84% of doctors not prepared to strike

There are around 15 000 doctors in Scotland.

BMA Scotland only got responses from 3 100 and, of those who cared enough to respond, 78%, 2 418, indicated they were prepared, on paper, were to go on strike.

2 418 is only 16% of 15 000 and there may be more than 15 000 doctors in Scotland.

This is another trade union survey based on a self-selecting, ‘squeaky-wheel’, thus unrepresentative, sample. It would fail an S4 Modern Studies project on its methodology.

2 thoughts on “84% of doctors not prepared to strike

  1. So the BBC headline is quite simply a LIE! How does a supposed serious organisation with a public service mission get away with this?

    If the BMA Scotland survey is based on a self-selecting sample – as seems to be the case – there is NO statistical basis for extrapolating from the survey sample to the population of BMA Scotland members. Without that statistical extrapolation, there is NO way of justifying the definitive conclusion stated in the headline.

    How on earth does this get past the BBC’s editorial quality assurance and control – unless of course there is now an in-house, an institutional, mindset within BBC Scotland that actively turns a blind eye to – or unconsciously, just no longer notices – such journalistic practices, so normalised is the gaslighting of Scotland.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I noticed this on the Health page of the BBC News website today: ‘People’s health at risk unless action taken on energy costs – NHS leaders’. It’s written by Nick Triggle, Health Correspondent.

    See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62598309

    Within the article we read: ‘The NHS Confederation said the UK was facing a “humanitarian crisis”.’ It must have been a tough decision NOT to use that quote as the headline – yes?

    The article doesn’t feature today on the main UK or the main England pages. A potential ‘humanitarian crisis’ in England not newsworthy enough?

    The BBC helpfully tells readers this about the CEO of the NHS Confederation: ‘Chief executive Matthew Taylor, a former Labour Party adviser.” Does that downgrade the legitimacy of the intervention?

    And no opposition party comments in the article – none sought or none offered?

    Liked by 3 people

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 )

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.