Pin,
Was Scottish life expectancy lower than the UK prior to 1999?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
White Paper (THE #indyref thread)
(2915 posts)- Started 11 years ago by Morningsider
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
These are a direct consequence of his own health, transport and education policies.
That is errant nonsense and you know it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@pintail
I'm certainly not sick of hearing other people's points of view, so thanks for that. I guess it makes sense to be opposed to independence if you actually believe the First Minister is killing Scots. However...I think you may be giving the Scottish Government more 'credit' than it is due. Mortality in parts of Scotland is incredibly high. Causation is not possible to demonstrate even in the simplest of cases, but correlation is. High mortality in Scotland correlates well with poverty, low educational achievement, smoking, poor diet, sedentary lifestyle and drinking. The Scottish Government has made efforts to tackle all of these, but of course commercial interests have made greater efforts to worsen diet, smoking, lifestyle and drinking.
I would expect the first government of an independent Scotland to make the health of the West of Scotland its first and most urgent priority. I would expect the next Westminster government to make the well-being of the City of London its first priority. I could be wrong about both, but that's why I'm currently backing Yes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The major health inequalities are in Glasgow and are long-standing. However, the inequalities have actually increased in recent years and are linked to areas of policy - alcohol consumption for instance - that are within the scope of the Scottish Government. But to give them their due, proposals to curb excessive alcohol consumption, including a major overhaul of licensing, have also been pursued by the Scottish Government, in the face of varying levels of opposition from other parties and the drinks industry.
Since the main causes of health inequality are generational and structural issues of deprivation, linked to large scale deindustrialisation, what exactly is it you think the Scottish Government should have done that it hasn't?
http://www.sphsu.mrc.ac.uk/research-programmes/mh/hsco/glasefct.html
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Party politics “sometimes works to the detriment of local problem solving”, according to an Edinburgh University report drawn from a third sector discussion forum. Real power “is not actually with elected politicians” but with “officials, quangos and central government, which can hinder a culture of accountability”, the forum found."
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/party-politics-ruining-democracy-1-3410329
Posted 10 years ago # -
How about "These are in part a direct consequence of his own continuation of health, transport and education policies of successive governments in Scotland and elsewhere"?
Just because our current Scottish Government, which most voters didn't vote for, is wrong about lots of things doesn't mean everything bad is Salmond's fault.
The Scottish Government could do more to promote healthier diets, lifestyles, active travel, living wage, ... It could do less to encourage inactive travel (building extra roads, ineffective enforcement of laws against bad driving, ...)Posted 10 years ago # -
@slowcoach
Quite so. Many people seem to confuse a question of how and where decisions get made with which decisions get made.
I'm alarmed by Police Scotland's apparent decision to allow officers to routinely go armed. I'm reassured by the fact that this aspect of our lives is under the control of Holyrood, which answers to my fellow Scots.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Why would you be more reassured that it's under the control of Holyrood when it was Holyrood that centralised the police force and supplied the guns? I can't decide whether it would be more alarming if the routine arming of coppers was done with the approval of Holyrood's Justice Minister or without it.
And how is it more reassuring when Holyrood is hardly more accountable to your fellow Scots than Westminster but less scrutinised both by the absence of any revising chamber and, what seems to be, a completely ineffective and easily manipulated committee system?
To me it seems largely irrelevant how proximate the accountability is but more important how it is done and the framework within which it operates. I'm happier that human rights are ultimately overseen by international or supranational bodies than I would be if either Kenny Macaskill or Chris Grayling had the final say. Both seem, to different degrees admittedly, ready to trample over them for either a headline or a quick boost to the conviction rate.
Which just reminds me of my deep suspicion at the proposal to have a unicameral legislature.
Posted 10 years ago # -
'if either Kenny Macaskill or Chris Grayling had the final say'
That would worry me too. I'd like to think ra Scottish people would have the ultimate say through universal suffrage.
And I also agree that bicameral parliament is a good idea. I'd like to see an upper chamber selected by lottery.
EDIT
I'd also like to see the head of state chosen through a poetry competition. Neither lottery nor verse-off are clearly more absurd than the current systems for the upper house and the head of state.
Posted 10 years ago # -
DENNIS
I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.ARTHUR
Yes.DENNIS
... But all the decision of that officer ...ARTHUR
Yes, I see.DENNIS
... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs.ARTHUR
Be quiet!DENNIS
... but a two-thirds majority ...ARTHUR
Be quiet! I order you to shut up.OLD WOMAN
Order, eh -- who does he think he is?ARTHUR
I am your king!OLD WOMAN
Well, I didn't vote for you.ARTHUR
You don't vote for kings.OLD WOMAN
Well, how did you become king, then?Posted 10 years ago # -
Is that your submission for the head of state verse-off? Not bad.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Poetry specifically about wanting to be elected head of state or on any subject?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Oh, any subject. No rules in a head of state verse-off.
I adopt the haiku style;Canal tow path hope
Sapphire and gold kingfisher
No Halcyon dayPosted 10 years ago # -
Beat each other with a sock full of horse manure.
I thought it was Groucho but Google says Woody Allan.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
NICOLA Sturgeon says the race for the last Scottish seat in next week’s European elections is shaping as a straight fight between the SNP and UKIP.
"
Well she would say that wouldn't she?
As suggested previously (upthread), might be true, unless Greens can outpoll UKIP - on the day (next week).
Posted 10 years ago # -
Green Party begs to differ
Posted 10 years ago # -
I certainly hope UKIP is waning, but still hard to believe figures for Greens.
Posted 10 years ago # -
As Slowcoach says "The Scottish Government could do more to promote healthier diets, lifestyles, active travel, living wage, ... It could do less to encourage inactive travel (building extra roads, ineffective enforcement of laws against bad driving,...)"
Salmond's other failing is that he has spent the last 7 years since he came to office working against the Westminster government at every opportunity, always on the look out to score points against them in furtherence of his own presidential agenda. Come Sept 19th he needs to stop seeing them as an adversary and to start working with them as a valued partner in order to fully realise the benefits of devolution.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@pintail
Again, thanks for this. I understand that you aren't keen on the First Minister, and that's fair enough. Indeed I share some of your skepticism.
Could you expand on the benefits of devolution though? I can see benefits in a united kingdom, with one set of laws for all, and I can see benefits in an independent Scotland with one set of laws for all. But devolution always seemed to me to either be preparation for independence or just a constitutional dog's dinner. What do you see as the key advantages of devolving some powers?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I hope you don't mind my intruding a quote here - it seems relevant. Andrew Neil, the veteran journalist and former Scotsman editor, is reported to have said this at a charity dinner a couple of years ago:
"Devolution, the Calman Commission, the Scotland Bill, the Edinburgh Agreement, all of this and more you have, is because Westminster parties are scared of the SNP. If you vote ‘No’ you massively change the balance of power and they will not only give you nothing, but will probably take powers away from the Scottish Parliament”
(Quote courtesy of Business for Scotland.)
I don't normally agree with Mr Neil but in this case I think he's right.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think things have moved on since then, but the better-together parties aren't falling over each other to announce details of 'more/better devo if you vote no'.
Apart from 'obvious certainties' - like 'in or out if Europe??', there are no guarantees on the Barnett Formula.
"
"
Better together?
Perhaps.
More of the same?
Who knows??
Posted 10 years ago # -
@chdot
There is no mechanism for things to 'move on'. No one is in a position to make guarantees of anything after a No vote. A No vote simply means that we will get whatever Westminster decides.
Not to get all Mel Gibson about it, but in the aftermath of 1745 a medal was struck - you can see one in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery - showing the Duke of Cumberland victorious over the highlanders and bearing the legend 'Rebellion Justly Rewarded'.
The British state is only ever nice to people who have beaten it - note the very friendly terms of their relations with the Irish Republic, whose citizens are allowed to vote here and are not legally 'foreign'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Is this like son of Project Fear?
Posted 10 years ago # -
I did try to indicate the tone through the 'Not to get all Mel Gibson about it..' line. If I could use Comic Sans on here I would have done so, to indicate a dream sequence.
But I actually do think that Scotland will feel the sting of the lash if we vote No. Not mass executions or clearances, but nothing nice is going to happen.
Posted 10 years ago # -
That's a "yes", then?
Posted 10 years ago # -
It might be a 'yes' if I constituted a nationwide campaign.
As it is it's me expressing personal worries.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I'll say it again. If each poll is sampling from the same population their estimates should be tightly clustered around a central estimate."
You do realise that these polls are not mathematical outliers at all, right? This isn't a product of random variation.
You could only call these polls outliers if they were using the same methodology as the rest. Then you'd know they were in the small number of polls that, through random variation, is getting an unusual result.
But these polls aren't a result of random variation - we can see this because they are consistent with themselves, and they match the trends found by other pollsters. The difference between those clustered together and those further out is solely and exclusively the result of different methodologies.
I would not criticse the methodlogies any of them use for sampling or weighting - they are all based on decent theories. But, given that they are not the same tried-and-tested methodologies used in UK general election polling, which of the theories is more accurate than the others will only be clear after the vote. Until then, there is literally no way of knowing for sure. No amount of polls could possibly tell us.
[For the benefit of anyone reading this but not following - if YouGov did 100 seperate polls on the same day, on the same question, using the same method, they'd get 100 results clustered around a central point. Some would be far apart from this point, and these would be outliers. But if they did 100 seperate polls but on 20 they did face-to-face street interviews, 20 at-home interviews, 20 online panel, 20 house phone and 20 mobile phone, they'd get 5 different clusters. Saying that the central point of any one cluster is more likely to be accurate than any other is not something you can know unless you can compare it to something real - like an election result.]
"Methodology only becomes an important consideration after we've established that there is something wrong, when we're trying to explain why, for instance, Panelbase is so regularly an outlier."
But of course some of them are wrong, because of the range in their results.
The clever bit is working out which of them is wrong, and why. I'm not even going to attempt that, but what I do know is that saying the companies closest together must be closer to accuracy is really obviously a big overstatement. There's a strong possibility that it's true, but you certainly can't say that's what the numbers show.
"But fundamentally, I think we have different interests in this and that leads us to approach the question differently."
That would be a reasonable accusation if I was suggesting the polls were better on the Yes side than the No. But I'm not. I'm saying that polls that are terrible for Yes - which you are calling outliers - could well be correct.
So what you're doing here is using my support for one side as an accusation that I am letting a bias cloud my judgement.
That would be like me saying that your job forces you to cling tightly to not admitting that you're wrong in saying these polls are clearly outliers, because it would be embarassing. But I wouldn't do that. I'm just sticking to the maths.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It might be a 'yes' if I constituted a nationwide campaign.
As it is it's me expressing personal worries.
That is true, IWRATS; but I have heard the same fears expressed by the Nicola Sturgeon.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I can't speak for the Sturgeon, but the whole conversation gets sterile if people can't talk about things they hope for and fear.
Upthread I've suggested a way of doing this - everyone should say what they least like about their preferred outcome and most like about their least preferred option.
Posted 10 years ago # -
One problem with the No campaign is that the constituent political parties have so far (?) been unable to agree on a lowest common denominator of 'if No, therefore...'.
'More of the same' may attract some people, but that can't be meaningfully guaranteed.
On today's World at One Mr. Farage was (seriously) contemplating a coalition with Mr. Cameron after next year's general election!
There are many reasons for 'staying together', but the (guarantee of) 'continuity of governance from Westminster' is hardly one of them.
IF there is a No, perhaps 'federalism' will be discussed more - perhaps, largely, in a 'devolution for English regions' sense. Perhaps more powers for cities/city regions - for both England and Scotland will become a popular cause.
Perhaps one lesson from the rise of UKIP (for 'people' rather than politicians) is that there is a (desire to) move away from the party political system. Ironically of course if UKIP does well (mostly in England) it will in practice be 'just another political party'.
Or maybe enough people will think that their 'vision' for 'the future' has more chance of happening if they vote Yes.
Posted 10 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
