Images: dailymail.co.uk, itv.com

What should the SNP leadership learn from what just happened in America? Two things:

1. Power corrupts but more commonly it just seduces. Sturgeon, Salmond, Robertson and others are, by UK standards, not corrupt and are fine representatives of the people. They’re honest and hold quite closely to values such as justice and equality. We’re kind of lucky to have them but things have been slipping recently. They’re looking just a bit too cosy there in Holyrood and in Westminster, on Question Time, on Newsnight, on Have I got News for You and in newspaper columns and a wee bit less like their voters back here. The images are getting a bit corporate, the style a bit presidential and the policies are drifting toward the centre and away from the broadly leftist dominance of the wider Yes movement. Dare I say it, the Unionist media seem to like and to respect Sturgeon much more than they did Salmond and that worries me. So, it’s time to pull back a bit from the deadly embrace of the UK’s political, media and cultural elites. As in Brexit and as with Trump, victory requires the support of the unlettered (nae qualies but no daft) working-class so don’t lose touch with them or even just appear to be doing so.
2. It’s not all about gender. Sturgeon’s appalling blunder in expressing support for the war criminal but female, Hillary Clinton, is sadly indicative. Salmond’s rush to support his wee lassie and in so doing utterly contradict his former opposition to the war policies of the Bush, Blair, Clinton gang was plain stupid. Here’s what Nicola said about supporting Clinton: ‘Above and beyond that though, I’m standing here as the first woman to hold the office of first minister and I think it would be great to see the world’s biggest democracy elect the first woman leader.’

 Isn’t India the world’s biggest democracy? Anyhow…..

Given what we know about Clinton’s bellicosity, corruption and greed, was Sturgeon saying that none of that matters because she is a woman? She said Clinton was ‘not perfect!’ That’ll be first prize for euphemisms then? Hitler loved his dugs? I genuinely thought Sturgeon would make the best SNP leader regardless of her gender so it’s time she stopped going on about being ‘the first woman to hold the office of first minister’. Just repeating that formal phrase suggests she might be a bit full of herself. We know. We’ve heard about it. It was two years ago. Stop banging on. Anyway, she needs to remember that she was handed the leadership in 2014 unopposed. She needs also to remember that support for independence grew dramatically from around 25% to 45% before her promotion and, despite Tory austerity and Brexit, has grown little since then.

Oh so I’m a Trump supporter eh? Just, just…away and…..see:

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2016/11/08/why-trump-is-less-bad-far-less-bad-than-clinton-in-as-few-words-as-possible/

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2016/11/07/letter-to-first-minister-sturgeon-re-her-support-for-hillary-clinton/

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2016/11/08/why-im-not-weakening-the-independence-cause/

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2016/11/05/scotland-and-hillary-clinton-will-any-woman-do-not-for-me/

 

1. The Clinton family, like the Bush family before, are very close to the Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia and Qataar. Both are fabulously rich from oil deals or from donations. The Saudis have given $25 million to the Clinton Foundation
2. In return the Bush and Clinton regimes have given favourable treatment to these Sunni Arab regimes. Saudi families were allowed to flee the US immediately after the Twin towers attack. US families of the dead are not allowed to sue the Saudi regime for supporting the mainly Saudi attackers. The US sells advanced weapons and offers advisors to train the Saudi and Qataari armed forces.
3. The Sunni and Qataari royal regimes despise and fear the Shia, slightly democratic, regimes in Iran, Syria, Iraq and now in Yemen. They are currently using US and UK weapons to kill Yemeni civilians.
4. The royalist Saudis long to see the overthrow of the slightly democratic Alawite, (Shia-related) regime in Syria and provided US and UK weapons to Sunni groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS to fight the Syrian government.
5. This triggered the civil war, mass deaths and the flight of millions toward Europe creating our refugee crisis. These Syrian refugees added to the already hundreds of thousands of displaced Afghans and Iraqis trying to enter Europe. You might say Clinton helped cause Brexit!
6. Because the Russians have intervened to help the Syrian government win against the Sunni rebels backed by Saudi and Qataar, using US arms, the US, in the person of Secretary of State Clinton has raised the tension in the area with threats of confrontation with the Russians, thus risking WW3.
7. To challenge the Russians and to make sure they do not win, Clinton is prepared to prolong the suffering of the Syrian people by further supporting anti-government, Sunni groups.
8. Clinton has the blood of thousands on her hands. The Saudis are funding both the Clintons and ISIS! Trump is a nasty piece of work but that’s it.
9. I’m not defending Trump or the Russians so don’t be stupid and suggest I have to be.

 

 

 

 

I’ve been banging on about independence, first, second and last. I’ve slammed others, not in the SNP, as posturing on the fringes and weakening the cause. Now I’m accused of the same, wrongly. I’m accusing the FM of lack of discipline and egotistical posturing on the fringes of the campaign and now weakening it. Not only is Clinton an appalling figure for the FM to be seen supporting, the act of doing so is utterly irrelevant to the campaign. No US president will ever support us so what point is there in coming out to support a candidate? It looks like knee-jerk ‘sisterhood’ loyalty and thus deeply disturbing. Has she seen Susan Sarandon on the topic? If not she should:

 

Ms Nicola Sturgeon

First Minister

St. Andrew’s House

Regent Road

Edinburgh EH1 3DG

 

Dear Ms Sturgeon

I write to protest in the strongest terms your pubic endorsement – ‘I’m with her’ – of US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. For the record, I trudged the streets putting ‘I’m with Nicola’ leaflets through hundreds of doors.

I am appalled that you think it appropriate use your position to express support for such a deeply-flawed, corrupt, malignant, politician and by implication, associate me, SNP members and other Scots, with your, hopefully, ill-informed personal views.

Hillary Clinton is on record as being opposed to Scottish independence but, worse, she is a well know foreign policy ‘hawk’. She was instrumental, recently, in a series of anti-democratic acts in Honduras, Palestine and Libya. Who can forget seeing her sitting applauding the torture, rape and murder of President Gaddafi, guffawing and exclaiming: ‘We came, we saw, he died?’ This woman is like many leading politicians in larger militaristic, expansionist nations, a cruel psychopath. Is it really enough for you that she is a woman? Will any woman do?

As with Thatcher, just any woman won’t do for me. You could argue easily that the kind of women, macho psychopaths, able to break through the constraints of patriarchy in large imperial states like the UK and the USA (not Scotland) are the kind of women prepared to play its game. True feminists, female or male, might have the sense to recognise that the kind of politics patriarchy allows in these countries is just not for them.

As a committed supporter of Scottish independence, activist, and SNP member, I have tried to avoid comment which could be seen to harm the unity of our movement. However, there are limits. Is it possible that, in this instance, you have forgotten what the number one priority for the leader of the Scottish National Party is?

Dr John W Robertson

Professor (Retired)

Monday 7^th November 2016

‘I don’t think I’ve ever wanted anyone else to become President more than Hillary Rodham Clinton. If she is allowed to, she can cure America of its sickness.’

That’s what Kevin McKenna wrote today, 5^th November 29016, in the Herald. By its ‘sickness’, he seemed to mean mainly things like lack of health care and the power of the gun lobby. For me, the USA’s sickness is primarily its imperial violence across the globe. US foreign policy is the major threat to world peace so the election of a foreign policy hawk like Clinton is very bad news for most of us and devastating news for the people of the Middle East. Weirdly, McKenna did mention this sickness but wrote:

‘He [Trump] is, though, the incarnation of what America has become: the inevitable outcome of decades of invading small countries; backing fascist death squads; torturing detainees in Guantanamo without trial; and inducing client countries to look the other way when using their airspace to violate the human rights of those held without trial. This is a deeply uncivilised country governed by the gun and driven by a hillbilly delusion that might is always right. It made Mr Trump.’

Is he, McKenna, suggesting that the established elites represented by presidents such as Reagan, Bush Snr, Bush Jnr, Clinton Mr, Obama and Clinton Mrs, were not actually responsible for these actions and that somehow Trump now is? Is that absurd or what?

Add to this Hillary Clinton’s track record as Secretary of State, her lying and her deceit on matters of national security. Add also the massive wealth of the Clinton family acquired by means shady to say the least and how does McKenna square support for her with his avowed progressive values.

Sadly, McKenna is not the only Scottish ‘progressive’ out there for Hillary. Kezia Dugdale even went over there to ‘man the phones’ for Hilary. Nicola Sturgeon, to my horror tweeted:

“It’s official: Hillary’s running for president,” says her campaign chief. Excellent!

Clinton is no friend of independence for Scotland or indeed for any other small country. Her hawkish foreign policy preferences do not match those of the SNP, so Sturgeon’s tweet seems utterly bizarre.

I couldn’t find anything on Clinton by Ruth Davidson – not right-wing enough for her support?

Now, I’m not saying support Trump. I’m saying keep out of this filthy affair altogether. No comment?

As with Thatcher, just any woman won’t do. You could argue easily that the kind of women, macho psychopaths, able to break through the constraints of patriarchy in large imperial states like the UK and the USA (not Scotland) are the kind of woman prepared to play its game. True feminists, female or male, might have the sense to recognise that the kind of politics patriarchy allows is just not for them.

Sources:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14845562.Kevin_McKenna__Clinton_can_cure_America_of_its_sickness_if_she_is_permitted/?ref=rss

https://twitter.com/nicolasturgeon/status/587329465409212416

 

 

 

Images: herald, daily record

You might remember this from January 2016:

‘Scotland’s A&E the best in world – Sturgeon hits back on health record’ (The National 29^th January 2016)

The article by Kathleen Nutt went on to say:

‘NICOLA Sturgeon yesterday cited comments from a leading medical college saying the UK “has the best performing accident and emergency services in the world” and that Scotland “has the best performing A&E services in the United Kingdom” as she brushed off an attack from Kezia Dugdale on the state of the NHS north of the Border.’

I had reported the same story on the 11^th December 2015 in ‘Here is the news: NHS Scotland performs better, but you may not know it’ at: http://newsnet.scot/citizen/news-nhs-scotland-performs-better-may-not-know/

Nicola didn’t credit me. The SNP never credit me with anything. I think I’m considered a bit mad or wild or something. Maybe they found it themselves. Anyhoo, as we approach Winter 2016/2017, I wondered if we’re still the best on the World or at least still the best in the UK? The bad news is I don’t know how we’re doing globally but the good news is that we are actually pulling away from the others, especially England.

In October 2015, 94.7% of patients in Scottish A&E departments were seen within four hours. In England it was 92.3% so not really a very big difference. The year before, in October 2014, Scotland’s performance had been 1.9% behind England. In October 2016, after another year of Tory rule over NHS England and, of course one more year of SNP rule over NHS Scotland, here are the figures:

Table 1: Percentage of patients spending less than 4 hours in A&E 2015–16

England            87.9%

Wales                77.7%

Scotland           93.3%

N Ireland         71.7%

These data mean that Scotland is holding to its high performance despite more Westminster austerity cuts and continuing to improve as NHS England’s performance worsens. The 1.4% fall in Scotland is probably too small to be statistically significant or meaningful. However the 4.4% fall in England, in one year, seems significant and worrying. The 5.4% difference in performance between Scotland and England looks pretty big to me

I’m not a statistician so I must admit to not knowing if these differences are or are not statistically significant.

The above table is from page 6 of:

House of Commons Health Committee Winter pressure in accident and emergency departments Third Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 25 October 2016 at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhealth/277/277.pdf utm_source=277&utm_campaign=modulereports&utm_medium=module

So, Kezia, Ruth, that’ll be a scandal then….for NHS England?

Did BBC Scotland cover this? I have to admit I don’t know for certain but I don’t remember it. Anyone?

 Other sources:

http://www.thenational.scot/news/scotlands-ae-the-best-in-world—sturgeon-hits-back-on-health-record.13026

 

 

 

heraldscotland.com

Has the Herald’s Health Correspondent had a change of heart or, if not an actual transplant, just some minor heart surgery? Has a friend or relative come out of a Scottish hospital enthusing about the treatment? Helen does seem to have shifted her ground a wee bit from her endless trail of headlines like:

How close is NHS Scotland to a tipping point this winter?

Patients say hospital stays are making them more ill and staff lack compassion

A third of trauma patients wait an hour for A&E consultation

Elderly care plans hit by lack of money and staff,

Number of hospital beds in Scotland drops by 600

Here’s what Helen said today, 3^rd November 2016:

‘THE airwaves above Scotland crackled with uplifting stories about the NHS last week. Patients described swift treatment and caring staff while relatives talked about well co-ordinated care. Not surprising really, except the chorus of complements (sic) followed the publication of an independent assessment of NHS Scotland considered “damning”. On one level it is hard to marry those cheering first hand insights, not to mention the 90 per cent satisfaction levels reported by the last official patient survey, with that report written by public spending watchdog Audit Scotland. The dichotomy certainly allowed political parties, and their most vocal supporters, to pick statistics which suited their cause and paint a picture that was either unfairly bleak or deceptively rosey (sic).’

Helen has correctly spotted the problem with correlating negative Audit Scotland reports and optimistic patient survey results. Patient survey results are reasonably useful and probably quite accurate because they are empirical. You can trust them, within reason. Here’s what I think of Audit Scotland’s methods:

‘The Audit Scotland report has not been able to find or use any empirical evidence representative of Scotland as a whole, to justify its negative conclusions. It relies far too heavily on a small number of selected case studies and interviews which are then not reliable nor are they triangulated with broader empirical data. AS seem over-concerned with planning documents which authorities charged with the actual tasks often produce largely to satisfy auditors. Further, AS has not used its resources to assess what is actually happening on the ground, across the country. Too detailed planning documents can stifle improvements and result in ineffective, but satisfying for auditors of course, tick-box exercises.’

I might know what I’m talking about here. I spent nearly 40 years in Higher Education assessing the quality of reports of all kinds. I had three years as Associate Dean QA responsible for formal evaluation of courses. I had 20 years as an external examiner for other universities. I know impressionistic waffle when I read it and I mark it down.

Returning to the headline, do the SNP actually make proud claims for NHS Scotland being particularly good?  Much to my annoyance at times, I’d say they’re scared to do so. There’s the occasional defensive comment from Nicola suggesting NHS Scotland is performing well compared to other parts of the UK bit that’s hardly controversial is it? I’ve never heard the SNP brag about keeping junior doctors on side. Have you?

Finally, back to the headline for this admitted pedant:

‘NHS Scotland – neither as bad as critics or as good as SNP claim’

That means that NHS Scotland’s health is not as bad as the general health of the critics is. Now I can’t speak for the personal health of any of the unnamed critics but I guess at least one will be in bad shape and thus in worse health than the whole of NHS Scotland? Maybe some commas would help? Furthermore, ‘complements’ when it should be ‘compliments’ and ‘rosey’ with an ‘e’? Funny ha ha too, that this is about health and when I noted these errors, I put the Latin ‘sic’ after them, as you do.

See me – Teacher.

Anyhow, well done Helen, keep taking the pills and hopefully full recovery will be yours!

Image: (c) Getty

See this from the Guardian today, 2nd October 2016:

‘More than 5 million people in England are at risk of flooding and recent winters have seen devastating deluges, with storm Desmond alone causing £5bn in damages in the northern UK. The coalition government cut flood defence spending sharply, and increases in finds only followed the recent floods.’

Reading the above, I though it might be worth reminding us Scots, before BBC Reporting Scotland try to scare us to death, of differences in the situation here. This below is originally from from December 2015 but updated in bits:

As England faces more devastating floods, has the Scottish Government put its finger in the dyke, so to speak?

‘As many as 530 key infrastructure sites across England are still vulnerable to flooding, according to a government review.’ (BBC News, 8^th September 2016)

‘£12.5m Flood Defence Plans No More Than ‘Elastoplast’’ (Sky News, 8^th September)

A new review from the Environment Agency for England has attracted much critical press and TV broadcast, reaction. The review was commissioned after 16 000 houses, across northern England, were flooded during the wettest December in a century last year.

Most have described its plans to avoid a repeat of the devastating deluges as utterly inadequate. The Sky TV report put it very bluntly:

‘Plans to improve flood defences after the devastation caused by record high water levels last year have been dismissed as “Elastoplast”. A new Government report identifies up to 530 sites across England where key local infrastructure, such as water, electricity and telecoms sites, is still vulnerable to flooding.’

In the BBC Report, we hear from Dr Stephen Gibbs, chairman of the Carlisle Flood Action Group:

‘The issue is Government statutory powers to say ‘we will defeat flooding’. The Environment Agency [EA] has a pattern – they have a flood, they have a review, then they get out the [sticking plaster] and hope for the best until the next flood. Temporary flood defences are part of the filibustering that the EA is having to do. The Dutch defeated flooding because their senior politicians sat down and said ‘How can we defeat this?’ And they defeated flooding.’

Mention of the Dutch reminded me of the boy with his finger in the dyke and I wondered whether the Scottish Government and its agencies would be performing any better than that of their equivalents in England. I found this statement of intent on their website:

‘Historically Scotland has not faced the same degree of river and coastal flooding as England, due mainly to its different topography. However, climate change is expected to increase flood risk, potentially doubling it in some areas in Scotland before the end of the century. Through the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, the Scottish Government has introduced a more sustainable and modern approach to flood risk management, suited to the needs of the 21st century and to the impact of climate change.

Of course, this is not hard evidence of superior performance and readers will not be surprised to be reminded of alleged failures in this area reporting in our mainstream media. Back in March 2016, Reporting Scotland was just coming to the end of serial visits (eight) to Ballater’s flooded streets:

‘After the floods, the recovery. We report from Ballater and three months on from Storm Frank, the town’s still getting back on its feet.’

On the 14^th, I wrote, despairingly:

‘We report from Ballater!’ said as if it was ‘We report from Baltimore!’ Reporting Scotland headlined the ‘Ballatergate’ again. They’ve been on Deeside eight times now. I wonder if the Deeside Piper and Herald newspaper has got this scoop.  No, quite the reverse, they’re ‘over it’ and moving on. In fact: ‘Floods won’t stop DYMT!’ they trumpet, mysteriously for those not on Deeside.  Indeed, the Deeside Youth Musical Theatre youngsters have picked themselves up, dried themselves down and started all over again, with their version of Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Raincoat! Jackie Bird opens by telling us ‘It’s almost three months since the flooding in Ballater.’ Yes I know, three months and you’re still going on about it! Why on earth are we still on this story? Does the reporter live there? Will it help to defeat the SNP in some way?’

As you know the SNP survived the BBC campaign but I doubt their interest in using future flooding to attack them again has receded (See what I did there?) much.

So, what convincing evidence is there that the Scottish Government does have its act together on this? Again, a previous piece for Newsnet, provides me with quite a lot which I hope you don’t mind me repeating much of it so that we’re ready for the next propaganda campaign. Store these facts away and until then, keep you powder dry (See what I did there, again?).

The December 30^th 2015 piece titled ‘Despite the deluge, is flood protection stronger and better funded in Scotland?’ also covered benefits for home insurers and the comparative quality of environmental leadership in Scotland. They are well-worth checking out but would make this piece a bit too long. The url is at the bottom of this.

Comparing Storm and Flood Protection in Scotland and England

As far back as 2006, researchers at the English College of Estates Management, whose patron is HRH Prince of Wales, made a number of highly encouraging comments about the achievements of the Labour-run Scottish Executive, SEPA and the Local Authorities:

‘In 1993, storms over Scotland exceeded the severity of storms over the South-East of England, however little damage resulted. This is because the Building (Scotland) Act, 2003 has introduced tougher building standards, thus buildings in Scotland are constructed to reflect the harsher conditions: and thus damage and subsequent insurance claims are significantly reduced.

As far as flood protection is concerned, unlike in England, the 1 in 200 year standard of protection is ‘universal’ for all new buildings, with a 1,000 year standard for such vulnerable uses as old people’s homes, schools, hospitals etc.. In addition, construction in flood hazard areas has almost completely ended. Crichton (2003: 26) estimates that “the active flood management programme currently in progress will result in almost all high risk properties being protected against the 200-year flood within the next three years, taking climate change into account.” It is also interesting to note that the Scottish Executive grants for flood defences have never been refused on the grounds of budget restraints and there is no rationing of flood defence spending.

It is clear, however, that the more stringent building standards which are applied in Scotland ensure that severe storms result in much less property damage than comparable events in England. Also the level of flood protection and the commitment of funding to achieve flood protection are higher in Scotland than in England.’

More recently, with SNP leadership, the favourable comparison still seems to hold. Published research from the esteemed Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in 2012, seems to support my first impressions quite strongly:

‘Where English planning regulations permit building in flood plains where there is no alternative, Scottish Planning Policy does not permit building in areas in which ‘the flood risk exceeds the 200 year return period’, i.e. where in any year there is a greater than 0.5 per cent probability of flooding. Scotland has stronger regulations governing the capacity of sewage and drainage systems for new building. It also has stronger minimum standards for flood defences. Building regulations ensuring flood resilience in the housing stock are more developed. Scottish planners, through Flood Liaison and Advice Groups, are engaged with local communities, the emergency services, insurers and other interested parties in drawing up flood plans. The differences in regulatory regimes between England and Scotland are reflected in the number of households that are at risk of flooding, and the resilience of communities in responding to those risks.’

The level of investment will be one factor in these differences. In recent years, spending in England and Wales has declined seriously after significant increases under Labour in 1997 to 2010, as revealed in a UK Parliament Briefing Paper from 2015:

‘Central Government spending on flood defence in 2010-11 was cut soon after the Coalition Government was formed. Spending was reduced in one year by £30 million or 5%. In the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review (2011-12 to 2014-15), a total of £2.17 billion in central government funding was provided for flood and coastal defence. This represented “a six percent fall in central government funding”, The Committee on Climate Change calculated that this represented a real term cut of around 20% compared to the previous spending period.’

In sharp contrast, for Scotland, we see in a Scottish Parliament Committee Paper for 2014-2015, evidence of increasing investment:

‘With regard to flood protection and alleviation, the Committee welcomes the cash terms increases in the funding available to SEPA, and to the Natural Assets and Flooding  budget, both of which sit in the RAE portfolio. The Committee believes that, due to climate change, severe weather events will become increasingly likely in Scotland in years to come, and it is therefore essential that flood forecasting and warning systems be as accurate and robust as possible. The Committee welcomes the increased funding for flood forecasting and warning in the RAE portfolio and recommends that the Scottish Government continue to ensure sufficient funding is available to improve flood forecasting and warning systems, to ensure greater consistency across the whole of Scotland.’

I have to admit, I can’t find a great deal of more recent evidence of superiority in the Scottish system. I did find this at the Scottish government site and little (surprise, surprise) MSM coverage of it:

‘£42 million a year plan over the next decade.

More than 10,000 families are to benefit from a ten year strategy to protect homes in many of Scotland’s most flood-prone communities. The plan is the result of grant funding totalling £420 million and follows an agreement reached between the Scottish Government and COSLA. The cash will be used to deliver 40 new flood protection projects and support local flood risk management plans. More than 130 flood protection studies will be carried out to help find potential solutions for another 26,000 residential properties currently at risk. The announcement came as the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, fulfilled her pledge to return to Newton Stewart following an earlier visit in the aftermath of flooding at Hogmanay.’

So, unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government has maintained or bettered the investment and the sophistication in flood prevention here. Had I been writing in 2006, the Labour-controlled Scottish Executive would have rightly claimed any credit for performance north of the border. In 2016, the SNP-controlled Scottish Parliament can do the same. Will BBC Scotland allow them to do it? They clearly didn’t in the run-up to General Election in 2016 so I doubt it.

There you have it, my attempt to shore up our defence plans against a flood of BBC bias (See what I did there, again, again?) as we approach the UK Monsoon season.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37306094

http://news.sky.com/story/16312m-flood-defence-plan-an-elastoplast-say-victims-10569571

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Water/Flooding

College of Estates Management at:https://www.cem.ac.uk/media/28193/flooding.pdf

UK Parliament Briefing Paper at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tGK3kUO-iKEJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05755.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Scottish Parliament Paper at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/70875.aspx

Scottish Act on Control of Flood water at:http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1057/0094052.pdf

WWF Report at: http://nationalfloodforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/floodplanner_web.pdf

Professor Penning-Rowsell at: http://evidence.environment-agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Project_Documents/FD2602_7685_TRP_pdf.sflb.ashx

 

Supervised injection site at UCLA, USA: © uclamls.com

Not an advocate of drugs de-criminalisation © mirror.co.uk

Leading enthusiast for the criminalisation of drugs: © Netflix

Not learning from history? © http://celebritygene.com/

We’ve already seen the SNP conference in October 2016 support moves to decriminalise and regulate the use of Marijuana for medical use. Needless to say, the UK Home Office has denied permission. At the same time, we can see the first steps toward price-control for that most deadly of drugs in Scotland, Alcohol. So, that’s two enlightened pieces of policy-making the Scottish Government can take pride in. There’s now a third, ‘supervised injection sites’ (SIS). These are places supervised by nurses and guarded by the police where addicts can inject with clean needles in a safe environment. Here’s what Susan Millar, chairwoman of the Alcohol and Drugs Partnership in Glasgow told the BBC about the value of SIS:

‘We believe it will improve the health of the target population as well as benefit local communities and businesses that are currently adversely affected by public injecting. People injecting drugs in public spaces are experiencing high levels of harm and are impacting on the wider community. We need to make our communities safer for all people living in, and visiting the city, including those who publicly inject. Similar schemes operate in 10 other countries, including Australia, Germany, France, Holland and Switzerland. ADP argues that those who inject on the streets are responsible for the majority of discarded needles which pose a health risk and contribute to public order problems. It also says street users experience problems such as homelessness, mental health issues and poverty, and are at heightened risk of blood-borne viruses, overdose and drug-related death, as well as other injecting-related complications. The Scottish Drugs Forum (SDF), a drugs policy and information organisation, has estimated there about 90 similar injecting facilities operating around the world, most of them in Europe.’

The SIS programme at UCLA in the USA also points to major benefits:

‘While conventional services in the United States include HIV counseling, outreach, and educational programs, safe injection sites are able to provide a plethora of additional benefits that are overlooked by such programs. As seen in countries that adopted these sites early on, heroin addiction rates have plummeted. In areas like Amsterdam, according to Dutch health services, virtually no heroin addicts under the age of 40 exist as their programs have successfully limited the rise of new addicts.’

So that’s the SNP conference, all the Scottish medical professions, the Scottish police force and evidence from abroad.  When you read that, it’s kind of a no-brainer, I’d say, but wait, one man disagrees and BBC Scotland with their commitment to balance felt obliged to give him an extended opportunity to make his case for continuing with the ‘War on Drugs.’ Here’s what he said to the BBC:

‘Prof Neil McKeganey, founder of the Centre of Drug Misuse Research, said Mr Liddell [Scottish Drugs Forum] was “quite wrong” to imply the rooms were not controversial. “For anyone who’s not an advocate of drugs de-criminalisation they are controversial and they will be seen as such,” he told the BBC. “Some years ago, we surveyed over 1,000 drug addicts in Scotland and we asked them what they wanted to get from treatment. “Less than 5% said they wanted to help to inject more safely and the overwhelming majority said they wanted help to become drugs free. These facilities have a role to play but there is a real danger here we are moving steadily away from services to get addicts off drugs.’

Straight-off, I’m astonished that Professor McKegany imagines that if you ask drug addicts what they want the most that they would not tell you that they want to get off the drugs. I haven’t seen his methodology but were safe injection sites mentioned at all? Could their preferences have been due to interviewer effect? Furthermore, even if we accept that drug addicts want to get off drugs more than anything else how does that reduce in any way the great advantages of the SIS for them and for the rest of us? It kind of sounds like Professor McKeganey has an obsession with winning a war everyone else wants to stop fighting. Has he seen Narcos?

The BBC report seems to suggest this is contested ground with strong evidence-based arguments being made for and against the safe injection sites but I can’t find anyone else supporting Professor McKeganey’s views. I’ve no doubt there are plenty unqualified ‘moaning minnies’ out there who would rather cold turkey was the only treatment but are we really saying this is an issue where we have to hear both sides of an argument and where the entire medical professions, the local authorities and the police forces agree SIS is a good thing? Dare I suggest that they couldn’t just let the Scottish Government get a bit of credit for progressive policy-making in the face of UK conservatism, again? I know I’m paranoid. Everybody says I am so I must be.

Back to Professor McKeganey, for further consideration of the need for his balancing views, see this:

‘In 2012 Neil was awarded the Nils Bejerot Award for Global Drug Prevention by The World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD) in recognition of career in drug research and for his contributions to drug policy, in particular for his championing of drug free policies, much like Nils Bejerot did in Sweden. Nils Bejerot (September 21, 1921 – November 29, 1988) was a Swedish psychiatrist and criminologist best known for his work on drug abuse and for coining the phrase Stockholm syndrome. His view that drug abuse was a criminal matter and that drug use should have severe penalties was highly influential in Sweden and in other countries. He believed that the cure for drug addiction was to make drugs unavailable and socially unacceptable.’

Note that Bejerot was dead by 1988! Pablo Escobar was still in his one Flamingo-land then. Might he have changed his views after another nearly 30 years of the bloody war on drugs? I know that many chiefs of police have done so.  My inspiration, Noam Chomsky is still alive and yet BBC Scotland never invites me on to the show, to offer balance.

Also, Bejerot was not influential in his home country Sweden, on government actions on drug treatment. See this from the NY Times:

‘…he remained a controversial figure in Sweden because of his emphasis on prevention rather than treatment of drug addiction. Fifteen years ago he advocated banishing drug abusers to ”therapeutic villages” to prevent the spread of what he regarded as a contagion of epidemic proportions.‘Although successive national administrations had to deal with Sweden’s growing drug problem, colleagues noted that Dr. Bejerot had never been named to a Government-sponsored study group or other official post.’

Further The World Federation Against Drugs (WFAD) is problematic if being used as a source of expertise. Wikipedia, in 2012, began an investigation into their ‘notability’, the key criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Here’s what one of their assessors wrote:

‘I can’t find any indication of notability for this advocacy group. The only references I can find to them are from other advocacy groups (or advocacy groups claiming to be newspapers, like the one currently in the article). Unless there is evidence of the group being the subject of significant discussion in multiple independent sources, the article should be deleted.’ 

All of this is quite damning, I’d say, for the ideas of Bejerot, especially nearly 30 years after his death when so much has changed in thinking about drug abuse treatment and for the authenticity and value of WFAD. BBC Scotland has many research assistants, all graduates. They should be right on this kind of thing.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37817622

http://www.uclamls.com/2016/05/benefits-of-supervised-injection-sites-for-heroin-users/

http://substanceuseresearch.org/neil-mckeganey-ph-d/

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/02/obituaries/nils-bejerot-67-pioneer-in-study-of-drug-abuse.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWorld_Federation_Against_Drugs

 

Here are some of David’s ‘bites’:

‘methodologically-questionable research’

‘Mr Robertson’

‘former academic John Robertson’

‘his “research” started from the bizarre premise’

 So as with the BBC in 2014, David has identified problems with my methodology. The BBC called it ‘flawed’. Neither, of course, has seemed able to name the type of methodology or just why it was the wrong choice. Interestingly, in 2014, not one academic, pro or anti-independence came forward to attack my methodology. You’ll see also that David feels quite able to call my research which I genuinely thought it was at the time, ‘research’ and has spotted a ‘bizarre’ premise which when he describes it, I agree would have been bizarre, but it’s not one I recognise ever postulating.

Notice that I’ve been reduced to ‘Mr’ and to ‘former academic’? I must admit to having largely abandoned the ‘professor’ thing with people I respect so I can’t really complain but ‘former’ rather than ‘retired’ kind of suggests something more shameful like being publicly stripped of my research epaulettes and trousers, by the Principal.

I’m reminded now of some of the trolling I got back in 2014:

‘Is Professor Robertson as real professor?

‘Is UWS a real university?’

There was worse. This was at the time when the country’s most powerful media institution had just written to the Principal of my university to accuse of bringing both the BBC and the university into disrepute by publishing ‘research’ findings based on flawed methodology and damaging to both institutions. I can’t imagine what punishment they expected or hoped for me. Within days colleagues and ‘friends’ were distancing themselves from me. Some suggested I back down and apologise to save my skin. Others came back from collaborative project visits to Pacific Quay having been warned to stay well away from me if they valued their future chances. Not one academic went public to stand up for my right to academic freed, not one. No newspaper editor did that either. Bully the BBC? Do you really think that can be done? Indeed, supposed independence supporter, Richard Walker then editor of the Sunday Herald, refused to publish my findings. It took two weeks for my Principal to tell me that he would respect my academic freedom but that UWS would not be associated with or promote my research. I suffered in those two weeks. I feared it might all be over. If I’d worked at one of the older higher-status universities, I’d have been out of the door pronto. Three months later at the age of 63 I got a personal professorship, bottom of the scale, from the University, based on thirty years of peer-reviewed publication in ‘top’ journals on topics unrelated to Scotland. I was told at the time that it had been a close call, without irony, by another recently appointed professor, appointed to the top of the scale and whose appointment allegedly based on a personal relationship with the Dean and despite a poor research profile was to lead to public scandal and a flight of top academics from the University. Some critics, of course misread things but I know I got the professorship despite my research into the Referendum coverage, not because of it.

Now, I know David suffers from outrageous trolling and I think I can see from his face (not included for any cheap laughs) that he is a sensitive soul too. So, in memory of the great Jürgen Habermas, how about dropping the cheap jibes and try to explain just why I am wrong?