SNP bans Ukraine from sending NHS donations to front lines

15 comments

1. There could be 1000 reasons for this that arn’t ‘The SNP are really pacifist’.

   Like maybe the equipment is unsuitable, or ineffective, being used in a trench that is in the middle of being bombed, compared to being used in a civilian hospital.

2. Does the SNP realize Ukraine is the one being invaded for the third time right?

3. Interesting position to take in effect preventing injured soldiers in hospitals being treated using this equipment. I wonder what Swinney will have to say about this, probably something underwhelming it usually is.

4. > Ministers accused of ‘morally bankrupt hypocrisy’ after government officials demanded that £800,000 of medical supplies be used for ‘civilian purposes only’

   God forbid some defenders of Ukrainian soil be rewarded some aid for their valiant efforts. Clown show of a policy, supported only by Russian stooges.

5. ‘The SNP banned Ukraine from using medical supplies donated by the Scottish NHS to treat wounded soldiers on the front line.

   Scottish ministers have been accused of hypocrisy after it emerged that, despite having pledged unconditional backing for Ukraine’s fight for survival, they privately attached conditions to a donation of surplus NHS equipment, stipulating that it must be used only for “civilian” purposes.

   Last October, the Scottish government announced that it would send £800,000 worth of equipment including ventilators, beds, mattresses and oxygen concentrators to Kyiv. John Swinney said that the donation demonstrated Scotland’s “unqualified support” for Ukraine.

   However, officials insisted in private that the equipment was intended for “civilian purposes only”, meaning it could not be used on the front lines or in a network of military hospitals treating soldiers injured fighting against President Putin’s forces.

   The conditions have led to claims that a “ridiculous pacifistic ideology” within the SNP has hampered efforts to enlarge the British defence industry and deter adversaries such as Russia, and is even taking precedence over the lives of Ukrainian soldiers.’

6. Oh yes that’s going to be enforceable by the SNP.

   If they want to ignore the good defence industry in Scotland, ignore the ships and sub hunters protecting Scottish waters and so on fine, but ffs have some common sense.

   There is no circumstance in which medical supplies are not used to help people in need.

7. If there is nothing more to it then this is bollocks.

   I’m curious though if Scotland are allowed to donate to a war effort or if that’s reserved under UK foreign policy.

8. What is the big problem. Donations from Scotland can be used for civilians so Ukraine does not have to spend money on that. Money which can then be used to procure medical supplies for their armed forces.

9. Didn’t they consider using NHS donations to help civilians in Gaza under Yousaf? Why the change?

10. Even for the SNP or any party this is just an appallingly bad thing to do, I mean why? Putting aside everything else haven’t they got better things to be doing as a regional, nationalist government of Scotland. I mean of all the fights to pick for crying out loud.

11. The SNP doing its job as the Russian agents in the UK.

12. >The Scottish government said that because the support, transported by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), was classified as “official development assistance” (ODA) it could not be used for “military aid”, under OECD rules.

    >However, several experts asked by The Sunday Times to verify the claim said that, while it was correct that ODA should not be used for military purposes, there was nothing obliging the Scottish government to categorise the donations in that manner.

    Can the ICRC transport equipment if it’s categorised in a way that could be for military use? If it has to be ODA for them to transport it, then being ODA they have to say it can’t be used for military uses.

    Mountain out of a bloody molehill.

13. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a nationalist party is happy to buddy up to Putin, but its worrying to see it in the UK all the same

14. Give the times has a paywall I doubt anybody has read the article. I cannot see the article but am too willing to speculate.

    There’s a myriad of issues here, primarily what is and what is not devolved policy.

    Foreign policy is not devolved. The SNP like to over step this one a lot but I suspect this might be an element to it.

    FCDO is not devolved.

    UK Direct Aid is not devolved.

    I’d be hoping that our foreign policy strategy in the Ukraine-Russia conflict is being coordinated at the UK Gov. level and not devolved with four incoherent strategies. Especially given the nuclear threats coming from Russia.

15. The SNATs are really losing their minds trying to defend this.

    And it’s just indefensible.

    Medical aid is medical aid.
    It’s by nature, not used to kill anyone, why would you deny them the ability help their wounded- wounded who are fathers and mothers, who have children that depend on them, not only for financial and emotional support, but to win the war so they can grow up in their own country and not in a demagogue’s wet dream that is Russia?

    You can say “oh what use would a CT scans have in the trenches” or some other useless nonsense, completely oblivious that field hospitals are a thing, and that soldiers in a total war situation will often be shifted to hybrid military- civilian hospitals too that will be on or near the front line (especially in an urban warfare setting) treating them to help them get back on the front lines, so denying the use for front line use is crazy as it actively creates a logistical headache for the Ukrainians who now have to sort out medical equipment on the basis of whether it’s been allowed by some foreign nation to be used on their soldiers or not.

    As SNATs you’ve painted this vision that Scotland is some colonial possession and is brutally oppressed by evil Westminister, which is a ludicrous but if you truly believed this why the hell would you opposed a fellow nation trying to prevent itself from falling into the “same fate”??

    It just doesn’t make any sense, whether you’re unionist, a neutral, a Nationalist or even on the hyper- extreme nationalist side of the spectrum.

    It’s just wrong.

Comments are closed.