Talking-up Scotland

(c) News Group Newspapers Ltd

On 30^th December, STV uncritically allowed the ill-informed views of Tory shadow health secretary, Miles Briggs (above), to completely misrepresent the scale and the effects of a small reduction in the number of beds available in Scottish hospitals. See:

STV falls for Tory misrepresentation of scale and effects of hospital bed reductions as NHS Scotland exceeds NHS England provision by 50%

Today, the Scotsman lazily takes its turn to act as the uncritical friend, for any Unionist party with another free story, from Briggs, of how ‘Scotland should look to Norway to help our ailing NHS.’

He wrote:

‘On a recent trip to Norway, I saw first-hand how the country has been able to eradicate delayed discharge – they have a fully integrated patient information system so that doctors and carers are able to see live information on people to deliver the best care and perhaps most importantly take into account what care and support patients want.’

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/miles-briggs-scotland-should-look-to-norway-to-help-our-ailing-nhs-1-4660226

Now, neither Miles nor the Scotsman offer any hard research evidence. We just have to take his word based on a wee trip and being shown, presumably, a few good examples. However, when I saw the Norwegian link, I immediately remembered a 2015 research study from the US Commonwealth Foundation which did not rate their service as highly as the NHS (all of it). I’ll return to that below. However, I thought I should find something more recent too. See this on delayed discharge in Norway, from 2016. Titled ‘Using fees to reduce bed-blocking: A game between hospitals and care providers’ by Snorre Kverndokk (it is quite a sleep-inducing read) and Hans Olav Melberg, the research is very critical of the system being used in Norway to achieve the results Miles Briggs was so enamoured with. There’s a strong hint in the title. Here are two short extracts from the conclusions:

‘To reduce bed-blocking, a fee was introduced (NOK 4000) that the municipalities have to pay the hospitals for patients who are ready to be discharged to municipal care services, but unable to leave because the municipalities do not provide the necessary services. To be eligible to receive the fee, the hospitals have to notify the municipalities in advance of patients who need municipal services. In this case, the fee applies from the first day the patient is considered ready to be discharged.’ (p27)

So, using Scottish terminology, our local authorities would have to pay a fee to our hospitals if they could not accommodate the patients being discharged. Reading on, we see:

‘The increase in municipal activity was almost the double of what is indicated by the net effect. One interpretation of the results may be that the financial incentives count more than the health incentives.’ (p28)

So, the hospital management is incentivised to discharge as many patients as possible and as early as possible to get as much income from the local authorities as they can. That’s just what happened in Norway.

https://www.med.uio.no/helsam/forskning/nettverk/hero/publikasjoner/skriftserie/2016/2016-2.pdf

Imagine the Unionist media reaction to such a scandal in Scotland?

There’s more. A 2015 study of primary care in ten countries carried out by the Commonwealth Foundation in New York found the NHS across the UK to be better than most and, notably, better than that in Norway on most indicators. See these few examples especially relevant to this topic of discharges and care in the community:

1. Primary Care Doctors’ Communication with Emergency Department and Hospital: Percent who report they always receive notification when a patient is seen in the ED and when a patient is discharged from the hospital: UK 32%, Norway 25%
2. Practice Uses Nurses or Case Managers to Monitor and Manage Care for Patients with Chronic Conditions: UK 96%, Norway 65%
3. Practice Staff Frequently Make Home Visits: UK 84%, Norway 20%
4. Doctor Routinely Receives Computerized Reminder for Guideline-Based Intervention or Screening Test: UK 77%, Norway 10%

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2015/dec/primary-care-physicians-in-ten-countries

Footnote: I was able to get a breakdown of the UK data to reveal that NHS Scotland was the best-performing of the four UK areas. To read more on this see:

Scottish GPs: Most satisfied and least stressed in the UK and possibly the world

I rest my case.

From CNBC today:

‘Brent crude oil hit a more than three-year high on Thursday, breaking through the psychologically important $70 a barrel level for the first time since December 2014. Brent, the international benchmark for oil prices, was last up 6 cents at $69.26 a barrel. It earlier spiked to $70.05 in morning trade, touching its highest level since Dec. 4, 2014, when the contract hit $70.60. Oil prices have been supported by stronger-than-expected demand fuelled by worldwide economic growth, ongoing output limits by OPEC and Russia and a series of global events that have stoked geopolitical tension.’

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/11/brent-crude-rockets-to-3-year-high-above-70.html

The report doesn’t explain why $70pb is ‘psychologically important but it is a whopping increase from around $24pb in 2016. My psyche got a wee boost. With production costs falling to $12pb the UK treasury must surely be raking in billions.

As I can’t watch Reporting Scotland or listen to Good Morning Scotland, I’ve no idea if this news is being hailed there. I have my doubts though.

I know that there’s much more to the Independence cause than oil and that high prices can damage other parts of the economy not to mention our own driving costs but the alleged end to oil revenues was used as a stick to beat us with in 2014 and must be countered this time. Remember also, experts have changed their views on how long we could be earning from this. See:

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

‘Quick, the Curriculum for Excellence advisors are right behind us!’

(c) http://messianicapologetics.net

Under the headline:

‘Workload, stress and pay blamed for exodus of teachers at Scottish schools.’

we read:

‘A significant proportion of more experienced teachers have left the profession in Scotland since 2010. Schools have faced an exodus of their most experienced teachers over the past seven years at a time of unprecedented upheaval in the sector. Analysis of statistics from the Scottish Government show there has been a 21 per cent reduction in the number of teachers aged 45 and over since 2010 – accounting for some 5000 members of school staff.’

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15825894.Scottish_schools_facing_exodus_of_experienced_staff/

Once more, a deliberately (?) misleading headline and deliberate or confused use of statistics to try to construct a crisis out of nothing.

First, 21% of teachers over 45, leaving in 7 years is equivalent to around 3% per year – natural turnover or an exodus? The former I think. There are 51 500 teachers in Scottish schools. If we didn’t have that kind of retirement rate, what would be the point in training new teachers? Second, ‘exodus of teachers’ is used in the headline to imply teachers of all ages and experience when in fact we are only talking about older teachers. Third, to talk of ‘unprecedented upheaval’ is to reveal a lack of knowledge of the history of education in Scotland over the last 50 years. I remember well the very same melodramatic reaction to curriculum change in the 80s and 90s. Fourth, are younger teachers commonly less effective than older ones? I spent 30 years in teacher-training and, in visits to schools, met many highly-skilled, energetic and enthusiastic younger teachers who, also, were up-to-date with curriculum change and approved of it. I also met a few older teachers who had become negative, unenthusiastic and who were resistant to change, any change.

Finally, ‘workload and stress’ – Scottish schools are far better-staffed than those in England. The teacher-pupil ratio in Secondary schools is particularly generous.

There are now 543 more teachers in Scottish schools. In 2017, only 631 P1 pupils were taught in classes of more than 26 compared to 16 845 in 2006 at the end of the Lab/Lib Dem coalition.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/620825/SFR25_2017_MainText.pdf

There are 51 500 teachers in Scottish schools and the pupil/teacher ratio is now 13.6 pupils per teacher, down from (better than) 13.7 in 2016. This ratio is an important indicator of the time teachers have to engage with pupils and is likely to have played a major part in narrowing attainment gaps.

http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0052/00528868.pdf

In England, there were 457 300 teachers in 2016, up by 400 from 2015. The pupil/teacher ratio in 2016 was 17.6 pupils per teacher. England’s population is almost exactly ten times that of Scotland, so you might have expected there to be around 515 000 teachers there. The increase of 400 teachers, in England, from 2015 to 2016, is small when compared with the Scottish Government’s increase of 543 between 2016 and 2017 in a country with a tenth of the population.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/620825/SFR25_2017_MainText.pdf

So, the pupil/teacher ratio in Scotland is significantly better than that in England. That must translate into more manageable workloads and reduced stress. I don’t deny the possibility that some are feeling over-worked and stressed but given the many positive factors in the job compared to many others in the economy, I seriously doubt an exodus. Have a word with nurses, cleaners, GPs, social workers and ask how many would like better conditions and get the same answers, or even more negative ones, as you would from teachers.

(c) morrisonconstruction.co.uk

As the USA begins to face decades of neglect of its infrastructure, the World Economic Forum has identified Scotland’s new Queensferry Crossing project as a model example of good practice. I don’t seem to remember BBC Scotland, Kezia or Ruth saying that.

In quite an extended and detailed piece, the WEF open with:

‘The UK’s new Queensferry Crossing bridge, connecting Edinburgh to Fife in Scotland, offers an example on how to do it. Three good practices contributed to the high-quality process and outcomes: the UK planners diagnosed the problem early; took their time with careful design upfront; and built and sustained an inclusive coalition of stakeholders. The evidence speaks for itself. The Queensferry Crossing – a three-tower cable-stayed bridge with a length of 1.7 miles – opened in early September, well within budget and with a manageable 8-month time delay. This is a rare occurrence among bridges. According to research at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, nine out of 10 fixed links (bridges and tunnels) suffer an average cost overrun of 34% and a time delay of roughly 2 years.’

The authors then contrast the Queensferry Crossing project will the ill-fated Bay Bridge in California

‘The American bridge – a self-anchored single tower suspension bridge with a length of 2.2 miles – blew its budget, costing US$6.5 billion, and took roughly 24 years to complete, nearly a decade past its initial projected completion date. Conversely, the Queensferry, comparable in scope to the Bay Bridge, took roughly 11 years to plan and build at almost a quarter of the price. The Bay Bridge cost estimate drifted upwards through its life: it started at $1 billion (in 1996) and was revised upwards several times: to $1.3b (1997); $2.6b (2001); $5.5b (2005); and finally, to the actual cost of $6.5b (actual outturn cost in 2015). The pain has not gone away since the opening of the bridge: costly litigation and quality disputes continue. Meanwhile, San Francisco commuters pay the price at the tolls every day.’

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/11/what-america-can-learn-from-a-bridge-in-scotland/?utm_content=bufferbeb72&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I really wish I’d had this report earlier to smack down the ill-informed and petty Unionist criticism of the Queensferry Crossing project. If you know anyone connected with the project or in the SNP government, they might be pleased to read this.

(c) bam.co.uk and vandadundee.org

From the STV News website:

‘As part of its annual travel list, the publication [New York Times] has compiled a rundown of 52 must-visit cities in 2018. Glasgow was in tenth place and the only city in the UK to make the list.’

‘The CNN article celebrated the Dundee Waterfront scheme, which is set to hit crucial landmarks in 2018 including the opening of the new £80m V&A Museum of Design.’

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1406039-glasgow-named-one-of-the-top-places-to-visit-in-2018/

Glasgow’s two new distilleries and the Riverside Museum were factors in its placing while the £80 million V&A Museum played a big part in Dundee’s entry.

It’s especially good to see Scotland’s two ‘Yes cities’ doing so well. These awards come in the wake of others such as:

Rough Guide readers have just voted Scotland to be the most beautiful country in the world!

Scotland wins two Rough Guide Readers’ Awards – Favourite destination and most welcoming country.

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

Just good news with no buts.

From the HESA statistics and reported on the gov.scot website:

‘The number of people studying education at a Scottish university has increased by 10% in a year, according to statistics published today. Latest figures released by the Higher Education Statistics Agency for 2016-17 show an extra 1,335 students enrolled in courses to study education – the largest percentage increase of all subject areas and contrasting with a decline of 3% across the whole of the UK. Science-based subjects also saw a 3% rise in student numbers – with an extra 3,800 people enrolled in courses and outpacing the rate of increase across the rest of the UK. In particular, the number of students taking a computer science course in Scotland rose by 9% compared to 2015-16.’

Over the 10-year period of SNP administration, the number of Scots starting full-time degree courses has gone up 12%.

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-higher-education-student-statistics

https://news.gov.scot/news/further-increase-in-scots-studying-at-university

The increases in education and science are particularly welcome to help Scotland maintain its already superior ratio of teachers to pupils. The teacher education numbers are, of course, controlled by Scottish government funding. See:

SNP Government increases teacher numbers to create far superior pupil/teacher ratios and much smaller attainment gaps than in England

Writing on the 10^th of January 2018, the Scotsman headlined:

‘Scotland youth unemployment target met four years ahead of schedule’

then went on to write:

‘The goal of reducing the youth unemployment total, excluding full time students, by 40 per cent was achieved last year. The target was confirmed in the annual progress report on the Scottish Government’s Developing the Young Workforce programme.’

https://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland-youth-unemployment-target-met-four-years-ahead-of-schedule-1-4658249

The Scotsman report doesn’t mention the actual reduction in youth unemployment. It was 48.3% against a target of 40%. They don’t mention where this places Scotland in a wider context. Context, who needs context? The readers do. See below for some context.

On the 10^th October 2017, three months earlier, I’d written:

Scottish Government meets its youth employment target four years early to place Scotland as among the most successful in Europe

and added:

‘Youth unemployment in Scotland is 9.4%, a decrease of 48.3% since 2014. The target was 40%. The table below reveals the shockingly high level of youth employment across much of Europe. Scotland’s figure is amongst the best in Europe and significantly better than for the UK as a whole.

 Scotland would come in 5th best out of 29, on youth unemployment, just after Slovenia.

This achievement is impressive and is testimony to the Scottish government’s initiatives including the Developing the Young Workforce programme based on education, improved careers advice, work experience and modern apprenticeship opportunities. Most recently, they have announced £96 million of funding to create fairer employment support services to help the disabled and those facing social and economic barriers to get into and to stay in work.’

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

https://news.gov.scot/news/youth-employment-target-met-four-years-ahead-of-schedule

Oh well, better later and less than never at all?

I don’t recognise the source of these graphs but they are based on data from official NHS statistics (sources below) and can thus be checked. I’ve checked the more recent figures. In the light of the recent attempts of the Scottish media to construct a ‘meltdown’ here, the images are very useful.

Note that these are the figures for only Type 1 English A&E departments. Only these have consultants within them and only these are comparable with A&E departments elsewhere in the UK. According to the BBC [and me[: ‘The Scottish figures are compiled separately to the NHS figures in England but are “broadly comparable” to type 1 emergencies south of the border. The NHS England also publishes a figure which includes walk-in clinics, minor injury units and specialist emergency units.’However, even when we allow the inclusion of all types of English ‘A&E departments’, we see this:

 

Here’s where I got them. Thanks to Alan Sharpe for drawing my attention to them.

http://public.tableau.com/views/AEPerformance-EnglandScotlandWalesandNorthernIreland/EnglandScotlandWalesandNorthernIrelandAllTypesageWithin4Hours?%3Aembed=y&%3AshowVizHome=no&%3Adisplay_count=y&%3Adisplay_static_image=y

Here are the sources for some of the data used in the graphs if you’d like to check them. for NHS England:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/ae-waiting-times-and-activity/ae-attendances-and-emergency-admissions-2017-18/

You’ll get the Scottish data here but it’s published weekly so you’d have to add up monthly figures to compare with the graphs.

http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Emergency-Care/Publications/index.asp#2082

 

 

(c) PA

From Reuters, yesterday:

‘The Scottish government said on Wednesday it was preparing legislation that would ensure legal continuity in Scotland after Brexit as a fall-back option in case it fails to reach agreement with Prime Minister Theresa May on her exit plan. Scottish ministers are unhappy with several elements of May’s approach to legally enacting Britain’s exit from the European Union, including the way that powers reclaimed from Brussels will be distributed back to Scotland. The Scottish government has said it is not willing to give its consent until concerns about devolution are addressed. With that in mind, Scotland’s ministers said they wanted to start contingency planning by preparing the Scottish parliament for the introduction of its own bill designed to ensure legal continuity after leaving the EU.’

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-scotland/scotland-prepares-contingency-brexit-laws-in-stand-off-with-london-government-idUSKBN1EZ1Z9?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29

This is, in the main, an attempt to prevent any power grab, by Westmonster, of the 111 devolved powers currently held by the EU. Allegedly, due to the lack spine or commitment of the Secretary of State, David Muddle, the porn investigation into Demon Greene and the Christmas hols, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill will go to the House of Lords for final scrutiny without amendments to protect devolution. There are of course no SNP lords.

I’m looking forward to hearing Nicola’s reaction and to seeing her face as she attempts to send them all to the naughty step. She’ll tell them!

Seriously though, this conflict can only strengthen the Yes campaign as even BBC Scotland News cannot hope to hide this scandalous show of contempt for Scotland, leaving us even more bitter together.

(c) totalpolitics.com

Despite the increased competition this time, David Mundell has been reappointed as ‘Secretary of State for Scotland’. Last time he was only up against his own reputation, being the only Scottish Tory MP. This time he had to fight hard against the ‘rich talent’ in the new cohort of Scottish tory MPs. Can you name any of them and comment on speeches they’ve made in Parliament? Me neither.

Can you see him above? He’s away at the end on the left with easily the biggest (shit-eating?) grin on his face, of any of them.

Seriously though, I’m really pleased we’ve been able to retain him, the useless lump. He’s just what the Yes campaign needs to throw things at on a regular basis.

I’m not going to waste my day researching all the reports of his failures so far to protect Scotland. It’s enough, for the moment to remind you of his incredible failure to fight for the amendment of Clause 11 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill before the final stage of scrutiny in the Commons. Clause 11 is the part which should have included a commitment to protect devolution from a Westminster power grab of up to 111 currently devolved responsibilities held by the EU. Despite Mundell’s presence in the Cabinet, they apparently ran out of time to make the amendments. Aye sure they did?

SNP Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, told Mundell:

‘David, do your job. You’re there to be the Secretary of State for Scotland. Demonstrate to the country that you can do that.’

He’s going to be a very useful idiot as the Indyref2 campaign gets going.