Talking-up Scotland

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland#Place_of_birth

Though our Professor Robertson has cast doubt on the actual presence of a bullying culture at all in NHS Highland with his surgical demolition of the report and BBC Scotland’s reading of it, our Visiting Professor Naemeritus of Caledonian Population Studies, octogenarian, Iain MacGlashan (pic) has joined the fray by suggesting that any bullying culture is the result of large numbers of, as he puts it, ‘White Settlers’ in the glens of Highland Region (see map above).

MacGlashan in 1972

In his seminal 1956 study of six Buckinghamshire, retired chief accountants, MacGlashan concluded:

‘These assertive, upper-middle-class, Eton-educated individuals had not come to Highland villages to relax but, rather, to colonise, them by self-nomination for chair of the local community councils and to ensure control through bullying or by claiming to have been bullied by the locals ‘jocks.’

TuS is not responsible.

BBC Scotland’s hopelessly biased intellectually challenged and nasty reading of the report

Note: Nothing here denies that some NHS Highland staff may have been bullied. Their experience is regretted.

Of NHS Highland’s 10 500 staff, 340 came forward, with personal reports of bullying or of the absence of bullying. Of these, for no reason given, 282 were met and of those, again for no reported reason, 186 formed the basis for ‘Report to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport into Cultural Issues related to allegations of Bullying and Harassment in NHS Highland’, April 2019 by John Sturrock QC. Do QC’s need to have passed Research Methods?

This gives a self-selecting sample, in itself statistically problematic, of 1.77% at most (some of those coming forward were no longer on the staff). A self-selecting sample is inevitably biased toward negative conclusions. Those who consider themselves to have been bullied are more likely to come forward. Why were only 186 selected from the 340 coming forward? A sample of 1.77% is so far short of reliability as to be laughable. On page 51, late, we read that 66% of those186 selected, 186 (123?) ‘wished to report experiences of what they described as bullying.’ So, 1.17% of NHSH staff, at most, say they were bullied?

Further, the lead researcher admits: ‘I am not an expert in the workings of the NHS

nor in allegations of organisational bullying. I am better informed now but I am more of a generalist than a specialist. That needs to be borne in mind by the reader.’ (25)

Not surprisingly the author hesitates at first in his conclusion:

‘While it is not possible to conclude conclusively that there is or is not a bullying culture in NHSH, it may be possible to conclude that the majority (sic) of employees of NHSH have not experienced bullying as such.’ (16)

Hah! For ‘majority’ read around ‘10 400m out of 10 500.’

Less predictably, given his lack of hard evidence, he goes on to speculate:

‘Having said that, extrapolating from the evidence available to this review, it seems equally possible that many hundreds have experienced behaviour which is inappropriate.’ (16)

This conclusion remains utterly qualified and really says nothing at all. Why couldn’t he bring himself to say ‘bullying?’ See this below:

62 of those interviewed were angry about the accusations of bullying:

‘A significant minority (33%) of respondents expressed views with varying degrees of firmness to the effect that there is not a problem, or at least that there is no bullying culture as such, and that any conduct of concern is nothing other than what might be expected in any similar organisation with day to day pressures. They have been hurt and angered by the adverse impact of the allegations which have been made, on patients, staff and local communities.’ (43)

Also:

‘In relation to the allegations of bullying made against House staff, a number of people referred to the need to distinguish between behaviour that is truly bullying and behaviour that is no more than “assertive” or “firm” management. They referred, similarly, to the need to distinguish between harassment and legitimate supervision.’ (46)

https://www.gov.scot/publications/report-cultural-issues-related-allegations-bullying-harassment-nhs-highland/

10 500 staff

https://www.nhshighland.scot.nhs.uk/Pages/welcome.aspx

As she prepares for her new role in academia, Ms Dugdale still brings a little sunshine to the often negative reporting on ScotRail, with this revelation via a parliamentary question:

https://www.parliament.scot/S5ChamberOffice/WA20190507.pdf

‘ScotRail has promised its new timetable will ease misery for rail commuters’

Misery, not ‘misery’, notice? That means it must be scientifically observable misery reported by a representative sample of commuters in an independent study, and not just a quote from a commuter or even just made up by a reporter. Strangely enough, ScotRail did not promise an end to ‘misery.’ They said:

‘We are working flat out across the ScotRail Alliance to give our customers that improved service. We are committed to improving the quality of the experience on Scotland’s railway, through this investment in faster journeys, more seats and more services, and this month’s timetable change is another milestone in that journey’

Maybe they did not mention misery because they have not been told of any misery by commuters. Could that be because of this:

Or these:

Only tiny percentage of ScotRail trains ‘stop-skip’ and for ‘good reason?’

Rail improvements funded by Scottish government on time and on budget

Some ‘crisis’ as nearly 99% of Scotrail trains run and punctuality climbs

?

There’s no mention of electricity transfers from Scotland to rUK in this Guardian report on a ‘landmark’ achievement by Britain, yesterday, but the scale of those is massive and increasing as Scotland generates more and more electricity from renewables. We heard:

‘Greg Clark, the business secretary, hailed the achievement. He said the UK is “on a path to become the first major economy to legislate for net-zero emissions” in the wake of the report.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/08/britain-passes-1-week-without-coal-power-for-first-time-since-1882

In 2018, total UK electricity demand was broadly stable … at 301 TWh. Scotland’s share is around 37TWh leaving the rUK figure at 263TWh.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/789362/Electricity_March_2019.pdf

However, a significant part of that demand was met from the transfer of electricity from Scotland to the rest of the UK. See this:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/…/ET_5.6.xls

In 2018, 24.7 TWh were transferred from Scotland to England (& Wales) and 1.3 TWh were transferred to N Ireland. This means that 10% of rUK electricity consumption is met by transfers from Scotland. The scale of these transfers is increasing fast, near doubling in one year, so we can assume an even greater contribution in 2019 and beyond.

 There’s no mention at all of Scotland in this exciting, for the UK Treasury, Energy Voice report. I wonder, where is the Culzean field?

‘Culzean is a high-pressure / high-temperature (HP/HT) gas field located in Block 22/25a (License P111) of the UK continental shelf (UKCS), around 145 miles east of Aberdeen at a water depth of approximately 90m.’

https://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/culzean-gas-field-north-sea/

145 miles east of Aberdeen. That’ll be in Scottish waters even after the Brown/Blair realignment?

‘Energy giant Total has said it is just weeks away from starting up production at one of the UK’s largest offshore gas fields. Total has been working towards first production from the Culzean “mega-project” in the central North Sea, which is expected to produce 5% of the UK’s total gas demand at its peak.…It was the largest UK gas field to be given the go-ahead in 25 years when it was sanctioned in 2015….Total is currently the largest producer in the UK North Sea….Total is planning to drill new wells at the Isabella prospect in the Central North Sea, Aspen in the southern sector and a new well in its Alwyn area in the Northern North Sea…. “It is an exciting time to be working in the UK and I’m proud to lead our company here.”’

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/198802/total-weeks-away-from-start-up-of-one-of-uks-largest-gas-fields/

5% of the UK’s total gas demand at its peak? All of Scotland’s?

Yes, there really is a Stoneyburn. You’re thinking of TV’s Stoneybridge where they didn’t just have no GP, they had SFA!

It’s all over BBC 1 News, headlining BBC Scotland broadcasts and online. They open with:

1. Scotland has the highest number of GPs per head of population in the UK, research commissioned by the BBC has revealed.
2. Analysis by the Nuffield Trust think tank shows there are 76 GPs per 100,000 people, compared to a national UK average of 60.
3. BUT (BUT, BUT…) Scotland’s doctors have warned major challenges still exist with recruitment and retention.

They’ve had to scramble to get their buts in gear to counter this disastrous news, but they managed to insert one in the third sentence. From then on, we hear from GPs that we shouldn’t get carried away because its no that great up here with unfilled vacancies and more patients to be dealt with. Wait a minute Doc, aren’t these ratios taking into account that there are more patients? So, you’ve got more patients, BUT you’ve got more GPs too? It seems to be working as well. See this from 2018:

‘More encouragingly, it also found 87 per cent of people found it easy to contact their GP practice, while more than nine out ten (93 per cent) were able to get an appointment within two days.’

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/fewer-patients-reporting-positive-gp-experiences-says-survey-1-4729842

As for vacancies, they’re running nearly three times higher in England and the rate here is not extreme:

‘GP vacancies (in England) rise to record levels despite recruitment pledge, survey suggests. Long patient waits and unsafe, rushed appointments are unlikely to end any time soon as vacancies have risen from 9.1 per cent to 15.3 per cent since the (UK) government pledged 5 000 more doctors.’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/gp-vacancy-nhs-70-doctors-waiting-times-appointments-patient-safety-a8433596.html

In sharp contrast, the GP vacancy rate in Scotland was only 5.6% at the end of 2017.

http://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/General-Practice/Publications/2018-03-06/2018-03-06-PCWS2017-Report.pdf

The TV report this morning didn’t show this lovely graph. Will they do so in the later editions? They usually love their graphics.

It’s a stunning clear victory. Who can be responsible? Surely not those Nats? Well yes it looks that way. See these recent indicators that things are being run much better here:

When the Scottish contract was first introduced in January, the BMA contrasted it very favourably with that on offer in England and Wales. The BMA told the GP’s newsletter, Pulse (‘At the heart of general practice since 1960’), that the new Scottish contract is an ‘ambitious departure’ from the rest of the UK and that it will make the profession attractive again.

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/views/editors-blog/have-scottish-gps-reached-the-promised-land/20035667.article

Scotland has a unique system of improving the quality of health care. It focuses on engaging the altruistic professional motivations of frontline staff to do better and building their skills to improve. Success is defined based on specific measurements of safety and effectiveness that make sense to clinicians.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/files/2017-07/learning-from-scotland-s-nhs-final.pdf

And thanks to the GPs BUT also making things better FOR the GPs:

91% satisfaction with NHS Scotland staff! Patients even more satisfied than before

LATEST: Hold the cameras! We’ve found an old woman in Stoneybridge (?) where they’ve closed the practice. I don’t know where that is! The camera crew have a satnav don’t they? Get them out there pronto! We can make her the real story. Those statistics mean nothing really. How did we find her so quickly? She’s the mother of one of our cleaners? Investigative journalism at its best!

‘Like any good quiz, crime is crammed with titillating reveals..’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/armchair-detectives

Last night we heard:

‘Children under twelve will no longer be arrested and treated as offenders here in Scotland. MSPs have voted to increase the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 years-old. Some don’t think it goes far enough but the family of a boy killed by an 11-year-old, are angry.’

We meet his cousin, too young to remember, and they tell us about the victim, then we hear, so that we can feel the horror, that:

‘The three-year-old was taken from his Granny’s garden before being beaten with sticks and stones and drowned.’

The cousin speaks repeatedly between the words of politicians and presents the legislation as somehow offensive to the memory of the child.

We do not hear, as we should, just how rare a killing by someone under 12 is and thus how little use it could be in framing legislation. I can only find this same case from 1990, nearly 30 years ago. Is Reporting Scotland really suggesting that a single, incredibly rare case is of any value in reporting the implementation of this legislation? Children under 12 do not kill but they do commit lesser crimes and currently find themselves scarred by that for the rest of their lives. Why did the report not consider the multitude of cases where the legislation will be a boon rather than scrabbling in the mud and gore, desperately to find the only case of murder by a child they can find to shock and upset us to no purposeful end?

How did this proceed? Who thought to try to find a case so horrific to present as some kind of spurious balance? Was it like this?

‘See if you can find any murders by an under-12? Quick!’

‘What only one in the last 30 years? What about Mary Bell? She was Scottish.’

‘1968? Really? Time flies. It wasn’t in Scotland? Great image though, shame.’

‘Oh, OK we’ll go with that one. Contact the family and see if they’ll come on tonight.’

‘Just his cousin? She looks too young. Does she remember? We said his family are angry. Ach, it’ll have to do.’

Once more Reporting Scotland sinks below that of a public service provider to find itself alongside the Sun and the Daily Mail in their foul-smelling swamp.

It’s sadly not unusual. Reporting Scotland have that inbuilt tabloid tendency to use single traumatic cases to make points they think matter for wider policy and action when they do not because they are not typical of a trend. See these recent cases:

Against a background of dramatic increases in demand, NHS Scotland only had to cancel 1.7% of operations due to the unavailability of staff or theatres. Demand was up 2% on the same period in 2018. This is astonishing in the circumstances and cannot be bettered. To have zero operations cancelled for this reason would by definition require over-staffing and over-resourcing to enable coping with inevitably fluctuating demand. You can imagine the headlines:

‘Miles Briggs accuses SNP of wasting tax-payers money on idle surgeons and empty operating theatres!’

As for the cancellations by the patient or for clinical reasons, these are good signs showing that patients feel they can cancel if they are unsure or afraid in some way and that surgeons feel free to cancel when they learn of new information telling them that to proceed might be harmful for the patient.

https://www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Waiting-Times/Publications/2019-05-07/2019-05-07-Cancellations-Summary.pdf