Talking-up Scotland

Back in October, I was able to report on Police Scotland officers demonstrating how to defuse dangerous situations with a knife-holding person. I was impressed. It was clear the NYPD officers would have shot the offender in every case. I felt relieved and proud of these Scottish officers. See this for more:

First New York Police and now Canada’s police come to learn from Scotland’s successes in tackling violence

Our mainstream media missed the story with only Sky TV news reporting it.

Now, I read that the London Metropolitan chief is to visit Scotland in the wake of a series of stabbings and murders in the city over the last year or so in the hope of learning how we have managed to reduce knife crime and knife possession dramatically in the last ten years.

Only the Guardian seemed to report the story. I could find no mention in Herald, Scotsman, or Record, nothing on the BBC Scotland and STV websites. I can’t bear to watch the TV news so perhaps readers will let me know if it was reported there. Here’s what the Guardian had to say:

‘Met chief, Cressida Dick, will visit Glasgow on Friday to learn more about Police Scotland’s pioneering work on tackling knife crime in the city once known as the stabbing capital of Europe. Dick told the London assembly at the beginning of January that it was time to treat knife crime as a public health crisis, an approach credited with dramatically reducing deaths in Scotland, which little more than a decade ago had the second highest murder rate in western Europe. Of the 39 children and young people killed with knives in the UK last year, not one was in Scotland. The Violence Reduction Unit was set up in 2005 to tackle Glasgow’s deeply rooted blade culture that had barely moved on since the Gorbals gangland was immortalised in the 1935 novel No Mean City. Since then all knife crime rates have been incrementally reduced. Assaults involving knives had fallen by a third by 2012 and there was a 69% drop in recorded incidents of people carrying knives by 2016, according to Police Scotland figures.’

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/22/met-police-chief-cressida-dickto-visit-scotland-for-ideas-to-reduce-knife

The Herald and the BBC website did have a Police Scotland story but preferred to focus on the alleged unlawful action by the Counter Corruption Unit (CCU) which they could blow-up into a scandal with tabloid comments like

‘Leader comment: Police Scotland in the dock again’

‘Police Scotland seems to stumble from one fiasco to another.’

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/leader-comment-police-scotland-in-the-dock-again-1-4694931

‘Durham chief slams Police Scotland ‘ineptitude’ over probe’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-43160133

The CCU story is of course worth covering but isn’t balance something that our media like to claim they practice?

(c) http://gulfnews.com

This is a short comment on the above from reader Alasdair MacDonald which I think needs greater prominence so I’ve posted it as a ‘special’.

‘Of course the BBC Scotland continues to plug the failing Scotland line with a report about the literacy levels of 16 year olds. This was wilfully misinterpreted. The report actually asked 16 year olds what kind of fiction they chose to read for personal reasons. Some of the books chosen were rated as being able to be read by 13 year olds. Now, of course, we are all pretty eclectic in our reading choices – I do not always choose books that have reading levels suitable for 70 year-olds. Where the wilful mispresentation came was in shouting that this showed ‘Scottish 16 year-olds have the literacy levels of 13 year-olds’. NAW IT DISNAE!! The research was carried out by a private company, by a Professor at Dundee U. He and an author who works in Scottish schools regularly debated the issue and she spiritedly refuted his arguments. She was also backed up by vox pops of a number of 16 year-olds who were asked about what they read. I felt that the Professor did not argue his case well, but made sweeping generalities.’

(c) redbridge.gov.uk

I feel this needs a wider audience than a post under my starter might get so I’ve made it a ‘special’. See this from  Ludo Thierry (former French board-game champion)

‘Did people notice the Westminster vote last night regarding Clause 10 ‘Review of retrospective VAT refunds for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority’?

This provided an opportunity for Scotland’s vital Emergency Services to recoup the VAT money that has been stolen by the UK Treasury since the Scotland-wide Services were established – which represents a very considerable sum (if my memory serves I’m recalling a cumulative figure of approx. £140M). At the last Budget the Tories made great play of abandoning these absurd VAT charges and implementing a ‘de-rating’ (equivalent to that enjoyed by the Emergency Services operating everywhere else within the UK) – but didn’t backdate the change. In particular, the UK Govt reported that they had been ‘convinced’ of the justice of this claim by the powerful rhetoric and representations of Col. Davidson’s 13 MPs.

Fast forward to last night. Col. Davidson’s 13 became (yet again) an ‘Unlucky 13’ for Scotland. SNP voted for the amendment, Labour (including their North Brit branch MPs) voted for it too. Col. Davidson’s troopers voted en masse against Clause 10. As did Fluffy’s new bag carrier Alberto Costa. As did The Col’s reported Westminster mentor Nicholas Soames. We are left pondering what, precisely, The Col’s views were on this matter. It would seem to any rational person that a supposed ‘leader’ of a supposed ‘Scottish’ Tory party would move heaven and earth to enable the Scottish Parlt to get hold of the multiple millions of £s stolen from it – and find useful ways to invest it in Scotland’s Police and Fire and Rescue Services. However – we are dealing with britnats – not rational people – so who knows what The Col. wanted to happen? What we do know (indisputably) is that the ‘Scottish’ tory MPs voted en bloc WITH Theresa May (and Rees Mogg) and AGAINST Scotland. It is vital that this further example of their reckless endangerment of Scotland is loudly bruited to every airt and pairt of our land.

(Oh – in case you’re wondering – I couldn’t see any of the 3 ‘Scottish’ Lib Dems even turning up for the vote. Given their constant vendetta against Scotland’s Police and Fire and Rescue Services why do I not find that surprising?). Hansard voting record below:’

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-02-21/division/F655F2A1-A1DD-4802-B38C-F803518BF5B5/Finance(No2)Bill?outputType=Names

On Monday, Lib Dem health spokesman Alex Cole-Hamilton accused the Scottish Government of a ‘chronically chaotic approach to workforce planning.’ See:

Lib Dems provide STV and Herald with cheap and shabby copy on NHS consultant costs

Today, the Independent wrote, based on official figures releases:

‘More than 100,000 NHS posts unfilled, reveal ‘grim’ official figures: Quarterly data released by regulator NHS Improvement today, for the year to December, shows the 234 NHS trusts in England “employ 1.1 million whole-time-equivalent staff but that they have 100,000 vacancies”. Health service bosses are saying the findings are “extremely worrying” and a sign of “astonishingly bad planning”.’

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-posts-staffing-recruitment-official-figures-healthcare-hospitals-a8221961.html

So, compared to 9-10% vacancies in England what are the levels in Scotland? Well there is no global figure but for nursing and midwifery, it’s 4.5% and for consultants, it’s 7.7%.

First, in response, the Scottish Government has increased training of nurses by 3.2% and doctors by 1.9%.

http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Workforce/Publications/2017-12-05/2017-12-05-Workforce-Summary.pdf?21445864440

Second, even with the 4.5% shortfall, the number of nurses and midwives per head of population, in NHS Scotland, would still be higher than in NHS England.

How many nurses are there in Scotland? Well, in Nursing, excluding Midwifery, there were 56 468.2 FTE in September 2017.

http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Workforce/Publications/data-tables2017.asp

Here’s NHS England nurse staffing as a comparison. When I saw the figures, I found them to be hard to believe, at first, so I double checked them:

The Kings Fund states:

‘The number of nursing staff (nurses and health visitors) has increased by 1.8 per cent from 281,064 FTEs in 2010 to 286 020 FTEs in 2017.’

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-staffing-numbers

I checked again with the UK Government site to find confirmation:

‘There were 314,966 Nurses & health visitors, an increase of 2,790 (0.9%) since 2014. There were 281,474 FTE Nurses & health visitors, an increase of 2,494 (0.9%) since 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/511519/nhs-staf-2015-over-rep.pdf

Can you see why I doubted the figures? They suggest that Scotland with only 10% of England’s population has 19% of the number of nurses or nearly twice as many per head of population. Now, I know we have more remote and underpopulated areas where you would expect to need more teachers, GPs or nurses, per head of population but that still looks like a very big difference which could, of course, be a factor in NHS Scotland’s superior performance.

See also, on GP numbers:

As anti-SNP media scrabble desperately for a crisis in NHS Scotland, GP numbers hold constant and access for patients remains far better than in any other part of the UK

Footnote: A few readers seem to think I’m taking pleasure in the crisis in NHS England. I don’t. The ordinary people of England are the first victims of this horrific political administration. I truly regret that. My purpose is, I thought, clear. I wish to defend NHS Scotland and by association the SNP administration from the lying and distorted attacks of the Scottish media and its Unionist party friends. That’s all.

(c) bitsonline.com

The above headline is from Oil Industry News and was covered by Energy Voice yesterday:

The ominously named Kraken field, 75 miles east of Shetland and developed by EnQuest with Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy has been pumping 50 000 barrels per day for some time it seems. According to the report:

‘The company expects to generate huge amounts of cash from the fields which it could use to reduce its $1.9bn debt pile. However, EnQuest expects to be able to generate big profits on the output from the field. The company reckons its production costs will average $24pb this year.’

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/16150/boom-in-production-from-giant-shetland-field-spurs-oil-industry/

$24pb production costs seem a bit high when the BP chief predicted $12pb last year. This may be a more difficult site to extract from. On the other hand, it wouldn’t do to overstate potential profit margins publicly would it?

Either way, 50 000bpd at even today’s prices means income of £3.25 million per day or £1.18 billion per year, from one field!

This is the third report suggesting that peak demand for oil is a long way off. Last year, the CE’s of both Aramco and Chevron predicted peak demand being 20 to 30 years ahead. See:

Is Peak Oil still 20 or 30 years in the future and so, would an independent Scotland be rich?

Now BP have joined the debate suggesting:

‘The mix of fuels is to be the “most diverse” the world has ever seen, as global energy demand is set to increase driven by emerging economies like China and India and use of gasoline and diesel cars. Demand for oil is expected to grow through much of the outlook period, however this is set to plateau at around 110 million barrels of oil per day in the mid-2030s, according to BP’s chief economist Spencer Dale.’

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/164117/global-oil-demand-peak-late-2030s-says-bp/

This news further reinforces the view that prices will say high for decades to come resulting in massive flows into to the UK or Scottish treasuries. The choice is ours. See:

Billions to flow to UK Treasury as Scottish oil prices reach nearly $65 per barrel

Contrary to media doomsayers, it’s now clear that Scotland has the resources to exploit this market, in both the North Sea:

New technology to extend life of North Sea oilfields. Reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated

and, even more so, west of Shetland:

Estimates of Scotland’s oil reserves West of Shetland now massively increased to around 8 billion barrels! ‘A super-resource now on the cards.’

8 billion barrels at £65pb or even more later means, not counting the North Sea flows, a total of £520 billion earned by the oil companies. Scope for a lot of tax revenue there I’d say.

The Social Bite charity has raised £3 million mainly from the 8 000 people who took part in ‘Sleep in the Park’ last December, in Edinburgh’s Princes Street Gardens. This will enable around 600 homes to be provided for vulnerable rough sleepers and to help them sustain the tenancies.

The first homes will be available in a few months. Around 33 will be released every month until September 2019. From Scottish Housing News today:

‘The 600 Homes campaign follows a ‘Housing First’ model, which gives people a secure home and then puts in place a support structure to help them sustain their tenancy and re-integrate into society.’

http://www.scottishhousingnews.com/19938/600-rough-sleeps-offered-housing-social-bite-campaign/

A Scandinavian scheme, ‘Housing First’, is already being piloted in parts of Scotland. What is distinctive about this scheme is that it prioritises getting people off the streets first and into a stable home environment before tackling the problems such as drug addiction which may have been the initial cause of their homelessness. See this, on a Finnish scheme, reported in the Guardian in 2016:

‘The housing first model is quite simple: when people are homeless, you give them housing first – a stable home, rather than progressing them through several levels of temporary and transitional accommodation. The idea stems from the belief that people who are homeless need a home, and other issues that may cause them to be at risk of homelessness can be addressed once they are in stable housing. Homeless people aren’t told they must conquer their addictions or secure a job before being given a home: instead it is accepted that having a home can make solving health and social problems much easier.’

Homelessness in Finland is in steep decline, the scheme is considered a great success there and has been copied in Sweden. Knowing what we know about the UK government, I’m sure none will be surprised that the only reason given for not adopting such a scheme in a UK Parliament report was this:

‘We are cautious about investing further in housing first in England because of the severity of England’s homelessness challenge and the scarcity of funding and of social housing.’

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/14/lessons-from-finland-helping-homeless-housing-model-homes

In sharp contrast, the Scottish government clearly holds to more communitarian or humanitarian values and the First Minister has now said she would like to see the scheme expanded. Reported in the Sunday Post, she said:

‘The housing first model is already being used in certain parts of Scotland with quite significant success, and it is an approach that I am very interested to see extended by us and local authorities. I agree with the underpinning principles of the housing first model, because the approach is about responding very quickly to initial need but also looking at how a package of support can be put around somebody who is homeless and needs accommodation.’

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/sturgeons-backing-for-scandinavian-homeless-scheme/

One more wee bit of evidence that we want to run things a bit differently up here?

Principal Mahoney of UWS and Universities Scotland

(c) http://americanprofile.com

Andrew Denholm, who should know, mistakenly claims today that Scottish universities want a say on tuition fees. He’s mixed up the 19 individuals who are the principals and the exclusive members of something called Universities Scotland with the multitude making up Scottish universities. Here’s how they describe themselves:

‘Universities Scotland is the (sic) representative body of Scotland’s 19 higher education institutions. We develop policy on behalf of the university sector and campaign publicly on higher education issues.’

https://www.universities-scotland.ac.uk/

They’re wrong about the ‘the’ there. A university consists of the thousands of students attending it, the thousands of staff working in it, the governors and the principal. University principals do not speak for the whole university unless they’ve consulted everyone and have a consensus on something.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16034113.Scottish_universities_demand_say_on_tuition_fees/

They absolutely do not have a consensus on tuition fees. Indeed, almost everyone in Scottish universities apart from a handful of senior staff wants nothing to do with fees.

I’m reminded now of University of the West of Scotland principal, Craig Mahoney’s media intervention in 2015, when he called for a debate on tuition fees in Scotland. he had only just arrived in Scotland from Tasmania via England so knew SFA about the Scottish education system and its 500-year history of universal free education.

In a BBC report at the time, we read from the Student Association:

‘Students at UWS and across Scotland have consistently rejected the idea of tuition fees. This consumerist ideology creates unnecessary barriers to education. We firmly believe that the reintroduction of tuition fees is wrong – morally and economically. The Students’ Association and its members believe education is a right not a privilege and that students and staff at UWS are losing confidence in the principal over this matter.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31542173

Feeling safe in my imminent retirement, I emailed the entire University to remind Mahoney of the error of his thinking. No other member of staff openly supported him, but most were justifiably too scared to say anything.

(c) http://paradiseintheworld.com

From Insider business magazine today:

‘Edinburgh’s strong economic performance and high proportion of skilled and educated workers have made it the UK’s most attractive city for inward investment, according to a new report. The study by design and consultancy firm Arcadis put the Scottish capital ahead of cities such as Liverpool on fourth and Coventry at fifth. London came in at seventh, highlighting what Arcadis described as the challenges associated with sustaining the growth of some of the UK’s most established economic centres.’

Edinburgh came first of 24 UK cities, assessed against six criteria deemed crucial for future inward investment and growth: business environment, workforce and skills, infrastructure performance, housing, place and “city brand”.

https://www.insider.co.uk/news/edinburgh-investment-trust-share-price-12052691

This comes soon after two other reports praising Edinburgh:

‘Edinburgh ranked second in the world for quality of life’

More bad news for Ruth and Kezia: ‘Edinburgh is most active UK city for innovation outside London’

Glasgow also featured in:

Edinburgh and Glasgow come second and third in survey of UK cities’ ‘smartness’

Finally, the whole country scored highly in this:

And another one: ‘Scotland Revealed as Top Place in UK to Launch New Business’

Plenty good news, easily at hand, Reporting Scotland.

The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) says:

‘Your rights include things like your right to be free from violence, your freedom to follow a religion, your privacy, your rights at work, adequate housing and food, to health and social security, to help from the law, and more. These rights are protected by international and domestic laws.’

But not everyone agrees. A survey by the SHRC found that:

‘54% of those who voted ‘Yes’ in the Scottish independence referendum are human rights

supporters, compared to 32% who voted ‘No’. Looking at how people voted in the 2015

Westminster elections: 49% of SNP voters, 46% of Lib Dem voters and 43% of Labour voters are human rights supporters; compared to 17% of Conservative voters.’

http://www.scottishhumanrights.com/media/1754/building_a_human_rights_culture_scotland.pdf

Well I suppose it could be worse but I’m still just a bit disappointed by the size of the margins.

As for the Scottish Tories, well 17% of them have made a big mistake and the others can just go back to where their values came from – Mordor?