Scottish Parliament f**k-ups

[Ned Nederlander]

On 18/09/2021 at 11:15, Elric said:

The Forth Crossing has to be another.

^ Elric Cole-Hamilton 

 

[scottsdad]

On 18/09/2021 at 11:10, tamthebam said:

Perhaps not the SP's fault as such but the whole Parliament building f**k up.

The wrong architect with the wrong design in the wrong place. There was a perfectly good building in the High School they could have used but Oor Donald and Labour had to make their mark.

There was a fantastic documentary made about this in the mid-2000s. I used to show it in my old cost control class. 

The issue here was not the original design - rather, the client (initially Dewar) changed. Work had started when the new parliamentary group changed the design. Then changed it again. None of this was helped by the architect's death and a few other issues that came up.  But in terms of how to wreck a construction project, this was it. 

The parliamentary group who kept changing the design are the same group who pushed for inquiries to blame the architect. 

[scottsdad]

The failure that I can see is that there is no reflection or cold analysis of a policy to see if it works. Minimum alcohol pricing has been touted as a success since before it was even brought in. The evidence is that it's had a minor effect initially but no longer. It is a failed policy. But they can never admit a failure so it stays. 

[Baxter Parp]

The failure that I can see is that there is no reflection or cold analysis of a policy to see if it works. Minimum alcohol pricing has been touted as a success since before it was even brought in. The evidence is that it's had a minor effect initially but no longer. It is a failed policy. But they can never admit a failure so it stays. 

How has it failed?

[BFTD]

14 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

How has it failed?

Half the folk on the Politics board are clearly still stocious.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

[welshbairn]

4 hours ago, scottsdad said:

There was a fantastic documentary made about this in the mid-2000s. I used to show it in my old cost control class. 

The issue here was not the original design - rather, the client (initially Dewar) changed. Work had started when the new parliamentary group changed the design. Then changed it again. None of this was helped by the architect's death and a few other issues that came up.  But in terms of how to wreck a construction project, this was it. 

The parliamentary group who kept changing the design are the same group who pushed for inquiries to blame the architect. 

Do you remember the name? Think it's the same with software projects, the bosses of the client talk to the bosses of the designers, and the end user doesn't get any input until it's already gone double budget.

[scottsdad]

12 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Do you remember the name? Think it's the same with software projects, the bosses of the client talk to the bosses of the designers, and the end user doesn't get any input until it's already gone double budget.

The Holyrood Files - worth a watch!

[GAD]

18 hours ago, scottsdad said:

The failure that I can see is that there is no reflection or cold analysis of a policy to see if it works. Minimum alcohol pricing has been touted as a success since before it was even brought in. The evidence is that it's had a minor effect initially but no longer. It is a failed policy. But they can never admit a failure so it stays. 

There was independent research published from the University of Newcastle just a couple of months ago that showed it was a success in both Scotland and Wales and recommended that England follow. I believe Ireland are bringing it in next year as well based on the evidence of how it's worked in Scotland.

[welshbairn]

Lancet's got a study recommending raising alcohol taxes to reduce related cancers, no mention of Scotland though.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(21)00210-6/fulltext

 

[Suspect Device]

Doubling current alcohol excise duties could avoid just under 6% (or 10,700 cases and 4,850 deaths) of new alcohol-attributable cancers within the WHO European Region, particularly in Member States of the European Union where excise duties are in many cases very low.

 

They can go f**k themselves. Them and the Scottish government.

 

[Clown Job]

I think the list system can be in both pros and cons of the Scottish Parliament 

Pros - It gives smaller parties the opportunity to get seats in the Parliament

Cons - Murdo Fraser, over 20 years as an MSP despite never winning an election 

[the snudge]

The determination to centralise everything. 

Not adapting the education system radically to the Finnish model. That is a colossal f**k up. We teach kids to take/pass tests, this is fundamentally wrong. It's not relevant to the working world. 

Treatment of football fans. The OF can't behave and everyday fans that support other clubs are punished as if football culture is that of the 1980s. It's not. Fans should be able to enjoy a beer or whatever in their seat. 

Minimum wage - this should be higher. Infact it should be done away with and a universal basic income be installed. I get that in some instances we're restricted by not having a fully autonomous government but that's a different argument. 

Sports in schools - not enough effort is being channeled into getting fitter and healthier. It starts when we're young. We have crazy amounts of unhealthy people which are a drain on our health system. More needs done to combat this. It'll take a whole mentality shift. 

Public transport - its too expensive. Its shite. It cost more to go from Dumbarton to Inverness by train that it did for me to fly to Valencia. That shouldn't happen.

Politicians - they don't seem representative of everyday folk in the SG. They're not employed in their area of expertise. There's too many that don't know what real life is about. For example Humza Yousaf - studied politics now a minister for health. What expertise does he bring to the table when it comes to making critical decisions?

John Swinney - studied politics and was the education minister. He's never been a teacher, or a head of a educational establishment. What did he bring to the role? 

 

 

[scottsdad]

18 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

20 hours ago, scottsdad said:

The failure that I can see is that there is no reflection or cold analysis of a policy to see if it works. Minimum alcohol pricing has been touted as a success since before it was even brought in. The evidence is that it's had a minor effect initially but no longer. It is a failed policy. But they can never admit a failure so it stays. 

How has it failed?

Deaths caused by alcohol at highest level since 2008 in Scotland

Now I know Covid played a part in this. But the blinkered approach of the government is that minimum pricing is a Good Thing, an opinion not open to challenge, is the failure. Public Health Scotland are running a 5 year study (ending in 2023) to determine the effectiveness of this policy...in the meantime the government is shouting form the rooftops that they are "leading the way" on this policy and encouraging others to follow suit. 

It's like me declaring Falkirk winners of league 1 now, rather than at the end of the season. 

[Baxter Parp]

Deaths caused by alcohol at highest level since 2008 in Scotland
Now I know Covid played a part in this. But the blinkered approach of the government is that minimum pricing is a Good Thing, an opinion not open to challenge, is the failure. Public Health Scotland are running a 5 year study (ending in 2023) to determine the effectiveness of this policy...in the meantime the government is shouting form the rooftops that they are "leading the way" on this policy and encouraging others to follow suit. 
It's like me declaring Falkirk winners of league 1 now, rather than at the end of the season. 

"MUP is an effective alcohol policy option to reduce off-trade purchases of alcohol and should be widely considered"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(21)00052-9/fulltext


Your opinion isn't supported by evidence.

[scottsdad]

3 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

"MUP is an effective alcohol policy option to reduce off-trade purchases of alcohol and should be widely considered"

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(21)00052-9/fulltext


Your opinion isn't supported by evidence.

 

The point I am making is that declaring a policy a success before the effects of it have been properly considered is a failure. The Lancet article was interesting, though based on very limited data.

From that article:

Quote

we obtained raw data on take-home purchases of alcohol products in Great Britain for the 4 years covering 2015–18, on which we have previously reported and for the first half of 2020 (to July 12), for which we have also reported on the impact of COVID-19 mitigation measures. Data for 2019 were not available. [my own bold, not the article's]

My point about the PHS 5 year study is important here. The policy came in in 2018, and they're comparing pre-2018 behaviour to the data gathered between January and July 2020. I don't know about you but I'd like to see more data, ideally not covering the first lockdown period when shopping habits and the like were all askew.

I have called this policy "prohibition for the poor".

Quote

In the quintile of households that bought the most alcohol, following the introduction of MUP, the lowest income households did not seem to reduce the amount of alcohol they purchased, and their expenditure on alcohol increased 

So the very poorest of households would spend less on other things like food, heating and the like. This is backed up by what has been said from some alcoholic support groups, to consider extreme cases - that poor alcoholics simply will eat less to keep drinking the same amount. This is not a success.

Generally increasing the price of alcohol reduced consumption. But...was that the point of the policy? Or was it larger than that? Wasn't it to help reduce deaths and poor health? No evidence of this policy success as of yet.

[Baxter Parp]

So the very poorest of households would spend less on other things like food, heating and the like. This is backed up by what has been said from some alcoholic support groups, to consider extreme cases - that poor alcoholics simply will eat less to keep drinking the same amount. This is not a success.
Generally increasing the price of alcohol reduced consumption. But...was that the point of the policy? Or was it larger than that? Wasn't it to help reduce deaths and poor health? No evidence of this policy success as of yet.

"After annual increases between 2012 and 2018, the number of alcohol-specific deaths fell by 10% in 2019, which experts took as early evidence of the success of minimum unit-pricing (MUP) for alcohol, which was introduced in May 2018 in order to tackle Scotland’s chronically unhealthy relationship with alcohol and is currently fixed at 50p a unit."

"If we are to prevent more people losing their lives to alcohol and to reduce health inequalities we need to redouble our efforts by reducing the availability of alcohol, restricting its marketing and by uprating minimum unit price."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/17/deaths-caused-by-alcohol-at-highest-level-since-2008-in-scotland

Your opinion still isn't supported by evidence.

[scottsdad]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

"After annual increases between 2012 and 2018, the number of alcohol-specific deaths fell by 10% in 2019, which experts took as early evidence of the success of minimum unit-pricing (MUP) for alcohol, which was introduced in May 2018 in order to tackle Scotland’s chronically unhealthy relationship with alcohol and is currently fixed at 50p a unit."

"If we are to prevent more people losing their lives to alcohol and to reduce health inequalities we need to redouble our efforts by reducing the availability of alcohol, restricting its marketing and by uprating minimum unit price."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/17/deaths-caused-by-alcohol-at-highest-level-since-2008-in-scotland

Your opinion still isn't supported by evidence.

The point I am making is that no opinion can be supported by evidence. Not yet. Taking a single year, the year after the policy was implemented, and comparing it to a trend is just bad science. Ideally we would have a clear 5 year period from the implementation of the policy to compare the 5 years before it with the 5 years after it. 

Deaths dropped in 2019, then rose to the highest ever levels in 2020. Now, you can say Covid played a part in the 2020 rise, but the earlier Lancet article says it doesn't. It is too early to declare the policy a success. 

Claiming the policy is a success the minute it was implemented and subsequently is, likewise, a wrong thing to do. Hence, in my view, this is a f**k up and a failure. Bad attitude to have,

[BFTD]

5 hours ago, scottsdad said:

It's like me declaring Falkirk winners of league 1 now, rather than at the end of the season. 

More attention needing paid to this part, Baxter.

[tamthebam]

10 hours ago, the snudge said:

 

John Swinney - studied politics and was the education minister. He's never been a teacher, or a head of a educational establishment. What did he bring to the role? 

 

 

Cathy Jamison was Justice Minister under Labour. She had been a Social Worker and has a degree in Fine Art rather than having a legal background.

Swinney has three kids. Some parents seem to think that qualifies you to be a specialist on education.