Image Italki
By Brenda Steele:
Am I being a bit of a snowflake [Ed: NO!] or are these folk getting a bit above themselves?
Government could learn from local community enterprises responding with astonishing speed and efficiency to get help and food where it is needed most – including NHS staff on the frontline.
http://sceptical.scot/2020/04/rapid-response-social-enterprise-shows-the-way/
As I understand it, folk were begging to help and this is one of the suggestions of things they could do. I suspect that ScotGov has rather more urgent things to do requiring technical knowledge.
And then there was this.
Nicola Sturgeon announced on Thursday that they are starting planning for an end to lockdown, but think tanks and the third sector are way ahead of them.
Two weeks ago Common Weal published a policy paper fully costing a plan for tracing and testing, in an effort to bring and end to lockdown safely and to the benefit of the economy.https://sourcenews.scot/scotland-plans-the-end-of-lockdown-what-comes-next/
Does the author at Common Weal think that ScotGov has been sitting at their desks polishing their nails all this time? Since the paper was written by Craig Dalzell, I am sure it will be an excellent plan – a well thought out plan, but I very much doubt if Craig thinks that ScotGov should take his plan as is wholesale without consulting others.
And the second article continues with this.
Neil Clapperton, Chief Executive of Grampian House Association, is already in talks with the NHS to recruit the large number of volunteers that are going to be needed to undertake the contact tracing initiative.
Which confirms my belief that ScotGov is not going to publish an action plan. They are already going ahead with what they think best.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
I read the common weal paper , I admire them for what they do, good work , but they are presumptuous and often wide of the mark in their views so why on earth they think the Scottish government should use their suggestions and plans is beyond me, common weal are slipping from popularity and going about it the wrong way to regain it, sure submit your ideas and celebrate any that are used but remember you are not the government you don’t run the country, remember your place in all this.
LikeLike
Commonweal do, indeed, produce a lot of good stuff and have been doing so since before 2014. However, it has, increasingly been accompanied by the daily source blog which has, sadly, become increasingly arrogant, condescending and bombastic with lofty dismissal of any actions by the Scottish Government.
This is detracting from the serious and more considered works which they have produced for many years. These works deserve more attention that the kind of contemptuous twaddle illustrated by Brenda’s piece. Thanks to her for it.
PS I am a contributor toCommonweal’s funding
LikeLike
I too have contributed to CW’s funding and purchased most of their reports and also other products. Its contributions to policy formulation for a future Scotland have generally been excellent and important.
However, as I noted here some days ago, I became sensitised to a potential change in the CW’s in-house position when Mr Robin McAlpine wrote in the context of the SG’s management of the pandemic:
“There has been much questioning about whether we are ready for independence. I’m afraid right at the moment we look sorely unready for devolution.”
I found that wholly objectionable and very, very disappointing!
I receive and read each daily issue of ‘Source’. However, I see no value in its provision – with no context and no critique – of extracts from corporate media and BBC news reports about Scotland. It’s like the equivalent of listening to the BBC Radio 4 programme’s newspaper review with its aggregation and amplification of often skewed, partial views.
LikeLike
“… sure submit your ideas and celebrate any that are used but remember you are not the government you don’t run the country,..”
And may I add, these ‘think tanks’ don’t have the detailed view of the whole country ‘system’; they don’t have the same imperative of assessing the potential for unintended negative consequences of each and every action taken; they don’t have to take full account of all the, perhaps conflicting, scientific, operational and logistical advice provided from authoritative sources; and, crucially, they don’t have the responsibility for finally making what may well be life and death decisions.
And of course no one is interested in the quality of a government’s 20-20 hindsight whilst others feel free to demonstrate (indulge?) theirs!
LikeLike