Talking-up Scotland

In the 27 days since January 4^th, BBC Scotland has reported serious ‘problems’ in NHS Scotland 18 times! STV have only reported 7 times. I’ve dismantled nearly all of the BBC reports elsewhere on this site. Most were inaccurate, distorted or dramatized. Many were fed to the BBC by the Labour or Tory parties. The difference is marked – more than twice as many on BBC. This is clear evidence on the part of BBC Scotland to use (abuse?) NHS Scotland as a weapon with which to attack the SNP government, often on behalf of the other parties, despite the very real (researched- see below) risk of harm to potential patients, patients, relatives and staff, made highly anxious and/or demoralised by this cold-hearted campaign of distortion and lies.

I’ve been keeping a note, for Reporting Scotland and STV since 1^st January 2017. I plan, of course to release a more full report later but I think there’s a place for interim reports so here’s the third. I’ll be comparing BBC and STV evening news broadcasts to use the latter as a kind of benchmark for what is reasonable and not openly anti-independence propaganda. I’m now fairly sure that STV have made a commercial decision not to drive away their many Yes-supporting viewers, in the interests of maintaining their advertising revenue.

I’ve discussed the actual flaws in the reports which make them clearly ‘scare stories’ rather than responsible news reporting, elsewhere on this site at:

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/01/11/weaponising-scotlands-health-service-how-bbc-scotland-is-developing-a-new-project-fear-part-1-1st-to-10th-january-2017/

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/01/21/15-to-6-weaponising-scotlands-health-service-how-bbc-scotland-is-developing-a-new-project-fear-part-2-1st-to-20th-january-2017/

From the 20^th to the 31^st of January we had a further three, one of which was echoed by STV giving the poor viewers of Reporting Scotland a total of 18 NHS Scotland scare stories in the space of only 27 days. STV only reported 7 in the same period.

The latest reports on BBC Scotland were:

23^rd: Two health boards paid more than £1500 for an agency nurse to cover a single shift. This was provided by a Freedom of Information request form the Conservative Party who branded it ‘a slap in the face to NHS staff nurses.’

24^th: ‘Hospital waiting times slightly improved but still below key targets’

26^th: NHS Grampian says it can’t confirm when new dates will be given to patients for cancelled (sic) operations. The Health Board has postponed more than 100 procedures since the beginning of November.’

STV also covered the more objective story on the 24^th. The other two were presumably not fed to it by opposition party sources or they didn’t think them newsworthy. I’ve dismantled the news value of the other two at:

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/01/24/scottish-tories-feed-bbc-reporting-scotland-with-more-distortions-to-mislead-the-public-as-nhs-scotland-under-the-snp-massively-reduces-the-cost-of-agency-nurses-and-nhs-england-under-the-tories-l/

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/01/30/were-they-cancelled-operations-or-really-just-postponed-operations-were-there-a-lot-or-not-a-lot-bbc-scotlands-merciless-context-free-campaign-of-words-against-nhs-scotland-and-the-snp-gove/

After a month, the picture is now very clear. BBC Reporting Scotland remain, it seems, desperate to undermine the Scottish Government at every turn using, irresponsibly, NHS Scotland as a weapon.

The possible negative effects on potential patients, patients, relatives and staff, of this strategy, are discussed more fully and referenced with evidence at:

Is BBC Reporting Scotland’s ‘Weaponising’ of NHS Scotland likely to actually increase both physical and mental health problems?

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/01/12/is-bbc-reporting-scotlands-weaponising-of-nhs-scotland-likely-to-actually-increase-both-physical-mental-health-problems/

Nah pop no style, a strictly roots
Nah pop no style, a strictly roots

(c) http://dogtime.com/

31^st January 2017

I needed a break from hunting down the Scottish mainstream media so I thought I’d try something different and report on three good news stories about Scotland to boost our self-esteem. Anyway, there wasn’t much to get really angry about on Reporting Scotland last night.

BBC Scotland reported on the Reggae-loving dogs on their website but not the other two good news stories about Scottish achievements. If you add making sonic screwdrivers and magic honey to our whisky exports, our economic success is surely assured.

I’ll do the dugs last. First our super honey that is just as good as that expensive Manuka stuff and cheaper. See this from January 24^th 2017:

‘Certain Scottish honeys have shown antimicrobial activities equal to that of commercial ‘super-honeys’ and may be useful in the ongoing fight against antibiotic-resistant bacteria, scientists at the James Hutton Institute and Queen Margaret University (QMU) have found. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, such as Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, are a major source of concern. According to the World Health Organisation, new resistance mechanisms continue to emerge and spread globally, threatening our ability to treat common infectious diseases and endangering the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations.’

http://www.hutton.ac.uk/news/scottish-honeys-%E2%80%98exceptional%E2%80%99-fight-against-superbugs

Needless to say BBC Scotland were more interested in foreign honey back in 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13047332

Also making a big contribution to medical breakthroughs as well as presumably boosting our economy, see this from January 29^th 2017:

‘Experts at the University of Dundee in Scotland have managed to create Doctor Who’s sonic screwdriver. Scientists created a machine that utilises ultrasound to rotate objects. This is the first time ultrasound waves have been facilitated in this way. The experts also stated that further research could allow doctors to perform future surgery using the ultrasonic technology, thus allowing surgeons a way to perform operations without cutting into the patient. Using direct ultrasonic waves can also enable a more successful treatment and outcome, they say.’

Brilliant! Maybe I’ll get my prostate done now without the high risk of incontinence, impotence and something else.

http://anonhq.com/researchers-from-scotland-invented-a-real-sonic-screwdriver/

BBC didn’t report on the screwdriver this month but did back in 2012! Did we invent a time machine too? BBC Scotland has kept it secret in case we use it to go back and kill Thatcher or Blair? Is this why Peter Capaldi is leaving Dr Who? Time travel sickness?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17760077

Perhaps less important for our economy unless there’s a tourism or therapy spin-off, of some kind, see this:

‘Professor Neil Evans added, “Overall, the response to different genres was mixed highlighting the possibility that like humans, our canine friends have their own individual music preferences. “That being said, reggae music and soft rock showed the highest positive changes in behaviour.”’

So, we copyright a therapy for badly-behaved dogs using reggae and set up high cost treatment centres like the Priory called ‘Marley (Bob) and Me?’ I take we’re agreed on ‘soft rock?’

https://www.scottishspca.org/newsroom/latest-news/reggae-gets-paw-of-approval/

There doesn’t seem to be much serious competition for this market. Northern Ireland [Belfast]  has gone for Mozart.  See this:

‘Studies show dogs prefer classical music. Dogs spent more time resting when exposed to classical, and more time barking when exposed to heavy metal.’

Did they try reggae or singers who don’t sound like an angry Ian Pasisley?

https://www.rover.com/blog/what-kind-of-music-dogs-like-in/

Where are they going to recruit staff in Northern Ireland who can listen to classical music all day? Any way this looks like an unethical method to just sedate the dogs rather than improve their general behaviour.

Finally, I could find no English research. I don’t think it’s needed really. Surely, they’ll prefer James Blunt or Coldplay?

I’ll try to find a serious issue for tomorrow.

Mr Gary Smith

Head of News and Current Affairs

BBC Scotland

Pacific Quay

Glasgow G51 1DA

31st January 2017

 Dear, Mr Smith

I write directly to you as the BBC Complaints system is not fit for purpose. I hope you will be able to answer my complaint below:

‘NHS Grampian says it cannot confirm when new dates will be given to patients for cancelled (sic) operations. The Health Board has postponed more than 100 procedures since the beginning of November 2016.’ (Reporting Scotland, 26.1.17)

We then heard, via Ruth Davidson (a Tory like the ones actually running NHS England into the ground), the case of a prostate cancer patient where ‘further surgery has been cancelled.’

First, let’s deal with the language. Have these procedures been cancelled or merely postponed? See this:

‘To cancel:

Done, dead, or dusted. To withdraw an offer. Invalidated. Terminated.

 To postpone: To cause or arrange for (an event) to take place at a time later than the time at which it was originally supposed to happen.’

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=

Does anyone really believe that any of these procedures have actually been cancelled or is that just a better word to use if you want to dramatise as a tabloid might? Is it also (see above definitions) a lie? Remember this is the BBC, with a Royal Charter to inform and not the Daily Mail.

Second, NHS Grampian cannot (yet) tell these patients when their not-really-cancelled operations will be carried out. Is that really too long a time? How many other operations will they have to fit the roughly 100 postponed ones around (around 19 000?)? See below on this.

Third, were any of these operations urgent (life-threatening)? In November 2016, alone, NHS England ‘cancelled’ 446 urgent operations. We must assume the Grampian cases were not urgent or BBC Reporting Scotland would surely have put the word in the headline.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/24/number-of-urgent-operations-cancelled-record-high-nhs-england

Fourth, the report had no context but only personalisation. First year journalism students learn that good professional journalism can have the latter to interest the viewer but must also have the former so that the viewer can put the figures in context. Is this postponed prostate case one of many or just the only one? Are more than 100 procedures in roughly 100 days a lot or not a lot? The viewer has a right to know and the BBC with its Royal Charter has a responsibility to inform them. I can’t find out how many procedures in total, NHS Grampian did since November so I’m going to have to do some arithmetic and estimation. I accept the limitations in this but if BBC Scotland won’t put things in context, I must do what I can.

‘Official NHS England figures show about 7.7 million planned operations were carried out in England last year (2015/2016).’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37362405

Scotland has almost exactly one tenth of England’s population so NHS Scotland did 770 000 planned operations? NHS Grampian has almost exactly one tenth of Scotland’s population so did 77 000 planned operations? In a quarter, that would be 19 000 planned operations? More than 100 were postponed in one quarter? If it was much more than 100 the BBC would have said so – 110? 110 out of 19 000 postponed operations is 0.58%? Is that newsworthy? If you can get me the actual number of ‘procedures’ carried out in that or a typical quarter for NHS Grampian, I’ll adapt the figures.

Fifth, here’s another bit of context – NHS England:

‘During the quarter ending 30th September 2016, 19,399 operations were cancelled at the last minute (previous or same day) for non-clinical reasons by NHS providers.’

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/Cancelled-Operations-Stats-PN-Q2-2016-17-1.pdf

England has ten times Scotland’s population so I’m going to estimate again and suggest that would be like 1900 postponed at the last minute in a quarter. So for NHS Grampian, that would be 190 postponed at the last minute in a quarter. Again, if any of those had been cancelled, ‘at the last minute’ might Reporting Scotland have fitted that in somewhere too?

Sixth:

‘Tens of thousands of operations were cancelled by English hospitals last year but not officially counted, figures obtained by the BBC suggest. Official NHS England figures show about 7.7 million planned operations were carried out in England last year (2015/2016). There were 71,370 last-minute cancellations – either on the day the patient was meant to arrive, after they had arrived or on the day the operation was meant to take place. So that’s about four times the figures officially reported by NHS England above.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37362405

If there was even a sniff of this malpractice in NHS Scotland or just NHS Grampian, might Reporting Scotland have mentioned it?

Finally that was Reporting Scotland’s sixteenth ‘scare story’ about the NHS in Scotland since January 4^th 2017. Is that dangerous in that it might put potentially ill people off attending? Viewers of BBC News at 6 will of course have seen evidence of a real crisis or as the Red Cross put it, ‘a humanitarian crisis’.

I hope you will see that these are serious problems and suggest that BBC Reporting Scotland will consider ways of improving its coverage of Scottish affairs.

 

Professor John Robertson

30^th January 2017

‘NHS Grampian says it cannot confirm when new dates will be given to patients for cancelled (sic) operations. The Health Board has postponed more than 100 procedures since the beginning of November 2016.’ (Reporting Scotland, 26.1.17)

We then heard, via Ruth Davidson (a Tory like the ones actually running NHS England into the ground), the case of a prostate cancer patient where ‘further surgery has been cancelled.’

First, let’s deal with the language. Have these procedures been cancelled or merely postponed? See this:

‘To cancel:

Done, dead, or dusted. To withdraw an offer. Invalidated. Terminated.

 To postpone:

To cause or arrange for (an event) to take place at a time later than the time at which it was originally supposed to happen.’

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=

Does anyone really believe that any of these procedures have actually been cancelled or is that just a better word to use if you want to exaggerate and to scare the viewers? Is it also (see above definitions) a lie? Remember this is the BBC, with a Royal Charter to inform and not the Daily Mail. So, Reporting Scotland, was this another scare attempt or just shoddy uneducated journalism. You tell me.

Second, NHS Grampian cannot (yet) tell these patients when their not-really-cancelled operations will be carried out. Is that really too long a time? How many other operations will they have to fit the roughly 100 postponed ones around (around 19 000?)? See below on this.

Third, were any of these operations urgent (life-threatening)? In November 2016, alone, NHS England ‘cancelled’ 446 urgent operations. We must assume the Grampian cases were not urgent or BBC Reporting Scotland would surely have put the word in the headline to make it even ‘better’ as a tabloid headline

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/24/number-of-urgent-operations-cancelled-record-high-nhs-england

Fourth, there is also evidence of shoddy or uneducated journalism from the Misreporting Scotland team. The report had no context but only personalisation. First year journalism students learn that good professional journalism can have the latter to interest the viewer but must also have the former so that the viewer can put the figures in context. Is this postponed prostate case one of many or just the only one? Are more than 100 procedures in roughly 100 days a lot or not a lot? The viewer has a right to know and the BBC with its Royal Charter has a responsibility to inform them. I can’t find out how many procedures in total, NHS Grampian did since November so I’m going to have to do some arithmetic and estimation. I accept the limitations in this but if BBC Scotland won’t put things in context, I must do what I can.

‘Official NHS England figures show about 7.7 million planned operations were carried out in England last year (2015/2016).’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37362405

Scotland has almost exactly one tenth of England’s population so NHS Scotland did 770 000 planned operations? NHS Grampian has almost exactly one tenth of Scotland’s population so did 77 000 planned operations? In a quarter, that would be 19 000 planned operations? More than 100 were postponed in one quarter? If it was much more than 100 the BBC would have said so – 110? 110 out of 19 000 postponed operations is 0.58%? Is that a crisis? If a reader can get me the actual number of ‘procedures’ carried out in that or a typical quarter for NHS Grampian, I’ll adapt the figures.

Fifth, here’s another bit of context – NHS England:

‘During the quarter ending 30th September 2016, 19,399 operations were cancelled at the last minute (previous or same day) for non-clinical reasons by NHS providers.’

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/04/Cancelled-Operations-Stats-PN-Q2-2016-17-1.pdf

England has ten times Scotland’s population so I’m going to estimate again and suggest that would be like 1900 postponed at the last minute in a quarter. So for NHS Grampian, that would be 190 postponed at the last minute in a quarter. Again, if any of those had been cancelled, ‘at the last minute’ might Reporting Scotland have fitted that in somewhere too? I think so.

Sixth:

‘Tens of thousands of operations were cancelled by English hospitals last year but not officially counted, figures obtained by the BBC suggest. Official NHS England figures show about 7.7 million planned operations were carried out in England last year (2015/2016). There were 71,370 last-minute cancellations – either on the day the patient was meant to arrive, after they had arrived or on the day the operation was meant to take place. So that’s about four times the figures officially reported by NHS England above.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37362405

If there was even a sniff of this malpractice in NHS Scotland or just NHS Grampian, do you think Reporting Scotland would have been all over it?

Finally that was Reporting Scotland’s sixteenth ‘scare story’ about the NHS in Scotland since January 4^th 2017. If I was even older and even more sickly, I’d be scared witless of going anywhere near a hospital. Think about that BBC Scotland. Viewers of BBC News at 6 will of course have seen evidence of a real crisis or as the Red Cross put it, ‘a humanitarian crisis’.

So that’s another undergraduate BA journalism fail, Reporting Scotland, for not using context and a big disgusted sigh for everything else in the report.

(c) http://www.jacquetta.net/

29^th January 2016

Today the Herald headlined with:

‘Failure to close attainment gap would be ‘disastrous’ claims education guru’

I agree. Closing the educational attainment gap between students from more affluent and deprived areas is one of the most important ambitions we should have in Scotland. However, the Herald’s ‘guru’ needs to get back to the research if he wants to continue as a ‘guru’ whatever that is supposed to mean. In the context of education it usually means something like: ‘a teacher and especially intellectual guide in matters of fundamental concern.’

Before I get to the substance of Bloomer’s ideas, I have to take issue with the ‘guru’ bit. Maybe the Herald is responsible for this but it’s always important that we don’t go around believing stuff because of alleged reputations. Bloomer is a former teacher of history who moved quickly into management and then ‘consultancy’. Anyone can call themselves a ‘consultant.’  I can see no sign of the evidence for ‘intellectual guide’ or ‘guru’ of any sort. There’s no sign of an earned not honorary  PhD or of any published research into pedagogy or curriculum.

Anyhow, what is Bloomer suggesting we need to do to close the gap? Here’s an extract from the Herald piece:

‘Creating a new system where poor children attend school for more hours and take fewer summer holidays than rich children could be a solution to closing the attainment gap, according to one of the most influential education experts in Scotland. Bloomer highlighted the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York, which describes itself as a “national model for breaking the cycle of poverty” and offers extended-day schools, a ‘baby college’ with a series of workshops for parents of children ages up to three, as well as extensive nursery care. “All over the world there is a relationship between poverty and educational attainment,” he said. “Just about everybody has got the same problem to some extent.’

Ironically Bloomer touches on the actual solution at the end of the quote but it’s not developed. Instead we hear of a New York scheme long shown to have serious problems in being applied anywhere else and without the massive funding it required. I’ll come back to the ‘poverty’ issue later.

First Harlem Children’s Zone in New York is already quite old and has had a great deal of criticism which most ‘gurus’ would have read by now and stopped suggesting we adopt anything like it in Scotland. Here are some from 2010:

• It costs $16 000 per pupil per year as well as further thousands in out-of-school activities
• It requires private donations to keep class sizes small
• Results have already begun to fall after New York State made its exams harder to pass
• Just 15% passed the 2010 state English test
• Administrators can fire teachers for low class scores

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html

Most important of all, the HCZ schools are selective and thus not representative of the wider population. See this:

‘[C]omparing the student populations at Promise Academy with those in the nearby regular public schools is an apples-to-oranges matchup: The HCZ schools serve significantly fewer high-need learners, like special education students or kids who are learning English. For instance, only six percent of the third graders who took the 2007–08 English test at the Promise Academy had disabilities, while disabled kids made up 30, 40, even 60 percent of the test-taking pool in open-enrolment schools in the district. Only a handful of students at the Promise Academies are English-language learners, compared with 14 percent in schools citywide.

Harlem Children’s Zone, “The HCZ Project,” http://hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project (2012)

I could go on. Criticism of the Harlem Scheme is everywhere in the research material. It is ridiculous that ‘one of the most influential education experts in Scotland’ should be allowed, via the Herald, to persuade readers that a scheme can be lifted out of one context and placed into the Scottish. I’m reminded of the recent condemnation of the Scottish PISA scores and the daft idea that we could learn from South Korea’s system of child abuse. See:

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2016/12/08/scotlands-schools-pisa-results-lean-toward-nothing-meaningful-finlands-success-is-not-real-south-korea-and-chinas-educational-programmes-amount/

What just about everyone else knows, despite not being ‘gurus’ is that you cannot resolve educational problems without first resolving the wider social and economic context of inequality. There’s no point faffing about with expensive educational schemes if you’re going to eject the graduates back into a world of deep inequality where regardless of the effects of the scheme, they’ll face the same discrimination as others from the same background.

Spend the effort and the political will in reducing social and economic inequality. Tax really progressively, raise the minimum wage, build more and better houses, improve and reduce the cost of transport, invest in jobs and force the elite universities to take more students from deprived areas.

Footnote: For more on how so called experts keep missing this point see: https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2016/10/30/shouting-operating-theatre-in-a-crowded-fire-imagining-a-crisis-in-nhs-scotland/

 

(c) http://eastayrshireleisure.com/

28^th January 2017

Here are the results from last night:

East Ayrshire – Kilmarnock East and Hurlford

SNP 1,461 (48.7 per cent, +2.1 on 2012)

Labour Party 881 (29.4 per cent, -16.6)

Conservatives 602 (20.1 per cent, +12.7)

Scottish Libertarian Party 53 (1.8 per cent, +1.8)

This is a more impressive result than it might seem at first sight for these reasons:

1. The SNP had already squeezed most of the Labour vote and persuaded them to move over in previous campaigns. To squeeze another 2.1% increase, in the middle of a term of government is still quite an achievement.
2. Tory voters are more likely to turn out and distort the results when only 27% of the overall electorate turnout. 602 sounds like all the Tories in East Ayrshire, I’d say. I hope they checked that they all had pulses.
3. Most important, this result was against the background of an extended BBC Scotland and other media, campaign to undermine the SNP Government’s competence in running NHS Scotland and other services.
4. Related to the above, the local Crosshouse Hospital was the subject of numerous scare stories based on a statistically very small number of events and with no context.

Taking the last first, just from BBC Scotland, since November 2016 and as recently as this month, we saw/heard:

‘Inquiry call over deaths in childbirth at Crosshouse Hospital’

 ‘Crosshouse Hospital baby deaths review announced by minister’

 ‘Inspection finds Crosshouse Hospital ‘under pressure’

 There were six “avoidable deaths” in eight years at Crosshouse Hospital. I don’t know how many actual births there would have been at Crosshouse in that period but in Scotland as a whole it would have been about half a million. None of the reports gave that kind of context.

More widely, since the beginning of this year, BBC Reporting Scotland has reported sixteen times, nearly every night, on a supposed ‘crisis’ in NHS Scotland, evidence –free and much exaggerated if not actually fictional.

Here’s an earlier report on that propaganda campaign, when it was one less scare:

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2017/01/21/15-to-6-weaponising-scotlands-health-service-how-bbc-scotland-is-developing-a-new-project-fear-part-2-1st-to-20th-january-2017/

Despite this, the SNP vote increased. Does this mean no one is watching or, if they do, trusting BBC Reporting Scotland anymore?

The other thing that strikes about this is the continued desertion of former Labour voters to one of the most right-wing Tory parties in a long time. Why were they Labour supporters in the first place if they can give up on that party’s progressive policies so easily? Don’t they realise how much they are voting against the interests of their own communities, against their own employment rights and conditions, against the interests of their elderly parents, against the interests of their disabled relatives? It’s like working-class Americans voting against their own economic interests, as they have done for decades now, just because they want to stop abortions or the presence of gays in the military?

One explanation is that it’s the older Labour voters moving right like older people (Not me!) always have, it’s said:

‘In Britain, age is a strong predictor of how someone will vote in an election. Older people are more supportive of the Conservatives, while younger people more supportive of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and more recently, the Greens. This is not a recent phenomenon. The pattern of Conservative support by age-group for five elections from the last 50 years, based on data from the British Election Study confirms this. Older people are always more likely to support the Conservatives. For example, when I voted for the first time in the 1997 election, only 23% of people my age (20) voted Conservative. In contrast, 42% of people my grandmother’s age (80) supported the Conservatives.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics

The ‘elephant in the room’ here is of course really a bear. Are these former Labour supporters who turn to the Conservative and Unionist Party, Rangers fans?  Well, no, there’s no real evidence that’s true. See this from 2015:

‘More Rangers fans will vote for the SNP than any other party – shattering the myth Bears are all unionists

An online poll by gersnet.co.uk shows the Nationalists will win 30 per cent of the Light Blue vote, a point ahead of Labour. The popular fans forum took a sample survey size of more than 800 and as of around 9pm this morning, the poll also shows the Tories were on just 23 per cent. It’s widely thought Rangers fans are staunch unionists but Stewart Franklin, who runs the website, insists his poll proves this is no longer the case. He said: “There are too many generalisations made of Rangers fans in a social sense & this poll shows just how different our fan-base is politically.”’

 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/more-rangers-fans-vote-snp-5650445

Have things changed since then?

53 of them even voted for the Libertarians! Imagine East Ayrshire run by the Libertarians. It’d be like a Blackadder version of the 16^th Century, with open sewers, public hangings, duels, blood feuds, men in tights and regular cholera outbreaks.

Anyhow, I say ‘well done the local SNP team.’  It was a bigger result that you’ll be getting credit for.

(c) madrascollegearchive.org.uk

27^th January 2017

‘SCHOOLS have been accused of promoting a culture of elitism based on how talented pupils are at sport. An MSP also suggested PE teachers had been complicit in fuelling such an elitist classroom culture in the past.’ (Herald, 27.1.17)

This comes from Alex Cole-Hamilton Lib-Dem MSP. It’s just an anecdotal comment from one MSP who claims ‘teachers had backed his view.’ He doesn’t have any actual research or report to quote from, of course. He even uses memories of his own school days (1970s?) as if they were in some way contemporary evidence.

‘Speaking about his schooling, Mr Cole-Hamilton said it was “normal” for pupils to be “sifted into those who could play [sport] and those who couldn’t”. ‘

Cole-Hamilton went to Madras College in St Andrews. It is a state-funded school but I suspect a very different kind of place from my old school, Grangemouth High, where we learned Latin in 1963 by the light of BP flare stacks. Nearly all of us lived in schemes. Two thirds of Madras pupils are bussed in from the affluent areas around St Andrews.  I recall nothing of the ‘sifting’ he refers to. Indeed being good at sport meant little then. We were ‘sifted’, in those pre-comprehensive days, according to academic performance only. My fourth and final child is in Year 6 at an Ayr comprehensive. Academic performance there trumps sport abilities 10 nil!

Cole-Hamilton’s comments came in the context of a wider debate of bullying in the Scottish Parliament’s Equalities Committee. Cole-Hamilton’s comments were rejected by Sport Scotland, the Scottish Catholic Education Service, HM Inspectorate of Education, and the Educational Institute of Scotland but, hey, what do they know? Cole-Hamilton has spoken to ‘teachers’ and remembers practice when he was at school.

This is not my first foray against the Cole-Hamilton’s. His dad made the headlines with similar anecdotal rumours about bad practice in Scottish schools back in December. It was the same level of tosh. You can read my review at:

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2016/12/28/herald-newspaper-and-stv-news-fooled-by-unqualified-inexperienced-professor-and-lib-dem-supportermsps-dad-into-attacking-scottish-schools-methods/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15051789.Schools_accused_of_elitism_based_on_sporting_prowess/

(c) techtimes.com

Here are the headlines BBC Scotland chose:

 ‘Children in Scotland are amongst the unhealthiest in Europe according to a review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.’

 ‘It says poverty is the main cause.’

 ‘It accuses the governments of all four home nations of failing to focus on their needs.’

 (BBC Scotland News, 26.1.17 (between 06.25 to 09.05am)

 I’m not going to argue with the first two points but I am going to argue about the third. It’s a lie. I can find nowhere in any part of the RCPCH documents any ‘accusation’ against the Scottish government. Indeed the word ‘accusation’ is not anywhere in the full report. There is no use of the words ‘fail’ or ‘failure’ and only one of ‘failing’ but only in the context of breastfeeding. Here, rather than any accusation are the key actions recommended. Note carefully the references to phenomena not really UK wide and which begin the possible process in a responsible news agency of informing the Scottish audience more accurately:

 Key actions – UK wide

• Each UK Government to develop a child health and wellbeing strategy, coordinated, implemented and evaluated across the nation
  
• Each UK Government to adopt a ‘child health in all policies’ approach
  
• UK Government [not each] to introduce a ban on the advertising of foods high in saturated fat, sugar and salt in all broadcast media before 9pm
  
• Each UK Government to develop cross-departmental support for breastfeeding; this should include a national public health campaign and a sector wide approach that includes employers, to support women to breastfeed
  
• An expansion of national programmes to measure the height and weight of infants and children after birth, before school and during adolescence
  
• A reversal of public health cuts in England, which are disproportionately affecting children’s services
  
• The introduction of minimum unit alcohol pricing in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, in keeping with actions by the Scottish Government
  
• UK Government to extend the ban on smoking in public places to schools, playgrounds and hospitals [already done in Scotland]
  
• UK Government to prohibit the marketing of electronic cigarettes to children and young people
  
• National public health campaigns that promote good nutrition and exercise before, during and after pregnancy  

 http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/state-of-child-health/report-in-a-glance

 Surely a responsible news agency funded by Scots, should mention some of the above? Further into the main report you find these (page numbers in brackets) all suggesting the situation is better in Scotland:

‘Latest data: In 2015, the rate of children on a CPP or Child Protection Register was in the mid-40s per 10,000 across Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The rate in Scotland was considerably lower at 27 per 10,000. (88)

 Latest data: In 2014 the Infant Mortality Rate across the UK was 3.9 deaths per 1,000 live births: 3.9 in England and Wales, 3.6 in Scotland, and 4.8 in Northern Ireland. (15)

 Latest data: The mortality rate per 100,000 population for children aged one to nine years in 2013/2014 was 12.1 in the UK overall and 12.2 in England and Wales, 11.8 in Northern Ireland and 11.1 in Scotland. (20)

 Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland meet the WHO target of having vaccination rates for the full course of the 5-in-1 vaccine at 12 months above 95%; England falls below this target at 94.2%.(37)

 Latest data: The proportion of 15- year-old girls with high life satisfaction scores in England, Scotland and Wales in 2013/2014 were 71%, 76% and 72% respectively. (68)

 Latest data: The proportion of 15- year-old boys with high life satisfaction scores in England, Scotland and Wales in 2013/2014 were 84%, 88% and 84% respectively. (69)

 Latest data: The conception rates, per 1,000 population, of 15- to 17- year-old females in 2014 were 23, 21 and 25 for England, Scotland and Wales respectively.’ (80)

 http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/system/files/protected/page/SOCH-UK-2017.pdf

 There are also short nation-specific summaries. Only the Scottish one has anything good to say:

 ‘There have been notable improvements in health indicators for children over recent years but the rate of improvement is slower than it should be. There is much that the Scottish Government is doing to reduce the impact of poverty and inequality and there is much in Scotland that can be celebrated and learned from.’

http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/system/files/protected/page/SOCH-recommendations-Scotland.pdf

 So, all of the above suggests that the Scottish Government, after ten years, is achieving results in protecting us from the worst of Westminster austerity cuts in important areas such as health and poverty. I’ve written about some of this before this before.

 First from the conclusions of: THE IMPACT ON SCOTLAND OF THE NEW WELFARE REFORMS by Christina Beatty and Steve Fothergill, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University October 2016 at:

http://www.parliament.scot/S5_Social_Security/General%20Documents/Sheffield-Hallam_FINAL_version_07.10.16.pdf

‘Important elements of the welfare system are being devolved to Scotland…. However, the devolution of welfare powers should not obscure the continuing role of that Westminster plays in determining benefit spending in Scotland. In this report we have estimated that the post-2015 welfare reforms will result in a financial loss to claimants in Scotland of just over £1bn a year by 2020-21. This comes on top of an earlier financial loss of £1.1bn a year by March 2016 arising from the welfare reforms implemented by the Westminster Government between 2010 and 2015. Even the devolved benefits do not escape unscathed: by the time that responsibility for Personal Independence Payments is devolved in 2018, we estimate that a further £190m a year will have been taken from claimants in Scotland as a result of the on-going replacement of DLA by PIP. As a result, a smaller budget line will eventually be handed over. Welfare claimants in Scotland have lost large sums already, and are set to lose further large sums. The devolution of welfare powers will not in itself alter this stark reality.’

Second, the work of the Scottish government has already been praised but of course ignored by our mainstream media. See this:

The report: ‘State of the Nation’: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, was presented to House of Commons December 2015. Here are some of its key findings:

‘Scotland, for example, has the smallest number of children living in poverty among the constituent nations of the UK, the lowest prevalence of low pay and far more young people from deprived areas going on to higher education.’ (iv)

The December 2015 report from the UK Government-funded and sponsored, Social Mobility and Child- Poverty Commission, was chaired by Blairite Labour Party grandee, Alan Milburn. When I saw his name I feared the worst but could not have been more wrong in my expectations. The above quote is taken from ‘State of the Nation: Social Mobility and Child Poverty’. The report commends the Scottish government for its efforts and compares these more than favourably with the neglect and the heartless actions of the UK government. However, that we should not gloat or that we must maintain, indeed increase, our efforts, does not mean that we should not be able to note the progress achieved so far. How else can we gauge what remains to be done? How else can we gather the strength to push on? How else can we build the strong sense of collective identity required to confidently grasp the levers of full political independence required to do so?

‘Once housing costs are taken into account, relative poverty ranges from one in five children in Scotland (21 per cent) to nearly twice this (37 per cent) in London’. (113)

That twenty-one percent of Scotland’s children live in poverty is a monstrous blemish on the face of a democracy aspiring to much better. That it is higher everywhere else in the UK and nearly twice as high in our globalised golden capital does not excuse it, I know that. The current Scottish government makes nothing of such a comparison. It simply accepts that it is unacceptable and is doing what it can to remedy the situation.

‘The trends in one of the key drivers of child poverty – employment – are also encouraging:

• The proportion of children in Scotland who live in workless households has decreased rapidly in recent years and is slightly lower than the UK average – only 10.9 per cent of children in Scotland live in workless households compared to 15.8 per cent in 2012 and 11.8 per cent in the UK as a whole;
• More than six out of 10 (62.5 per cent) children in Scotland live in households where all adults are in work, making Scotland the region with the most ‘fully working’ households in the UK – for example, only 54.6 per cent of children in England live in households where all adults are in work;
• Scotland has the second highest parental employment rate of any region of the UK: 83.2 per cent of people with dependent children are in work. This is driven by very high employment of mothers in couples; 79.6 per cent of whom are in work compared to 71.9 per cent in England. However, lone parents in Scotland have a relatively low employment rate – only 62.2 per cent are in work (compared to, for example, 69.8 per cent in the East of England and 69.2 per cent in Wales).’ (169)

Finally, a very important factor in reducing poverty and inequality is the willingness of the rest of the population to support political moves to do so. Here’s some evidence that we are willing and more so than the English are:

‘An independent Scotland would be able to use a wider set of fiscal levers – taxes and benefits – to address inequality concerns. But would the Scottish electorate support greater progressivity? The 2011 British Social Attitudes Survey provides limited evidence that it might. Scots are more likely than English voters to think the gap between high and low incomes is too large (78% v. 74%); are more likely to support government efforts at redistribution (43% v. 34%); are more likely to say that social benefits are not high enough (6.2% v. 3.6%); and more likely to say that unemployment benefits are too low and cause hardship (22% v. 18%). (23)

You’ll see the authors grudgingly suggest that the evidence for our greater willingness to support greater ‘progressivity’ is ‘limited’. Is ‘are more likely to support government efforts at redistribution (43% v. 34%) or 9% more limited? I don’t agree at all. Indeed Jackie Bird said it was a big number a day or two ago.

Finally, and also missed by BBC Scotland, evidence of real concern and willingness to act on the part of the Scottish Government:

‘The First Minister announces £13 million for councils to help combat inequality.’ (STV, 14.11.16 at 6pm)

‘We see division and unfairness all around.’ (Theresa May on BBC Scotland, 14.11.16 at 6.30pm)

STV went on to repeat the headline telling us that there has been a Scottish Government announcement, that addressing inequality is a ‘key priority for the Scottish Government’ and that there has been a new report from Heriot-Watt University on the same topic.

BBC Scotland showed us Theresa May saying the above, followed by Nicola Sturgeon and then Donald Trump echoing her implied desire to help the poor. They don’t mention the news of the £13 million at all.

STV then let us hear Professor Glen Bramley of Heriot-Watt University, explain quite explicitly that the UK Government did have agreed poverty targets, even a child poverty act but that legislation had been withdrawn by the UK Government post 2015.

So, back to the opening statement about ‘accusing the governments of all four home nations’ – a big dirty fib.

Sources:

‘State of the Nation’: Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, presented to House of Commons December 2015 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/485926/State_of_the_nation_2015__social_mobility_and_child_poverty_in_Great_Britain.pdf

‘Inequality in Scotland: trends, drivers, and implications for the independence debate’ by David Bell and David Eiser, Division of Economics Stirling Management School University of Stirling at: http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/inequality-paper-15-nov-final.pdf

(c) businessforscotland.com

Back in 2004, I carried out a piece of research, published the next year in the European Journal of Communication (ref below), comparing the coverage of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the Herald/Sunday Herald and the Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday. Here’s what I concluded based on the analysis of around 1600 war reports in each:

‘The Herald/Sunday Herald, on balance, produced an anti-war climate which contrasted with that in The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday, where the extensive and unquestioning use of military sources produced a climate at least accepting of the war.’ (479)

I had moved from the East of Scotland to the West in 1984 and at the time switched from the Scotsman to the Herald. I’d been fond of the Scotsman, bought it every day and found it informative and intelligent. Though a bit to the right of my own thinking on many social and economic issues, I knew what I was getting. When I started to read the Herald, I thought it and the Scotsman, quite similar, sitting somewhere in the centre ground of Scottish politics, pro-devolution, maybe a wee bit to the left of the overall UK picture and quite critical of UK foreign policy of the post-imperialist kind. So, the results of my research were a bit of a surprise. I had expected them both to be at least, on balance, sceptical or critical of Blair’s Iraq adventurism. Here’s a bit more from the research:

‘Figures 6 and 7 suggest quite a clear distinction between the two groups of newspapers with The Herald/Sunday Herald consistently presenting a more negative view of the war than The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday. In part this distinction can be attributed to a greater tendency in The Herald/Sunday Herald to present explicitly anti-war arguments and to report political damage to UK politicians and parties, despite lower overall quantity of coverage of the war (Figure 1), but also, this difference results from the tendency in The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday to report more frequently on military achievements and movements. Though The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday gave space to extended and strong critiques of the war agenda, there were relatively fewer of these than in The Herald/ Sunday Herald and, crucially, they were more likely to be balanced or, on particular days, outnumbered by other stories.’ (470)

These two quotes appearing on the same day were, I thought, revealing of the different starting points for analysis of reports coming in:

‘58 Die in new Baghdad Market Blast – Women and Children Killed by Stray Cruise Missile Say Iraqis.’ (The Herald, 29 March)

‘Iraqis Claim 58 Killed in Market by Allied Missile – at Least 58 People Were Said to Have Been Killed.’ (The Scotsman, 29 March) (474)

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0267323104047666

Jump forward, ten years to March 2014 and read in the Scotsman:

‘BBC portrayed Alex Salmond as ‘figure of fun’’

This report followed my appearance at the Holyrood Education and Culture committee where, amongst other things, I accused the BBC of having demonised Alex Salmond in the run up to the Referendum. The Scotsman report gave virtually no space to my research and allowed the BBC to both wrongly undermine it and, crucially avoid, the central question implied in their headline. The actual data proving my claim is in the reference below.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/bbc-portrayed-alex-salmond-as-figure-of-fun-1-3335594

https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/propagandascotlandreferendum2014.pdf

However, perhaps even more indicative of the Scotsman’s decline into tabloid indecency than their actual report was their practice of not moderating out offensive comments, unlike the Herald, made by readers below the article. The worst have since been moderated out but here are two still deemed acceptable:

‘Doctor Robertson is at least one sandwich short of a picnic.’

‘Does Prof Robertson still do the Woodwork and Arts & Crafts classes at Paisley College of FE?’

So, the suggestion of a mental health problem and rank snobbery were still OK in 2014?

Sometimes, I go back to Scotsman articles online and attempt to engage. The overwhelming and venomous unionist comment soon swamps my comments. Again the contrast with the more intelligent debate in Herald article follow-up is marked.

What has caused this drift to harsh unionism and associated militarism in the Scotsman? See this simple explanation from the Herald in 1996:

‘FORMER Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil has been named editor-in-chief of European Press Holdings, which owns the Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday and Edinburgh Evening News. The appointment, however, met a mixed reaction from pro-devolution supporters yesterday, given Mr Neil’s well-publicised opposition to the movement. In particular the continued editorial independence of the Scotsman, which has adopted a pro-devolution stance, was being questioned. Canon Kenyon Wright, of the Constitutional Convention, said last night he had real concerns over the appointment: “Obviously there will be considerable apprehension,” he said. “I would have some fear that the paper’s stance might change.”

I don’t need to tell you, I’m sure, that the late Canon, was sadly correct nor do I need to remind you of the dread Mr Neil’s ongoing dark shadow over Scottish and UK politics.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12081969.Scotsman_role_for_Andrew_Neil/

 

24^th January 2017: 17:10

Today at 1.30pm, Jackie Bird announced:

‘There’s been a big fall in customer satisfaction with train services in Scotland……customer satisfaction has fallen by seven points.’

Leaving aside the fact that, in Jackie’s estimation, seven is a ‘big’ number and is an adjective not used elsewhere, this report is based on a survey ending in November 2016. The BBC website, also today, gave us a bit more useful context which would have made Ms Bird’s ‘report’ a bit more informative:

‘Passenger satisfaction with ScotRail services has fallen but remains higher than the UK as a whole, despite problems with delays and cancellations. The latest National Rail Passenger Satisfaction (NRPS) figures showed that 83% of those surveyed said they were satisfied with their ScotRail journey. This was four percentage points lower than the previous survey last June, and seven points lower than a year ago. The figure for the UK as a whole in the most recent survey was 81%.’ It was the first to be carried out following the five month closure of the upper platforms at Queen Street Station and last summer’s industrial action by RMT union members.

This is surely important contextual information of the kind the BBC Royal Charter expects?

More important, the BBC website report is also up-to-date and reports this improvement in services since last November and is also surely of interest to viewers:

‘Figures published earlier this month showed the reliability of ScotRail trains significantly improved in the weeks after the improvement plan was published. The PPM data showed 89.7% of trains arrived within five minutes of schedule in the four weeks to 7 January. This was a 6% rise on the previous four weeks, and a 2.8% improvement on the same period last year.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38729862

I know, the older No voters won’t have seen the website version so it was safe to put the truth there.