Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

 

I think that most -if not all- intelligent voters can see through them. 

 

Government’s PR strategy is simply corrupt

The subordination of Public Health Scotland to prevent embarrassment for the SNP means the public are being cheated

Alex Massie

Tuesday June 15 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/governments-pr-strategy-is-simply-corrupt-53d9g6kzc

 

For the greater part of her career in government Fiona Hyslop, the former culture secretary, was a rare example of “a safe pair of hands”. She only rarely “made news” for all the wrong reasons. Indeed, I can only recall her doing so once in an interesting fashion. That was in 2017, when she generously conceded that artists “don’t have to be close to government” but “they just have to have a common understanding of what the country wants”. This was revealing not least because the SNP’s worldview presumes that “understanding what the country wants” necessarily puts you close to the SNP. We all labour for the greater glory of the nation, whether we wish to or not.

I was reminded of this last week when my colleague Helen Puttick broke a significant story about the corruption of Public Health Scotland (PHS) that merited more attention and revealed some dispiriting truths about the governance of Scotland. For this is a land in which the distinction between party and country has been eroded so the two may be considered indistinguishable.

A “communications framework” agreed between the agency, the Scottish government and local authorities, makes it clear that PHS must privilege the management of appearances over the public interest. According to the document, “Public Health Scotland must retain public trust and credibility as an objective source of evidence, data, advice and intelligence if it is to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of the public”. Indeed so. But is PHS actually an “objective source of evidence”. Shamefully, there is ample evidence to suggest it is not.

 

For the communications strategy instructs PHS to manage “risk” when releasing information. “Risk management in relation to communications will primarily relate to reducing the potential impact of the risk on the reputation and credibility of the organisations, which may also impact the wider NHS and local authorities”. All the bodies, in other words, must be buried and all unwelcome evidence of failure suppressed.

The document is sensitive about publishing information that might cause “sustained or widespread criticism of the Scottish government” or lead to “ministers being pressed to make a statement to parliament”. As The Times noted, “items which might lead to front-page headlines and public criticism of public health policy lasting at least a week are also considered high risk”. So the Scottish government can sleep easily, comforted by the fact that this story has yet to make the BBC’s website.

 

Above all, any material published by PHS should be considered in the context of “Does it challenge — or could it be interpreted as a critique of — Scottish government position or policy?” Well, if it is independent it often will challenge the position. That’s often the way with facts.

It gets worse: “Communications decisions should be holistic, taking account of the wider context, risks, opportunities and possible stakeholder reactions.” Since the Scottish government is the key “stakeholder” the meaning is clear: never say anything that might embarrass the government. The framework further asks, “Will we accept a higher level of risk to challenge policy makers?” and it is heavily implied that the ordinary answer to this will be in the negative.

 

There is a word for this — corruption. Which other term suffices for the subordination of a public body to the interests of the party? There are many kinds of corruption and some, such as the seeming purchase of peerages — commonplace under Conservative and Labour governments — are so brazen and so often repeated they lose their shock value. Like kickbacks for building contracts in Sicily or Naples, they are an accepted price of business. It shouldn’t be like that, but it is.

 

But other corruptions are more insidious. They involve the capturing of independent agencies and the suppression of awkward truths. According to the communications strategy, “Public Health Scotland must retain public trust and credibility as an objective source of evidence, data, advice and intelligence if it is to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of the public”. Well, quite, but how can it retain “public trust” and “credibility” if its communications strategy is designed to protect the government from embarrassment?

 

From which it follows that the investigation into pushing elderly patients from hospitals into care homes last spring can no longer be trusted. PHS’s report was largely inconclusive and if that seemed suspicious then, it is doubly so now.

According to Humza Yousaf, the health secretary, there is nothing to see here. PHS “functions entirely independently of ministers — as of course is right and proper”. And yet, oddly, documents retrieved under freedom of information reveal correspondence between PHS and the Scottish government on “lines to take” in response to press inquiries and journalists routinely receive replies from government officials to questions addressed to PHS. “Entirely independent”, then.

 

Perhaps PHS doesn’t have to be close to government, it just needs to have a common understanding of what the country wants. Boats must be left un-rocked, stones un-turned, muck un-raked. This may be in the government’s interest but it cheats the public and it stinks.

 

 

Meanwhile the Scottish Government's tireless and unswerving quest for "openness" continues:

(I may say that, in principle,  I don't have a significant problem with this proposal, although I assume that the SNP government will find a way to use it for its own nefarious ends.) )

 

Judges must register financial interests to ensure transparency

Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor

Wednesday June 16 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-must-register-financial-interests-to-ensure-transparency-bfzpm789m

 

Judges will be forced to register their financial interests after SNP ministers confirmed they would push ahead with the transparency scheme.

At present all judiciary in UK jurisdictions have a duty to declare any relevant interest in cases before them — such as shareholdings, directorships and memberships — but they are not required to register any before a case arises, unlike in some other countries.

This means the rules are different for judges and sheriffs when compared with politicians and public board members, who have to publish details of any directorships or shares they hold.

 

Senior legal figures have voiced opposition to the plans but Keith Brown, the justice secretary, has confirmed the “openness scheme” will go ahead.

“It was a manifesto commitment to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system,” he told the Daily Record.

“Now the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced.”

 

Judges in Scotland have argued that such scrutiny could put their personal and financial security at risk from criminals, expose them to scrutiny by “aggressive media” and deter lawyers from seeking a career in the judiciary.

Lord Carloway, the lord president, who is the most senior member of the Scottish judiciary, previously claimed the policy would be “detrimental”. He also declined to appear before Holyrood’s justice committee when it investigated the idea in 2019 as he felt that it would simply “go over old ground that has already been covered extensively”.

In a letter to the committee, he again raised the prospect of a register deterring prospective judges. MSPs went on to back the principle of a register.

This argument has previously been dismissed by Moi Ali, a former board member of the Scottish Police Authority and now the independent assessor of complaints for the Crown Prosecution Service in England, as “the baseless claims of a backward judiciary seeking to defend an opaque system that is open to nepotism and bias”.

The transparency row was sparked nearly ten years ago by Peter Cherbi, the campaigner and legal blogger, who submitted a petition to Holyrood calling for a register to be introduced.

“Rules of declarations of interest for the judiciary should at least equal those applied to elected politicians,” he said.

In Norway, judges must complete a register of interests listing honorary posts, investments, memberships of political parties, companies, religious communities and charities among others.

A Judicial Communications spokesman said: “Judges are obliged to declare an interest where there is any real or perceived conflict in a court case before them. If there is a conflict, they will step down from the case (called a recusal) and it will be heard by a different judge.

“The lord president’s position was made clear in his evidence to the Public Petitions Committee that an additional, mandatory register of interests is not necessary or beneficial.”

 

 

Edited by Uilleam
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Uilleam said:

 

I think that most -if not all- intelligent voters can see through them. 

 

Government’s PR strategy is simply corrupt

The subordination of Public Health Scotland to prevent embarrassment for the SNP means the public are being cheated

Alex Massie

Tuesday June 15 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/governments-pr-strategy-is-simply-corrupt-53d9g6kzc

 

For the greater part of her career in government Fiona Hyslop, the former culture secretary, was a rare example of “a safe pair of hands”. She only rarely “made news” for all the wrong reasons. Indeed, I can only recall her doing so once in an interesting fashion. That was in 2017, when she generously conceded that artists “don’t have to be close to government” but “they just have to have a common understanding of what the country wants”. This was revealing not least because the SNP’s worldview presumes that “understanding what the country wants” necessarily puts you close to the SNP. We all labour for the greater glory of the nation, whether we wish to or not.

I was reminded of this last week when my colleague Helen Puttick broke a significant story about the corruption of Public Health Scotland (PHS) that merited more attention and revealed some dispiriting truths about the governance of Scotland. For this is a land in which the distinction between party and country has been eroded so the two may be considered indistinguishable.

A “communications framework” agreed between the agency, the Scottish government and local authorities, makes it clear that PHS must privilege the management of appearances over the public interest. According to the document, “Public Health Scotland must retain public trust and credibility as an objective source of evidence, data, advice and intelligence if it is to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of the public”. Indeed so. But is PHS actually an “objective source of evidence”. Shamefully, there is ample evidence to suggest it is not.

 

For the communications strategy instructs PHS to manage “risk” when releasing information. “Risk management in relation to communications will primarily relate to reducing the potential impact of the risk on the reputation and credibility of the organisations, which may also impact the wider NHS and local authorities”. All the bodies, in other words, must be buried and all unwelcome evidence of failure suppressed.

The document is sensitive about publishing information that might cause “sustained or widespread criticism of the Scottish government” or lead to “ministers being pressed to make a statement to parliament”. As The Times noted, “items which might lead to front-page headlines and public criticism of public health policy lasting at least a week are also considered high risk”. So the Scottish government can sleep easily, comforted by the fact that this story has yet to make the BBC’s website.

 

Above all, any material published by PHS should be considered in the context of “Does it challenge — or could it be interpreted as a critique of — Scottish government position or policy?” Well, if it is independent it often will challenge the position. That’s often the way with facts.

It gets worse: “Communications decisions should be holistic, taking account of the wider context, risks, opportunities and possible stakeholder reactions.” Since the Scottish government is the key “stakeholder” the meaning is clear: never say anything that might embarrass the government. The framework further asks, “Will we accept a higher level of risk to challenge policy makers?” and it is heavily implied that the ordinary answer to this will be in the negative.

 

There is a word for this — corruption. Which other term suffices for the subordination of a public body to the interests of the party? There are many kinds of corruption and some, such as the seeming purchase of peerages — commonplace under Conservative and Labour governments — are so brazen and so often repeated they lose their shock value. Like kickbacks for building contracts in Sicily or Naples, they are an accepted price of business. It shouldn’t be like that, but it is.

 

But other corruptions are more insidious. They involve the capturing of independent agencies and the suppression of awkward truths. According to the communications strategy, “Public Health Scotland must retain public trust and credibility as an objective source of evidence, data, advice and intelligence if it is to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of the public”. Well, quite, but how can it retain “public trust” and “credibility” if its communications strategy is designed to protect the government from embarrassment?

 

From which it follows that the investigation into pushing elderly patients from hospitals into care homes last spring can no longer be trusted. PHS’s report was largely inconclusive and if that seemed suspicious then, it is doubly so now.

According to Humza Yousaf, the health secretary, there is nothing to see here. PHS “functions entirely independently of ministers — as of course is right and proper”. And yet, oddly, documents retrieved under freedom of information reveal correspondence between PHS and the Scottish government on “lines to take” in response to press inquiries and journalists routinely receive replies from government officials to questions addressed to PHS. “Entirely independent”, then.

 

Perhaps PHS doesn’t have to be close to government, it just needs to have a common understanding of what the country wants. Boats must be left un-rocked, stones un-turned, muck un-raked. This may be in the government’s interest but it cheats the public and it stinks.

 

 

Meanwhile the Scottish Government's tireless and unswerving quest for "openness" continues:

(I may say that, in principle,  I don't have a significant problem with this proposal, although I assume that the SNP government will find a way to use it for its own nefarious ends.) )

 

Judges must register financial interests to ensure transparency

Kieran Andrews, Scottish Political Editor

Wednesday June 16 2021, 12.01am, The Times

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-must-register-financial-interests-to-ensure-transparency-bfzpm789m

 

Judges will be forced to register their financial interests after SNP ministers confirmed they would push ahead with the transparency scheme.

At present all judiciary in UK jurisdictions have a duty to declare any relevant interest in cases before them — such as shareholdings, directorships and memberships — but they are not required to register any before a case arises, unlike in some other countries.

This means the rules are different for judges and sheriffs when compared with politicians and public board members, who have to publish details of any directorships or shares they hold.

 

Senior legal figures have voiced opposition to the plans but Keith Brown, the justice secretary, has confirmed the “openness scheme” will go ahead.

“It was a manifesto commitment to create a register of interests for members of the judiciary to improve transparency and trust in the justice system,” he told the Daily Record.

“Now the new government is in place, we will start looking at ways this register can be introduced.”

 

Judges in Scotland have argued that such scrutiny could put their personal and financial security at risk from criminals, expose them to scrutiny by “aggressive media” and deter lawyers from seeking a career in the judiciary.

Lord Carloway, the lord president, who is the most senior member of the Scottish judiciary, previously claimed the policy would be “detrimental”. He also declined to appear before Holyrood’s justice committee when it investigated the idea in 2019 as he felt that it would simply “go over old ground that has already been covered extensively”.

In a letter to the committee, he again raised the prospect of a register deterring prospective judges. MSPs went on to back the principle of a register.

This argument has previously been dismissed by Moi Ali, a former board member of the Scottish Police Authority and now the independent assessor of complaints for the Crown Prosecution Service in England, as “the baseless claims of a backward judiciary seeking to defend an opaque system that is open to nepotism and bias”.

The transparency row was sparked nearly ten years ago by Peter Cherbi, the campaigner and legal blogger, who submitted a petition to Holyrood calling for a register to be introduced.

“Rules of declarations of interest for the judiciary should at least equal those applied to elected politicians,” he said.

In Norway, judges must complete a register of interests listing honorary posts, investments, memberships of political parties, companies, religious communities and charities among others.

A Judicial Communications spokesman said: “Judges are obliged to declare an interest where there is any real or perceived conflict in a court case before them. If there is a conflict, they will step down from the case (called a recusal) and it will be heard by a different judge.

“The lord president’s position was made clear in his evidence to the Public Petitions Committee that an additional, mandatory register of interests is not necessary or beneficial.”

 

 

I think you are right, but are there enough of them? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 16/06/2021 at 11:36, ChelseaBoy said:

I think you are right, but are there enough of them? 

No, because nationalism is inherently primarily about emotion. I look around. We’ve lost. Knowledge of history would be enough to kill this stone dead but these people feel like they fell out eternity’s vagina as though everything started with them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bmck said:

We’ve lost.

I fear you may be right.

 

Some very intelligent people support SNP but they can rarely provide an intelligent rationale. The failings of UK government they can easily demonstrate. The carefully constructed alternative they don’t provide so often.

 

Nationalism is part emotion - not too bad, I quite like the pipes myself - and part resentment of a bigger neighbour who gets on with us but doesn’t tell us often enough how wonderful we are - not so good.  On that basis fragmentation is the way ahead.
 

Warning to central belt Nats. Whose oil is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have a hard job in Scotland finding intelligent voters the force of the cult is strong and as long as the morons who vote for them get a wee freebie now and again the will remain strong. 

Simple question does anyone think that if they had won the referendum they would have given a second vote to those who wanted to be a part of the union, of course they wouldn't the first thing would be to pass a law as to no more referendums. 

Edited by compo
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott7 said:

I fear you may be right.

 

Some very intelligent people support SNP but they can rarely provide an intelligent rationale. The failings of UK government they can easily demonstrate. The carefully constructed alternative they don’t provide so often.

 

Nationalism is part emotion - not too bad, I quite like the pipes myself - and part resentment of a bigger neighbour who gets on with us but doesn’t tell us often enough how wonderful we are - not so good.  On that basis fragmentation is the way ahead.
 

Warning to central belt Nats. Whose oil is it?

There is nothing more disgusting than ideological possession, because it gives smart people a theory, and allows them to make deductions so everything seems to follow logically from the last. But it’s the poisonous premises and axioms from which everything else follows that’s the issue. There is nothing more ugly than to hear the words of spin doctors - paid liars - regurgitated in the mouths of people who actually have a brain. 
 

the truth is, it’s my fault. And your fault. And anyone who has the capability to just destroy this nonsense, for not doing it enough and loudly enough, because we don’t suffer from ideological possession we are not evangelical or cult-like, we have business affairs, real life not Twitter. It’s a dilemma.  

Edited by bmck
Fucked up basic English
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CammyF said:

 

I truly wish I had time to deep dive and FOIA intelligently. The degree of embarrassment that could be uncovered if done correctly would impact. These are facts. Shocking, horrible, facts. What’s needed is scandal and there’s no chance they’re smart enough not to have said unprofessional things about Rangers and Unionists. Strongest motivating force rhetorically is fear of a common enemy, and it’s not like they’re not doing it openly, but in a politiciany way. I’d like to see what they say when they think people aren’t going to be smart enough to look. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bmck said:

I truly wish I had time to deep dive and FOIA intelligently. The degree of embarrassment that could be uncovered if done correctly would impact. These are facts. Shocking, horrible, facts. What’s needed is scandal and there’s no chance they’re smart enough not to have said unprofessional things about Rangers and Unionists. Strongest motivating force rhetorically is fear of a common enemy, and it’s not like they’re not doing it openly, but in a politiciany way. I’d like to see what they say when they think people aren’t going to be smart enough to look. 

 

Tip of the iceberg mate. 

 

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19364459.sturgeon-held-account-ferry-fiasco-says-ex-ferguson-marine-executives/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.