NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to increase infection control staffing

In a typically jaundiced piece from the Herald’s Helen McArdle, with an appallingly dishonest headline, we read, but well down the page, that NHS GGC will increase the number of infection control staff across its hospitals from 43 to 46.

However in another Scottish MSM report, before a public inquiry, the Herald relies on ‘sources‘ to try to undermine the the health board.

Sourced no doubt by the RCN, the three additional staff replacing one infection control nurse are contemptuously associated with a risk of ‘lost skills and leadership’ because they will not be medics.

Professor Sridhar is not a medic yet seems to have been useful.

This is simple collusion between a protectionist, regardless of actual benefit for the public, trade union and a unionist ‘newspaper’ to malign NHS GGC once more and by proxy, the Scottish Government.

The Herald report is, of course, full of tales of unsubstantiated infections, with no evidence from actual inspection reports of any control issues, to argue against the replacement of one nurse by three trained infection control staff.

8 thoughts on “NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to increase infection control staffing”

  1. BUT

    The National is apparently going to publish Richard Murphy’s long description on why Scotland’s share of debt on independence is not something to be concerned about (from yesterday) over two days. This will hopefully up its visibility and make people think about it more, rather than accept what the establishment tells them and think it ‘too difficult’.

    Today he says:


    “By the end of this week the idea that Scotland cannot owe England any debt that England itself has no intention of repaying because that’s the way in which the law of compensation works – by preventing anyone profiting from a compensation payment – will be well known in the Independence movement. And the idea is so simple that it’s easy for anyone to explain – despite the lengths to which I went to make it.

    And the idea that Scotland’s interest owing to England – if it agrees to pay anything – will be amongst the smallest interest obligations of any government as a proportion of its income anywhere in the world – will also be known.

    In other words, what I will have put forward is the argument that far from Scotland having a debt impediment to face by being independent that process of becoming an independent nation will instead liberate it from most of its debt obligations. What is more, I really can’t at present see very much that London could do about that given the announcements It made in 2014 and that the rest of the UK will want to be the successor state to the UK as it now is.

    If this becomes the prevailing narrative a major impediment to independence in many people’s minds will have been overcome. And that matters.”

    That’s just an extract of his article, but gives a summary of what he was putting forward – and it’s the most reasonable argument founded on reality that I’ve seen with regards to ‘what we might owe’.

    You can ask any questions you like on it (it might lead you to more learning mind you,,,), we all have to start somewhere, and it needs to have context if you plan on trying to explain it to others.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “If this becomes the prevailing narrative a major impediment to independence in many people’s minds will have been overcome. And that matters.”

      I’d agree that it certainly does. It did in my case, and it’s probably the most important factor. My heart always said “Independence”, but my head asked “How would it be paid for?”

      What a pity that all I seemed to see at the time was Alex Salmond smiling and brushing the question off with “Oh, the oil will cover that.”

      Secondly, though, was the whole Spanish veto of our staying in/rejoining the EU thing. Of course, that doesn’t apply any more either.


      1. I would agree with you there – looking back now, with what I know now, the 2014 narrative wasn’t sufficient, it was very politically based, and very much centred round arguing against ‘common knowledge’ (that is, the shite the uk establishment feeds us).

        We need to be savvy ourselves this time to up the game and get politicians taking the issue seriously I think.


    2. “You can ask any questions you like on it…”

      I hope you meant I could ask you/commenters on the site!

      Having read the piece, I’m not clear why it’d be necessary to insist on paying any compensation back using the Scottish £. Would someone mind educating the ignorant, please?


      1. Yes! I do mean ask questions here, of me, and a few others that seem to be well read (more so I think than me!) on the subject. I will, however, often redirect you elsewhere for the answer.

        The Scottish pound is another subject which Richard covered here:


        That should direct you to one of Tim Rideout’s comments on the article – he is very articulate on this specific subject, and includes a link to a website he has created on it. The article itself by Richard is on the subject too.

        What I am saying is that you are better understanding why we need our own currency in the first place – then the comment makes perfect sense. There is also the issue of how government debt works in an economy – so it is better to have any debt in your own currency: you can quickly create more money to replace it (so actually has little impact). If it is a debt in a foreign currency, then you have a few financial woes – I will have to find something on this to really inform you.

        If you start by looking at Tim Ridout’s explanations (he had a few comments on that article too), and maybe his website, which has fairly brief explanations, and see what questions those might throw up. I’ll try and think of the best explanation for debt in a foreign currency in the meantime.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. You ask: “… why it’d be necessary to insist on paying any compensation back using the Scottish £”. Strictly not necessary but eminently sensible. I’m no expert but these leads might assist.

        This is from Richard Murphy’s recent Tax Research blog: “Anything owing would be negotiated. Nothing relates to existing debt. So Scotland would be at complete liberty to demand that any favour it grants (for favour it would be) would have to be payable in Scottish pounds. Nothing else would do, and nothing else would be acceptable. Scotland would not want to start its independent existence owing debt in a foreign currency, and must not do so.”

        There are a number of factors that differentiate a nation-state that is a ‘currency issuer’ from those states, organisations and individuals that are (just) ‘currency users’. Useful insights are given here.


        The context is Covid-19 but the significance of a nation-state having its own currency is set out clearly.

        For a deeper dive into the characteristics of ‘currency issuers’ see:

        Stephanie Kelton (2020) The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and How to Build a Better Economy.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I suppose if the English can become immune to hundreds of deaths a day, the Scottish public could become immune to fake stories about hospitals.
    It looks like they already have.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.