Help Talking-up Scotland keep going
Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going
Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421
By Anonymous
Those who instruct the architects and engineers were aware in 1910 when the sewage works were opened…next to a poorhouse with a hospital wing…who gave a f*** about segregated families in a poorhouse.
They were aware in the early 1980s when the sewage works were renewed/enlarged. Who gave a f*** about Govanites. They were aware in 2000 when GGHB ignored its own ‘consultation’ which basically said “Cowglen FFS!”
They were aware when Janis Hughes (Labour MSP) led a debate against the GGHB ‘consultation’ manipulations again describing the sewage problem as did John Young (Conservative), Dorothy-Grace Elder(oh please read her speech “You Couldn’t Make It Up, Could You?”) and Bill Aitken (Conservative) https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2001-01-17.307.0
They were aware when Labour’s Malcolm Chisholm ignored the MSPs who protested when he signed it all off in 2002: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2002-09-12.13633.0&s=%22Acute+Services+Review+%28Glasgow%29%22
The SNP opposition led the debate and Nicola Sturgeon, Robert Brown (LibDem) and John Young (again!) all protested regarding the sewage works. Read the references – including the protests against the other hospital closures…who gave a f*** about anyone using the NHS.
The decision makers were well aware but went ahead anyway – there is a rumour (nothing more) that envelopes were dippped in Shieldhall Shit to provide brown colouration. Private medicine only treats profitable conditions – VAT free! We and our children, irrespective of ‘class’ or ‘wealth’ are all in the poorhouse now
Help Talking-up Scotland keep going
Crowdfunder at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/help-talking-up-scotland-keep-going
Or by direct bank transfer to: JOHN WATSON ROBERTSON Sort Code – 08-91-04 Account – 12266421
Discover more from Scotland's First and biggest Rebuttal Service -Talking-up Scotland
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Scotland's First and biggest Rebuttal Service -Talking-up Scotland 
See ‘Capella’ and ‘Anonymous’ comments at https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2026/08/30/grotesquely-misguided-how-in-2000-a-glasgow-doctor-described-the-bizarre-decision-to-build-the-new-glasgow-hospital-next-to-multiple-stinking-sewage-ponds-in-a-clear-and-shaming-indictment-o/
LikeLike
using Ai slop? Pure cringe, also sucks up all the precious Scottish water… I should’ve unsubscribed from this propaganda blog years ago.
LikeLike
AI slop is the picture, Gregor. The text is entirely true save for that which is not known (the financial trail). I have to give John Robertson credit – the Talking Up Scotland mantra is not served by continuous negative reports on Scotland’s flagship hospital – but no-one else is reporting even remotely accurately on this…ultimately he is potentially saving lives and lots of them especially immunocompromised children. TUS now regularly crops up on web searches because of the QEUH revelations. And go see (and smell) for yourself…just look to your right as you walk in (drivers sit too low to see). Speak to the staff (discreetly). Some of us have come here because we are or were hospital staff!! Please stick with JR at least for a bit longer and see what transpires. Also note that you are completely entitled to your say and not edited or blocked. I have never subscribed to any blog before now but I believe in JR’s credibility. Help him and recite ‘St Crispin’s Day’.
LikeLike
With apologies for the length of what follows. It’s hard to do justice to such a topic – to offer an authoritative account – without quoting extensively from the Scottish Parliament’s record of debate from c.25 years ago.
I and others on TuS discussing the siting of a new ‘South Glasgow Hospital’ have referred to a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 17 January 2001, noting the cross-party concerns about proposed location. Nearly two years later, these concerns about location of the new hospital had if anything become more acute. What follows comes from a debate in the Holyrood Chamber on 12 September 2002: ‘Acute Services Review (Glasgow)’ – https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2002-09-12.13633.0
Time for this debate was won by the SNP: Nicola Sturgeon MSP tabled the following motion (with my emphasis): ‘That the Parliament welcomes the proposed £700 million investment in the modernisation of Glasgow’s hospitals; CONSIDERS, however, that the plan by Greater Glasgow NHS Board for the re-structuring of acute services in Glasgow is unacceptable in its current form; is particularly concerned about the proposed number and location of in-patient hospitals and the reduction of accident and emergency departments from five to two, and calls upon the Minister for Health and Community Care to suspend his approval of the board’s plan and to establish an independent expert group to conduct, within six months, an impartial review of the plan, with a view to identifying proposals which command greater public acceptance and which can be implemented within a rapid timeframe.’
An amendment to the SNP motion, tabled by health minister Malcolm Chisholm MSP (Labour) for the Scottish Executive sought to gut the above motion of its prime purpose:
‘I move Amendment S1M-3375.1, to leave out from “considers” to end and insert:
“.. accepts that the status quo is not an option and that improvements and modernisation must be progressed as soon as possible in order to enhance the quality of care; recognises that this is a long-term plan which must be flexible enough to take account of changing service demands and developing medical practice; supports an on-going monitoring and review process that includes external independent audit by Audit Scotland on an annual basis; endorses a commitment to keep named services at Stobhill and Victoria over the next five years and to have this locally monitored; gives high priority to the acceleration of ambulatory care and diagnostics developments in consultation with local communities; recognises the particular concern over the number of accident and emergency departments and supports a review of this in two years time that involves staff, patient and community groups, Glasgow Health Council and the Scottish Royal Colleges, and welcomes current developments in the Scottish Ambulance Service which will include the near doubling of paramedics in Glasgow by 2005 and one paramedic in the crew of each front-line ambulance.”
This amendment tabled by Chisholm was passed: For 62, Against 52, Abstentions 5. Ms Sturgeon’s motion as amended (aka ‘gutted’) also passed: by the Executive minister and its backbenchers (including Jackie Baillie): For 65, Against 52, Abstentions 2.
To give a flavour of cross-party concerns about the decision-making process and the proposed hospital site, here is a sample of contributions to the debate:
Bill Aitken (Conservative) 12 September 2002: “There is alarm and bitterness about the way in which the consultation process has been run. It has been a sham. As Nicola Sturgeon said, in regard to the south side of the city, it is apparent that the Southern general option had been pencilled in in biro from the inception. The so-called consultation exercise was cosmetic. I have little doubt that those who were involved were determined to drive through that option. All through the process we have been bedevilled by lack of information and wrong information. We have received scant or wrong information on bed numbers, the availability of land for a possible new build at Cowglen, transport studies and costs. That is unacceptable.”
Aitken added: “The purpose of the SNP motion is to ensure that the review that is carried out is totally independent. Someone must consider the issue with a fresh mind and a clear eye. It is necessary to demonstrate that those decisions, which could affect the lives of people in Glasgow for the next 50 years, are taken on the basis of correct facts. There may be disagreement—it is inevitable—about the number of emergency units that there should be. Three would have to be regarded as an absolute minimum.“
“It is the unanimous view of the Glasgow MSPs who have been involved in the issue that Greater Glasgow NHS Board’s plans are wrong—wrongheaded to the point of being dangerous. It is disappointing that despite the considerable representations that have been made to him, the Minister for Health and Community Care feels unable to support the MSPs and the vast Majority of the Glasgow public. He is even prepared to fly in the face of considerable medical opinion. That is a very dangerous thing to do. I pay tribute to MSPs of all parties—and those who are independent—and their efforts to achieve a review of the situation. There has been a mature and measured debate.”
Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat): ‘I remain of the view that the choice of the Southern general hospital as the main south side centre was wrong. The hospital is located at the extreme tip of the south side and is subject to unpleasant smells from the Shieldhall sewage works.’
Gordon Jackson (Labour): ‘… having closely examined the evidence and the arguments, I am extremely unhappy at the recommendation to build a massive hospital on the Southern general site. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that location is important.
‘I know that we have had a consultation process. Indeed, that is part of the problem. The people of the south side of Glasgow feel that that process has been a sham, and they are not far wrong about that. It is increasingly clear that the health trust and its predecessor have had a very definite agenda and have always intended to reach the conclusion that has been reached. Having examined the matter over the past three and a half year, I have found that there has been no openness of thinking.’
Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party) ‘Last Saturday, I attended the annual forum of Glasgow’s community councils. Many of the 140 delegates were angry and frustrated that consultation is devalued by the frequent refusal of the council, the health board or even the Scottish Executive to take any notice of the views—often passionately held and well researched—of community groups, staff and members of the public. The acute services review is a prime example of that.’
Tommy Sheridan (SSP): “It is rare—even unique—for me to applaud the likes of Bill Aitken and Gordon Jackson for speeches they have made in the chamber, but we have a rare situation. We have an opportunity for the members of Parliament for Glasgow to seize on an issue that means so much to the people of Glasgow. It is a cross-party issue. It is about ditching party priorities and putting Glasgow first. That is why the proposal cannot be accepted today. Let us have the six-month time-limited review and let us make sure that we do not subject the citizens of Glasgow to any more high risks.”
Kenneth Macintosh (Labour): “I welcome the commitment to local consultation, but will the minister describe one Greater Glasgow NHS Board proposal that has been affected by the views of residents? Has one change been made to the plan that was proposed two years ago because of the views of residents on the south side of Glasgow?”
Candidly, I had no idea that the consultation process and the decision on location of what was once termed the ‘new South Glasgow Hospital’ had been quite so controversial. The gutting of Ms Sturgeon’s SNP motion by the Executive’s (Labour/Lib Dem) ministers and backbenchers meant that the serious concerns regarding the site for the new hospital near Shieldhall were effectively put to one side: the rest is history!
LikeLike
…and a certain Damn Jackie Baillie supported the Labour decision to build on this site …but after the SNP became the SG she became the most vociferous critic . Funny that !
LikeLike
Well researched and said, stewartb. Hope Gregor McIntosh reads this and rejoins the fight. People just don’t believe this is happening until it hits them or their families. One way or another we all eventually need hospital care and hopefully cure…not a death trap. Thanks again.
LikeLike
according to google:
Sewage treatment works release bacteria into the air as tiny water droplets called bioaerosols
Aerial concentrations drop off rapidly over distance. Studies show that airborne bacteria numbers fall back to normal background ambient levels within 250 to 300 meters downwind, posing a minimal health risk to nearby communities under normal operating conditions.
I hope this reassures anyone visiting the hospital.
LikeLike
”Under normal operating conditions”. Maybe? And it is barely five metres away, on your immediate right as you walk down ‘Hospital Boulevard’ and abutting against the Hospital mortuary (appropriately enough) and lab building – you can almost touch it. Well under 100 metres, maybe less than 50m, from immunocompromised children. Read Tom Makin Q&A at Scottish Hospitals Inquiry. QEUH/RHCG is a death trap situated where it is to make way for houses and profits at Cowglen and Yorkhill. https://invest-glasgow.foleon.com/igpubs/glasgow-pitchbook/yorkhill-hospital-campus. Not getting at you fellow anon…what the in the pocket politicos have done is almost impossible to believe but you can’t unsee it once you realise the awful truth. I wish you, and all of our families well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
yup. Checked on Google maps. It’s well within 300 metres of Shieldhall.
we’ll have to rely on this:
“the plant
uses enclosed treatment units, chemical scrubbing, and biofilters to capture and treat foul air before it disperses into surrounding communities like Govan and Linthouse.”
LikeLike
Literally five metres to raw untreated sewage. This is the large raw sewage recipient plant where everything from ~500,000 people plus surrounding countryside, industry etc is gathered. It’s right there beside you as you walk towards the hospital. Gregor has already taken the ‘AI slop’ picture to task but it does actually illustrate the reality of where the raw sewage is in relation to ‘Hospital Boulevard’. Just look to your right as you walk in. The second works, the processing plant across Renfrew Road might well be 200 or so metres away from immunocompromised kids and there they actually add more bacteria and flagellates to assist the digestion process. Everyone – including experts and the Scottish Hospitals Inquiry – somehow assume that the plant across Renfrew Road next to Thales is as close as the sewage gets. NO. Maybe going to the rooftop of the multi-storey carpark next to the neonatal, maternity and kids buildings and looking over at the immediate proximity will give perspective. And you will the realise how curated all the maps and photos of the area are, drawing attention only to the processing plant. But ambulant patients within the hospital grounds can see and smell the stuff right next to them. And probably contaminating the retrofitted SuDS pond. The sewage tanks are ultimately stopped by the hospital dead i.e. the mortuary! Once you get your head around the true layout you simply shudder. “The horror! The horror!”
LikeLike