it [the Salmond case] having ‘cleaved through the nationalist movement in Scotland.’ This and hundreds of other mainstream media pronouncements are beginning to develop a narrative of schism and of weakening in the SNP and the wider independence movement.

Had this happened only ten or so years ago, that reality might have been born and survived scrutiny, to actually cause damage, but as social media swells cuckoo-like and begins to push the old media out of the nest, like a sad wee marsh warbler, it seems likely the bairn will not survive.

In a world before the growth of social media, with 2.3 billion active Facebook users, 335 million active Twitter users and perhaps 100 million writing blogs including explicitly political ones like this, old media [newspapers, TV, radio] could largely create the reality most establishment-members felt they were experiencing.

Young Christian Unionists in…..Israel?

The interlocking of media and establishment political elites made it possible for that reality to be one which suited their shared interests. Consider the above image to see how that might look in Scotland. Also, readers might remember Kirsty Wark, sharing holiday accommodation with Labour First Minister, McConnell, and her subsequent tribal aggression in interviewing Alex Salmond.

Remember, though, that this requires no conspiracy. It does not require Davidson, Thompson and Dugdale to be telling Clegg what to say and do. Being part of those interlocking elites along with other well-known members in Scotland’s unionist media and political parties, Clegg believes in what he does and says and, crucially generates the required material in a steady, often subconscious, flow. He, like they do, acts in his own interests but those interests are, for the most part, the same interests of his collective. If any of them were to be acting in a fully conscious and conspiratorial way that would be unsustainable and dangerous for their mental health because they would then be open to reasoned contradiction and evidence, leading to cognitive dissonance, changing sides, or breakdown. Only a few, like the late Ian Bell, survive that awakening.

General intelligence matters little in this as we saw when Emily Maitles warmly thanked Clegg for re-affirming what she already thinks is the case in Scotland. McWhirter disappointed her a little by not fully conforming but in the establishment-glare seemed to forget the kind of defence of Salmond’s rights he had been tweeting so bravely before. See:

McWhirter’s stout defence of Salmond fades in the BBC establishment glare

In some ways, there’s a kind of zombie-like predictability in the behaviour of the Unionist media and their political buddies but as in all zombie drama, despite their scary raving and slavering, they eventually lose.

Reporting Scotland staff seek interview with Alex Salmond

Things are different now. The old media are in full retreat with collapsing audiences as social media swarms with alternative constructions of reality being generated in a healthy process of open debate and evidence sharing.

You might argue that I and other independence-supporting commentators and activists are inevitably subject to the same socialisation process, making us zombies too. That can happen, but the more open, raw, anarchic and highly interactive nature of social media means that we are constantly challenged by dissonance and, I hope, retain our freedom to act and to think independently, at least at times, differently from the herd.

Never predict anything, they say, and I agree BUT I predict that the SNP, Sturgeon and Salmond, will survive this and perhaps even grow further in strength and solidarity. We’ll see, I suppose, in subsequent opinion polls and releases of party membership numbers. At worst, I think we’ll see little change as only a decreasingly small number remember these events for long and fewer still act upon them.

Footnote: The Social Construction of Reality and Manufacturing Consent remain seminal reading on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Construction_of_Reality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

I won’t be testing you.

On the website and in the broadcasts today, BBC Scotland News has been telling this story:

‘A charity working with stroke patients has said a procedure which could transform their treatment should be more widely used in Scotland. A stroke thrombectomy has the potential to reduce the harm done by a stroke. The procedure was carried out 13 times in Scotland last year. Chest, Heart and Stroke Scotland (CHSS) said up to 600 patients could have benefitted. The Scottish government said it was developing a national plan for the procedure. The only Scottish hospital carrying out stroke thrombectomies is Edinburgh’s Western General. It has never been a routine service, but clinicians have operated when they have had capacity to do so.’

 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45343724

Note the implication that lack of capacity is the key factor in constraining this procedure.

This uncritical, unbalanced and poorly researched, BBC report does not consider any of the reasons why the Scottish Government is taking time to assess the safety and efficacy of this procedure before announcing a national plan. Where, for example, is the evidence for the charity’s claims?

A quick literature review might clarify things. I’m not a medic but a social scientist, so I claim no medical conclusions can be drawn here but I do insist that there is evidence that a serious debate is to be assessed before rushing in. Perhaps the strongest indicator is this statement from an online debate in the British Medical Journal (2013) challenging the value of thrombolysis generally (including thrombectomy, see Footnote) for stroke patients:

——————————————————————————————————–

Do risks outweigh benefits in thrombolysis for stroke? Yes—Simon G A Brown and Stephen P J Macdonald

Emergency physicians are strong advocates of thrombolysis for myocardial infarction because a series of studies in large numbers of patients have clearly and consistently shown that the benefits outweigh the risks. Thrombolysis for stroke does not receive the same unanimous support because the risks are higher and the evidence of benefit is not yet convincing. Of 12 controlled trials on the use of alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) for stroke, only two found a benefit as defined by primary outcome measures.1 2 Two were stopped early because of harm,3 4 and the remaining studies had negative findings. This pattern is typical for a treatment that does not work.

Evidence of harm is clear

Randomised controlled trials have consistently found that thrombolysis for stroke is associated with a higher risk of intracranial haemorrhage and early death compared with placebo. For alteplase, excess haemorrhages and deaths in the first seven days have been calculated to be 58 per 1000 cases treated (95% confidence interval 49 to 68) and 25 (11 to 39), respectively, although by 3-6 months death rates are similar whether treated with alteplase or not.5

https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f5215

——————————————————————————————–

Evidence of a wider controversy can also be seen in these research titles and/or conclusions:

1. Higher Rates of Mortality but Not Morbidity Follow Intracranial Mechanical Thrombectomy in the Elderly (American Journal of Neuroradiology, 2010)
2. This indicates a higher rate of death in the thrombectomy patients: ‘At 90 days, the rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were 1.9% in both the thrombectomy group and the control group (P=1.00), and rates of death were 18.4% and 15.5%, respectively (P=0.60).’ (New England Journal of Medicine, 2015)
3. This also indicates higher mortality for older patients, in the search, but I can’t access the full text: Efficacy, safety, and clinical outcome of modern mechanical thrombectomy in elderly patients with acute ischemic stroke (The European Journal of Neurosurgery, 2018)

Sources:

Higher Rates of Mortality but Not Morbidity Follow Intracranial Mechanical Thrombectomy in the Elderly American Journal of Neuroradiology: http://www.ajnr.org/content/31/7/1181

Thrombectomy within 8 Hours after Symptom Onset in Ischemic Stroke New England Journal of Medicine: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1503780

Efficacy, safety, and clinical outcome of modern mechanical thrombectomy in elderly patients with acute ischemic stroke Acta Neurochirurgica: The European Journal of Neurosurgery https://link.springer.com/journal/701

Footnote: Thrombolysis, also known as thrombolytic therapy, is a treatment to dissolve dangerous clots in blood vessels, improve blood flow, and prevent damage to tissues and organs. Thrombolysis may involve the injection of clot-busting drugs through an intravenous (IV) line or through a long catheter that delivers drugs directly to the site of the blockage. It also may involve the use of a long catheter with a mechanical device attached to the tip that either removes the clot or physically breaks it up.

Footnote 2: I have a vested interest to declare in having suffered a TIA, ‘mini-stroke,’ a few years back, leaving me with, maybe, only worse balance, awful handwriting and a shortened fuse. My mother may have thought I said a ‘Transient Islamic Attack.’!

 

As a motley crew of zombie Unionists gather to attack Alex Salmond, the stench of moral decay is overwhelming.

I haven’t written a defence of Alex Salmond, partly because others have already done so, but also because I thought it better to open up space for readers of this throbbing organ, Talking-up Scotland, to have their say. Go on. Inform me, educate, surprise me as you have done many times before.

Zombie trolls – don’t waste your time, I won’t allow anything offensive.

 

(c) deadliestwarrior.wikia.com

I’m almost entirely a 21^st Century, civic nationalist, with best friends who lived next door to people whose previous neighbours hired a contractor whose owner was from England so don’t call me anti-English!

Hoover, maybe because of my age, I have a wee sliver of primitive hatred for some things English like calling Britain ‘England’, ‘going up to Oxford and taking a degree’, saying ‘yah’ instead of ‘year’ or ‘drawRing’ and ‘withdrawRal’ and telling us they let us vote in their EU referendum. It maybe comes from my dad who though not exactly a ‘blood and soil’ nationalist, had become a bit bitter and twisted after serving in the Kings Own Scottish Borders, commanded by ‘English’ officers. He said they sounded English.

Anyhoo, the point of this atypical and possible weird piece of writing is to correct those who are shamelessly unconcerned about being anti-English because it’s not even accurate. They should be anti-Norman.

Now, I know the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians conquered southern Britain, but they took it from the proto-Welsh and not from us. The Welsh can be anti-English if they like. We weren’t even us then.

So, why should it be anti-Norman rather than Anti-English? Here’s my thesis, what it is which is my thesis what it is (Monty Python, 1973):

‘If it hadn’t been for the Normans there would have been no Great Britain. Discuss using two theories presented in the classes and with at least eight reliable references.’

Here is all I could find in the one hour I was prepared to give up. Some of my sources look a bit dodgy but hey what can you do?

First, from David Churchill (2016) in his book ‘1066: What if…..?’:

‘The Anglo-Saxons showed little desire to colonise. The Vikings were impelled to roam the world, the British Isles included by the poverty of their own soil. But the English inhabited one of the least challenging, most agreeable environments on earth. The Normans, however, were originally Vikings: the clue is in the name ‘Norse-men’. That Scandinavian aggression and longing to roam lived on in William’s veins. It informed his style of leadership, his ravenous hunger for territory and power and the ruthless governing culture he created around him.’

https://hforhistory.co.uk/article/1066-david-churchill/

The early English, pre-1066, had a few forays into the rest of the UK but didn’t do that well so would probably have just settled comfortably with what they had. Here’s another source suggesting it was those greedy Normans that ruined everything:

‘In 1066, William, Duke of Normandy, became the master in England. His successors, the Anglo-Norman Kings, tried to increase their authority and international prestige (especially in front of France) by controlling the British Isles (first Ireland and then Wales).’

https://www.skyminds.net/english-expansionism/

They were showing off all the time, those Normans.

Finally (I looked everywhere and there aren’t eight sources.), from that high priestess of history, Wendy Marie Hoofnagle who:

‘explores the Carolingian aspects of Norman influence in England after the Norman Conquest, arguing that the Normans’ literature of kingship envisioned government as a form of imperial rule modeled in many ways on the glories of Charlemagne and his reign. She argues that the aggregate of historical and literary ideals that developed about Charlemagne after his death influenced certain aspects of the Normans’ approach to ruling, including a program of conversion through “allurement,” political domination through symbolic architecture and propaganda, and the creation of a sense of the royal forest as an extension of the royal court.’

Wendy Marie Hoofnagle (2016) The Continuity of the Conquest: Charlemagne and Anglo-Norman Imperialism, Penn State UP

To conclude, if it hadn’t been for those greedy, vicious, imperialist batards, the Normans, the English would have settled down quietly and we’d all be good neighbours in these islands called the Four Happy Kingdoms. Even better, the Troubles in Northern Ireland wouldn’t have happened. And, the DUP wouldn’t exist and the Tories wouldn’t have won the last election and…(word limit, yeah!)

Footnote: I didn’t understand either of the theories. I don’t think the lecturer explained them properly because none of us understood them.

 

Note: This is a heavily recycled piece from May in the light of recent NHS Scotland figures.

From ISD on 28^th August 2018:

‘The four IVF centres in Scotland screened 373 eligible patients, compared with 370 in the previous quarter. 100% of patients were screened for IVF treatment within 273 days. The 90% target continues to be met since it was first measured in March 2015.’

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Waiting-Times/Publications/2018-08-28/2018-08-28-IVF-Summary.pdf?35583132506

Meanwhile in Tory-run NHS England, only 12% of boards offer three full cycles in line with official guidance. 61% offer only one cycle of treatment and 4% offer none at all. Private treatment costs between £1 343 and £5 788 per cycle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/ivf-nhs-treatment-fertility-lists-wait-patients-lottery-budget-cuts-a8028116.html

Reducing associated mental health complications

Also, failing to treat infertility can result in problems and further costs for the NHS in other areas. A Danish study of 98 737 women, between 1973 and 2003, showed that women who were unable to have children were 47% more likely to be hospitalised for schizophrenia and had a significantly higher risk of subsequent drug and alcohol abuse.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22020-infertility-may-increase-risk-of-mental-disorders/

A warning for Scotland’s 100% IVF post-Brexit: How moneygrubbing Tory IVF policies are creating massive distress now in England

How IVF became a licence to print money.

As we tumble toward a hard Brexit and trade deals with the USA allowing the private sector into the heart of the NHS, we can see how things will work out in the already privatised IVF service in England and contrast it with the state-controlled and regulated version, in Scotland. See this from the Guardian:

‘Private fertility clinics routinely try to sell desperate patients add-ons that almost certainly don’t help – why isn’t more done to monitor the industry?  Around three-quarters of all IVF cycles fail. And results vary with age. Figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) published in March state the average live birth-rate for each fresh embryo transferred for women of all ages is 21%; for those aged under 35, it is 29% – the highest it has ever been. For older women, the picture is bleaker: 10% for women aged 40-42, for example. IVF is expensive. And what makes it worse, says Hugh Risebrow, the report’s author, is the lack of pricing transparency. “The headline prices quoted may be, say, £3,500, but you end up with a bill of £7,000,” he says. “This is because there are things not included that you need – and then things that are offered but are not evidence-based.”’

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/jun/18/how-ivf-became-a-licence-to-print-money

Creating opportunities for the private sector

In Tory-run NHS England, only 12% of boards offer three full cycles in line with official guidance. 61% offer only one cycle of treatment and 4% offer none at all. Private treatment costs between £1 343 and £5 788 per cycle.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/ivf-nhs-treatment-fertility-lists-wait-patients-lottery-budget-cuts-a8028116.html

Why UK politicians would like more privatisation in the NHS

There are 64 Tory and Labour (New) MPs with ‘links’ to private health care. Why would we trust them to protect the NHS? See this:

https://defendournhsyork.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/selling-off-nhs-for-profit-full-list-of-mps-with-links-to-private-healthcare-firms/