Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland
Click on the above.
Or direct bank transfer at Sort Code 08-91-04 Account - 12266421 Name - JOHN ROBERTSON
In the Daily Record today from Paul Hutcheon:
A top medic has claimed the SNP Government’s new GP walk-in centres will widen inequalities by attracting wealthier patients. Dr Chris Provan also said the new policy is “unworkable”, “more costly” and will not solve the 8am lottery for appointments.…He said the experience of walk-in centres in England shows they are “more expensive to run” than normal general practice, due to a reliance on locums.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/gp-walk-clinincs-widen-inequalities-36789077
Leaving aside that a doctor’s union rep is not a ‘top doctor’, comprehensive evidence from a 2014 UK government-commissioned review of walk-in centres paints a different picture. Based on patient surveys (n=1,886 across 20 centres), usage was highest among lower socioeconomic groups (e.g., 36% from the lowest social grades DE, compared to higher grades), women (59%), and younger adults (16-45 years old). Centres were often located in deprived areas (28% in the 10% most deprived per the Index of Multiple Deprivation), served unregistered patients (up to 50% at some sites, often from lower SES), and reached hard-to-reach populations like ethnic minorities, homeless individuals, and those with barriers to traditional GP registration.
A 2015 area-level analysis of geographical accessibility to general practice services in England found a “positive primary care law,” where more deprived areas had better access to GP premises (98.2% of the population in the most deprived decile lived within a 20-minute walk, vs. 81.2% in the most affluent.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/5/e007328
The evidence used by Hutcheon and Provan, after analysis, has clear methodological weaknesses compared to the more robust 2014 government-commissioned review. These limitations include small or incomplete samples, reliance on unstructured or routine data, observational designs without controls, and indirect or absent assessments of socioeconomic status (SES), which reduce their reliability for drawing firm conclusions on inequalities. This confirms that Hutcheon is no ‘top journalist’ and Provan only has an undergraduate degree absent even a wee a research methods module.
Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland
Click on the above.
Or direct bank transfer at Sort Code 08-91-04 Account - 12266421 Name - JOHN ROBERTSON
Talking-up Scotland 
‘I believe Kaye Adams was too good for Radio Scotland: that’s why they got rid of her’
That is an article in The Herald newspaper today via Brian Beacom.
So then, reading that headline, we should all just forget or ignore the bullying allegations made against her, two of which were upheld by her employer the BBC.
Still it is a novel opinion , that in you stating that someone was “too good” for an organisation, that is then the reason why that organisation decide to “get rid off” that person…….
Where the ‘wee’ matter of the bullying allegations made against Adams were not to be seen as relevant or significant to her dismissal then ?
So many places within the world today declare that they have Zero tolerance for certain behaviours, while in Scotland, certain employees of certain newspapers are determined to take a directly opposing position.
So bullying by a bully should be forgiven or ignored and those who accuse a fellow employee, more senior than them, of being a bully , should be ignored, if that is , the bully is seen by certain journalists to be “too good” for those that they work for.
Really ?
Twilight zone logic then.
Well I guess for some Journalists within Scotland that kind of opinion that they hold is only dependent upon ……..who it was who had been accused of doing the bullying, or so it seems.
Honestly some of the s*** they come out with is beyond incredible, but here we are, so that then is what they expect us the public to swallow…no way , as that kind of wrong opinion sticks in your craw.
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies for yet another comment by me.
Via my Kaye Adams comment above , it surely proves that yet again……..
The culprit is to be presented as the victim while the victims are excluded from receiving the same consideration, sympathy, empathy and support in all that they allegedly suffered.
It seems that it is to be with the alleged bully that all of our sympathies should lie…….so then a case of….
#Wheesht-For-The-Victims-Of-The-Alleged-Bully
Liz S
LikeLike
The (joke) TV daily morning phone-in programme Vine on 5, that hosts, as panel members, many of the guests invited onto the rogue TV channel GB News asked this today.
“Should Sir Keir Starmer be praised for standing up to Donald Trump? The PM has stood by his decision not to involve Britain in strikes on Iran, but he’s been branded “weak” by the Americans and opposition parties. Do you think he’s stepped up to protect British interests”?
Was this Starmer standing up to Trump” just after he, Starmer , conceded to America’s request to allow the US to use UK bases to strike Iranian missile sites ?
But then rather than be grateful Trump declared that Sir Keir had “not been helpful”, with Trump adding that he “never thought I’d see that from the UK”……….
Also Trump’s initial response was that the UK “took far too long to respond to his request for the US to use UK bases for their strikes upon Iranian missile sites”.
So had Trump not initially been so negative and also so critical of both Starmer and the UK State, then would Starmer now be reacting in the way that he is.
That is when he , Starmer, told MPs in the HOC that the government “does not believe in regime change from the skies”, so allegedly putting him, Starmer, at odds with President Trump over the joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
However you then have to wonder where is that same level of direct criticism against Israel in all of this from Keir Starmer ?
So not strong leadership from Starmer , more a case of Starmer being defensive against Trump’s personal attacks upon him and also upon the UK state that his Labour party governs.
Also saw this online today in respect to Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM.
This morning, 2 March , interview on BBC Breakfast TV with Labour’s Darren Jones via a post by Saul Staniforth
“Will you say.. that you think what America is doing is illegal” ?
“Thats a Q for the Americans”
“I’m asking for your judgement” ?
“My judgement only relates to what Britain does”
Saul Staniforth then rightly point out the hypocrisy of Jones position when he added in his post that:
So its up to Russia to say whether invading Ukraine was legal & you don’t have an opinion, right?
Also he , Saul S, added another post online via that same interview.
“Why won’t you.. give a judgement on what America is doing?”
Govt minister Darren Jones: “Its not for me to comment on the legal basis for actions undertaken by other countries”
Saul Staniforth then again rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of Jones’s position when he, Saul, added in his post that:
So you’re saying the govt hasn’t commented on whether Russias invasion of Ukraine was legal or not?
I agree with Saul…….but also that includes Keir Starmer himself, who cannot stop expressing his opinion upon the actions of both Putin and Russia against Ukraine .
However it seems to be that for Labour and also for Starmer, both Netanyahu and Israel are those that Labour and Starmer prefer to be far more reticent upon.
That is in Labour failing to express their public condemnation against Netanyahu and Israel to the media for the exact same kinds of aggression and atrocities that Labour say Russia is committing against Ukraine.
Got it but it seems , yet again, Vine on 5 fails to get it also.
#NotSurprised
Liz S
LikeLike
Saw this online
“Exclusive polling shows the Green Party have leapfrogged Labour in voting intention polls, as the second most popular UK party. Sky’s Sam Coates explains”
But the Green party of England and Wales cannot be voted for in Scotland , as the Green party in Scotland is a separate entity.
Perhaps I forgot to factor in that Sam Coates of SKY News holds the opinion , like all other employees of other UK news outlets, that the UK equates to being predominantly the same as England.
Now to comment on this specific poll , does it not then emphatically prove that in Labour emulating Reform UK’s policies and rhetoric then what we are actually now seeing is that many voters , within England, are choosing a real political alternative and a actual distinct political party, the Green party in England, to the toxic politics of Reform UK ( and Labour).
As in the same Reform UK (pretend) party that Labour assumes that they can somehow ape and so then win over their voters, who normally, as voters, would choose Reform UK as their preferred party of choice.
Labour, as a party, forget all about those other voters that they are leaving behind , who would never ever vote for Reform UK in any election , as they as voters totally oppose Reform UK’s policies and their rhetoric but they also intensely dislike Nigel Farage.
That intense dislike from voters has now also transferred to Keir Starmer and to Labour party too, as Keir Starmer and Labour are now seen by many voters as being no better than and no different from either the Tories or Reform UK .
So you do indeed, if you are new new Labour, reap that which you have sown…see under “division” and also “sectarian” words and acts via both Labour and Reform UK. (but also under the Tory party too).
Voters everywhere want actual real “change” that they now see is not something that is to be found with Labour, the Tory party, the Lib Dems or the pretend political party that is Reform UK.
So those other voters are now turning to the Green party in England, Plaid Cymru in Wales and one hopes also that more voters within Scotland will turn to and so vote for the SNP in Scotland come May’s elections.
Liz S
LikeLike
Mr Hutcheon illustrates an endemic problem with the ‘Scottish’ Labour mindset.
Since 2007 it has been oppositionist. The former Labour MP, Willie Bain expressed the ‘strategy’ as, “Whatever the SNP proposes we (‘Scottish’ Labour) oppose it”.
By adopting this approach many of its members and voters have ceased to think creatively. They oppose, they do not consider the merits of the proposal. It did not come from them – ergo BAD.
With the dominance of the Labour Together faction, any ideas, especially redistributive and communitarian ones are treated hostilely and people espousing such views or critiquing blue Labour ones are excoriated, briefed against, forced out of the party.
Blue Labour’s strategy is to position Labour as closely as possible to the ‘traditional One Nation’ Conservative Party concepts on the basis that the Conservatives have won most elections by attracting a number, but not a majority, of working class voters. This entails embracing Thatcherism and the ‘meritocratic’ falsehood and not reversing in any significant way, the movement of wealth and power from the majority of the population to a small powerful minority who are only conditionally based in the UK. Consequently the poor and, increasingly the rest of us get poorer and more disempowered. Labour has no story to tell people.
But, the very wealthy snake oil salesman, Farage has a story – a mendacious one which he has no intention of keeping, but by presenting himself as against nonsense like the ‘deep state’ and the ‘woke’ and people who are not white English he attracts people who see in the Tories and Labour no hope of improvement of their lot and see Reform as giving the system a kick.
Fortunately, in Scotland, Wales and Ireland we have other alternatives and, perhaps, in England, the Green Party is making some headway. There is a growing feeling for local autonomy in England.
But a mindset that is oppositionist finds it impossible to create and articulate alternatives.
LikeLike