Glasgow prof has made up results to cast Scotland in a negative light

This morning, the above happy professor Andrew Jahoda of Glasgow University, told BBC Scotland:

Services are finding it incredibly difficult to find workers, to resource services and we have the cost of living crisis. Although we have devolved governments and different polices, to a degree, the findings were consistent across all four countries of the UK.”

I’ve now been able to read the research upon which his claim is based.

It is qualitative research, using a legitimate methodology which helps researchers to understand the meaning events have for the subjects of the research. It consists of interviews with 354 adults with mild/moderate learning disabilities across the UK, 87 in Scotland.

Such research methods, unlike quantitative methods based on a sufficiently large, random sample, geographically representative and asking exactly the same questions of all of them cannot be used to compare what is happening in different geographic areas.

There is no evidence at all in the report to justify the above claim. The word ‘Scotland’ appears only four times and ‘countries’ not even once. There is not even an anecdotal reference to the claim. Professor Jahoda has just made this up and, notably, only BBC Scotland have reported the claim.



12 thoughts on “Glasgow prof has made up results to cast Scotland in a negative light

  1. So called doctors would be better suited to their trade
    In helping people in Need instead of Tag along with a tv channel WHOs only “angle” is to disrupt Scot’s health


  2. A dinner party conversation with john Beattie, perhaps? A text sent to Fiona ‘”Hello, Douglas” in a cheery voice’ Stalker?


  3. “Bringing into disrepute” occurred at the mere mention of HMS James Cook – viz “That’s according to a study seen by BBC Scotland” – loosely translated as Lazy Winters moved it to make room for her coffee…


  4. OT John I saw “Councils claim route upgrade could be worth £5bn” on the BBC Scotland page which puzzled me because of the subject – Yet on opening the piece the branch heading appeared in the heading…
    I didn’t recall seeing such a heading of news/articles, and couldn’t find such a sub-directory as ‘articles’ when I looked under “”.
    Am I just missing the obvious or is this the invisible hand at play ?


    1. This will reappear again more prominently because we now no where a chunk of the levelling up funds will be going, to the A75. And we know who the MPs and ermine clad wallahs are, and what areas they are supposed to represent.
      It will also make a good argument for them (stick with us we get things done for you) to try and sway the local population when they try that old favourite of their’s PARTITIONING.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. O/T The BBC News website just now has this leading on its ‘Home’ page: ‘Shocking abuse found across fire services – report’ The short summary beneath reads: ‘Findings could be the tip of the iceberg, watchdog says, as some likened fire service to a boys’ club. 6m UK’

    The same headline and short description appears as the most prominent piece on BBC website’s ‘UK’ page. The same description appears on its ‘England’ page but less prominently.

    It’s only by clicking through to the main article that you learn in the first sentence that: ‘Staff at a quarter of fire and rescue services IN ENGLAND have reported alleged racist, homophobic and misogynistic behaviour in their ranks in the past five years, inspectors say.’ (my emphasis)

    Now why is the scope of this widespread bullying and abuse NOT made clear in the headline and NOT in the short introductions appearing on the Home, UK and England pages? And why among the latter three is it LEAST PROMINENTLY displayed on the England page? Is this really more important news for a UK-wide readership than an England-based readership?

    Why is the headline this: ‘Shocking abuse found across fire services – report’? To be more informative it could/should have been this: ‘Shocking abuse in England’s fire services – report’? Would the BBC have missed out the word ‘Scotland’s’ if the report had been about another nation’s service?

    Another example – albeit of minor significance when considering just this one instance – of particular editorial choices being made again.

    As someone else btl on TuS wrote recently: ‘‘.. England has become the country that dare not speak its name ..’ . Well, at least one that the BBC does it’s bit to shield when negative news stories feature.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.