SNP are lying b******s as well !

[Kato]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is no shortage of advice out there from people who can’t build the sort of support the SNP manages to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We are in a "least worse" era of the political parties, probably not the first one either but this one is is long. Which leader this century hasn't turned snide on the lower classes?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They DID start their own party.

Yep and zero seats like every other new party. Is the newest party to win a seat at Holyrood the Scottish socialist party? Even without fptp we've only msps from 5 established parties.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We are in a "least worse" era of the political parties, probably not the first one either but this one is is long. Which leader this century hasn't turned snide on the lower classes?

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Agreed. It's brutal good left wingers in England realistically have no choice but Labour to vote out the tories

[Stairway 2 7]

I said before that scot govs study saying minimum pricing reduced deaths was junk. They used 1 year and although deaths rose they said they rose less than England so that shows minimum pricing saved lives. For some reason they didn't compare against Northern Ireland who doesn't have minimum pricing and deaths dropped!

Anyway scot gov have redacted their statements on the subject. They have changed that it saves to may have. They have removed a paragraph where it said 40 studies agreed, when 39 studies showed no clear evidence or were looking at different subjects. I still think it'll go to the statistics authority

https://archive.ph/kRbpl

Today it's been announced deaths have risen again to the highest level in 14 years
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statis...alcohol-deaths

Minimum pricing might work and be good, but it's good won't show up for decades. People dying now will have have had a problem for years and are going to buy enough drink regardless of price. One study showed problem drinkers are spending less on food to pay for increased drink costs.

It can't but it would be good if minimum pricing profits went on support to problem drinkers rather than supermarkets

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I said before that scot govs study saying minimum pricing reduced deaths was junk. They used 1 year and although deaths rose they said they rose less than England so that shows minimum pricing saved lives. For some reason they didn't compare against Northern Ireland who doesn't have minimum pricing and deaths dropped!

Anyway scot gov have redacted their statements on the subject. They have changed that it saves to may have. They have removed a paragraph where it said 40 studies agreed, when 39 studies showed no clear evidence or were looking at different subjects. I still think it'll go to the statistics authority

https://archive.ph/kRbpl

Today it's been announced deaths have risen again to the highest level in 14 years
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statis...alcohol-deaths

Minimum pricing might work and be good, but it's good won't show up for decades. People dying now will have have had a problem for years and are going to buy enough drink regardless of price. One study showed problem drinkers are spending less on food to pay for increased drink costs.

It can't but it would be good if minimum pricing profits went on support to problem drinkers rather than supermarkets

Price is too low now to make much difference anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Price is too low now to make much difference anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our a lot dearer than the rest of the uk due to it but it won't effect deaths now. Focusing on it and not things that will actually stop deaths is making us sleepwalk into these figures. Do they seriously think probablem drinkers will stop drinking because its dearer, "just say no" thinking

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Our a lot dearer than the rest of the uk due to it but it won't effect deaths now. Focusing on it and not things that will actually stop deaths is making us sleepwalk into these figures. Do they seriously think probablem drinkers will stop drinking because its dearer, "just say no" thinking

There was a guy at my work who never contributed anything in team meetings. He'd sit there and say nothing. Then, as we were leaving and going out the door you'd hear him mutter, "it'll never work".

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There was a guy at my work who never contributed anything in team meetings. He'd sit there and say nothing. Then, as we were leaving and going out the door you'd hear him mutter, "it'll never work".

I doubt he was being paid personally to tackle the drinking deaths in Scotland. Most I've read say the only way to tackle it is support for the most vulnerable. Drug support funding was cut massively in the last 10 years I don't think it's a surprise the deaths matched. Thankfully funding has re ramped up recently on the drug side, not so on alchahol.

I had a boy in my work that just said sarcastic comments without actual input and opinion on the matter

[Stairway 2 7]

Bit of a long read from favor an addiction charity. Fwiw I'm for mup at current levels although I'm sure it won't do anything for our problem of increased deaths.

https://www.facesandvoicesofrecovery...y-for-alcohol/

Scotland embarked on the implementation of minimum pricing for alcohol in 2018 with high hopes. However, the subsequent evaluation conducted by Public Health Scotland revealed that the intended outcomes were not achieved. It is evident that the effectiveness of the grand plan fell short of expectations. Multiple (government funded) agencies have endorsed this initiative, but regrettably, a significant portion of the public and independent observers perceive it as a well-orchestrated public relations campaign. Although the perception of governmental autonomy may be disheartening, it has become increasingly commonplace. The prevailing narrative and its ability to obfuscate seem to take precedence over substantive outcomes.

We could then have anticipated that the introduction of such a policy would result in a reduction in alcohol-related crime. Yet, the evaluation findings challenge this assumption.

The evaluation found no significant changes in alcohol-related crime and disorder, except for that one local authority where things actually got worse. Bravo!

And what about reducing alcohol-related A&E visits? Nope, didn’t happen either. In fact, it seems like there were even more emergency department visits related to alcohol after minimum pricing came into play. Way to go!

Also more research found no impact on alcohol-related ambulance call-outs.

It is crucial to consider the impact of the policy on the heaviest drinkers, the primary target demographic for this initiative. However, it appears that the intended message did not effectively reach this group.There was no clear evidence that they cut down on their alcohol consumption. Instead, some of them even drank more! Impressive strategy, don’t you think?
https://www.publichealthscotland.sco...armful-levels/

But wait, there’s more! Researchers found all sorts of unintended consequences. People started spending less on healthy fruits and vegetables and more on crisps and snacks. And guess what? Switching from cider to spirits seemed to result in increased intoxication. Who saw that coming? Eh US at @FAVORUK & most other people from working class backgrounds with common sense)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35898560/

And let’s not overlook the fact that Scotland experienced its highest rate of alcohol-specific deaths in over a decade. But hey, the rest of the UK is not far behind, so at least we are in good company, right?

However, it is worth noting that Public Health Scotland has presented a contrasting perspective by portraying the policy as a success. They contend that minimum pricing positively impacted health outcomes, referencing a study that compares Scottish data to a counterfactual based on trends observed in England. While this approach may seem incongruous, it is important to approach scientific analysis with caution.

Nevertheless, it is prudent to critically evaluate the study’s claims of causation based solely on correlation. Disregarding the random decrease in alcohol-related deaths that occurred in Scotland prior to the policy implementation further raises questions about the study’s findings.

Similarly, the purported decline in hospital admissions lacks statistical significance and relies on estimates derived from hypothetical scenarios. Moreover, the data indicates that alcohol-related hospital admissions did not exhibit a reduction in 2018 or 2019. These observations warrant careful consideration when assessing the efficacy of the minimum pricing approach.

But wait, there’s even more conflicting evidence. Public Health Scotland conveniently ignores a study that found women reduced their alcohol consumption more than men, contrary to their claims. In addition, it is important to acknowledge the presence of conflicting evidence in the discourse. Public Health Scotland, in their assertions, appears to overlook a study that reveals a contrasting trend. This particular study indicates that women demonstrated a greater reduction in alcohol consumption compared to men, contrary to the claims made by Public Health Scotland. Moreover, the study found that heavy drinking men actually increased their alcohol consumption following the implementation of the policy. These unexpected findings challenge preconceived notions and underscore the complexities of the issue at hand.

In the end, it all comes down to one study that claims to support the success of minimum pricing. But let’s not dwell on the fact that it’s an outlier, lacks solid proof of causation, and heavily relies on the assumptions of its authors. Let’s just pretend it’s the golden ticket to success!

So, Scotland, congratulations on your flagship policy that didn’t quite live up to expectations. It’s been a wild ride of selective interpretation and ignoring inconvenient evidence. But hey, at least you can say you gave it a shot, right, the Welsh tried too and it didn’t work there either.

To calculate the percentage rise in alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland from 2018 when MUP was introduced to the latest figures we have up till 2021, we can follow these steps:

Determine the difference between the number of deaths in 2021 and 2018: 1245 deaths in 2021 – 1136 deaths in 2018 = 109 additional deaths
Calculate the percentage increase: (109 additional deaths / 1136 deaths in 2018) * 100
Using these calculations, we find that the percentage increase in alcohol-specific deaths in Scotland from 2018 to 2021 is approximately 9.60%.

In the realm of distorted public health narratives, it seems that a 9.6% increase be 9.6% increase can somehow be portrayed as a 13% decrease. Astonishingly, despite the fact that the number of alcohol-related deaths reached a 15-year high, Public Health Scotland engaged in some questionable “modelling” and magically asserted that the figures would have been 13% higher otherwise. Subsequently, government-funded organisations and their associates began fervently spreading this gospel-like proclamation. As it appears, I am once again considered a heretic and await the inevitable stake-burning.

Scotland’s attempt at implementing minimum pricing for alcohol in 2018 fell short of expectations. Despite Public Health Scotland’s efforts to present it as a success, the evaluation revealed underwhelming results. Alcohol-related crime and disorder showed no significant changes, and in some areas, the situation even worsened. The policy also failed to reduce alcohol-related A&E visits and ambulance call-outs. Most concerning was the highest rate of alcohol-specific deaths in over a decade.

Public Health Scotland’s claims of positive health outcomes were based on a study that compared Scottish data to a questionable counterfactual. The evidence presented was conflicting and often disregarded inconvenient findings. The flagship policy suffered from selective interpretation and the dismissal of contradictory evidence.

However, amidst this disappointment, there is hope for a better future. It is essential for the addiction sector and related agencies to transcend their self-interests and partisan politics. Embracing the forthcoming Right to Recovery Bill can revolutionise funding systems and promote collaboration rather than competition. By setting aside personal egos and embracing the power. If only we could shift our thinking away from either/or scenarios and embrace the power of (“and with”) true progress might be achievable & genuine progress achieved.

Unfortunately, political forces may seek through many agencies to muddy the waters, diverting attention to unrelated debates and narratives. But if we can shift our thinking away from divisive dichotomies and focus on the transformative potential of the Right to Recovery Bill, a brighter future is within reach. Despite scepticism, there remains optimism for a change in mindset and a united effort to support recovery and well-being.

Let us hold onto hope and work towards a transformative shift in addiction policies and practices. Here’s to a future where collaboration, recovery, and progress prevail.


Since this article was published The Times have investigated, and reported that Civil servants have retrospectively altered a press release about a wide-ranging report into the policy in order to limit some of its messages. Read here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...cing-qlkff0972

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bit of a long read from favor an addiction charity.

She's a long term critic of the SNP and Scot Gov. She's a supporter of lying Tory MSP Sandesh Gulhane. She never has anything positive to say about Scotland.

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

She's a long term critic of the SNP and Scot Gov. She's a supporter of lying Tory MSP Sandesh Gulhane. She never has anything positive to say about Scotland.

Do you mean snp scot gov or a long term critic of their drug policies. Do you mean supporter of Gulhane or she supported her getting stopping misinformation in one policy. I've never seen her say anything positive or negative about Scotland as a whole, I've only seen her comment on drug policy something she has fought years for.

She's pro independence and a SNP member or at least was, but that isn't relevant to her opinion on drug policy.

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/169...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

https://x.com/msm_monitor/status/169...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

Expert on radio this morning defending mup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/record-...pment-scotland

Good news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-66673971

Was this not supposed to be a Purely scottish problem?

[degenerated]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-66673971

Was this not supposed to be a Purely scottish problem?

Our problem was slightly different. Shoddy brickwork on PFI schools projects where wall ties between inner and outer leaf were missed or installed poorly

[Stairway 2 7]

Scot government has offered to mediate between UK gov and BMA. Absolutely love that ha. The difference in offers

@DevanSinha
Gap between UK Gov position and Scot Gov-BMA agreement is 7% for 2022-2024 period. Or from 2010-24 gap is 11% given Scot Gov didn't freeze pay in nominal terms (larger real cut) but accepted prior yrs DDRB recommendations.

+ commitment to >inflation pay rises for next 3 yrs.


I like the reply to his tweet from some tory

@DraperOr
Move to Scotland, then.

@DevanSinha

7m
Unfortunately national training numbers for doctors are geographically locked. It's a captive labour market, not free. I can't move except w/ evidence of exceptional circumstances eg fam illness or childcare commitments. Once I finish training ie consultant will consider

[Ozyhibby]

Decent statement from Yousaf today. Would have liked them to have ditched the madness of rent controls but that will take care of itself in time as rents continue to rise because of it. Two other areas I would have liked to have heard more would be on reforming planning in order to boast housing. He admits this would work by saying he will reform planning for wind energy, so why not do the same for housing? Also, would have liked him to commit to a formal request for devolution of corporation tax. Would have been refused but would have been a powerful signal to business that we want to attract it to Scotland.
Childcare offer was excellent though and overall a good statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Decent statement from Yousaf today. Would have liked them to have ditched the madness of rent controls but that will take care of itself in time as rents continue to rise because of it. Two other areas I would have liked to have heard more would be on reforming planning in order to boast housing. He admits this would work by saying he will reform planning for wind energy, so why not do the same for housing? Also, would have liked him to commit to a formal request for devolution of corporation tax. Would have been refused but would have been a powerful signal to business that we want to attract it to Scotland.
Childcare offer was excellent though and overall a good statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you got a link to the details as all I can see is Scotland is going to offer free childcare to 2 year olds, England are going to offer to 9 months onwards.

The funding for each child will have to increase England is increasing the funding for 2 years old from £6.00 to £7.95. That's essential to get the nurseries to take on the kids

People are struggling to get funded spaces as it is in Edinburgh without the increase. Nurseries also mostly only accept 50 hours so 30 funded 20 you pay for, they can pick and choose who they take just now.

Definitely a great thing, if it's funded properly

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Have you got a link to the details as all I can see is Scotland is going to offer free childcare to 2 year olds, England are going to offer to 9 months onwards.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/pr...isters-speech/

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.gov.scot/publications/pr...isters-speech/

Read that on twitter but no details. Thought they would have went from 9 months straight away, although they are trialling that. The funding per place being increased is what I'm interested in, but It'll be revealed soon enough. It's great the uk is catching up with the more progressive in Europe here though

Ta

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Read that on twitter but no details. Thought they would have went from 9 months straight away, although they are trialling that. The funding per place being increased is what I'm interested in, but It'll be revealed soon enough. It's great the uk is catching up with the more progressive in Europe here though

Ta

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-sco...team=editorial

He says from 9 month until end of primary school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-sco...team=editorial

He says from 9 month until end of primary school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No in 6 areas it will be trialed for eligible kids from 9 months, in the other areas from 2. I'm more interested in the funding of places increase as it'll be immaterial without it.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...ign_type=owned

More disappointment for the opposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://x.com/cllrscottarthur/status...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

If only we had a scheme for such things?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://x.com/cllrscottarthur/status...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

If only we had a scheme for such things?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obviously glass bottles are getting returned for recycling without any 20p deposit.

Just needs the colllection guys to get their ass in gear.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Obviously glass bottles are getting returned for recycling without any 20p deposit.

Just needs the colllection guys to get their ass in gear.

Just been round there and the bottles have now been collected but there is broken glass all over the car park.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

Snp should focus on independence and the swing voters, it seems almost all efforts are on the already converted. Holyrood a bit better but Humza won't last mp numbers being decimated and a clear no lead in the polls next year.

@RedfieldWilton
·
'No' leads by 5 points.

Scotland Independence Referendum Voting Intention (2–4 September):
No 49% (+1)
Yes 44% (-1)
Don't Know 6% (-1)
Changes +/- 5-6 August


SNP and Labour are TIED in Scotland!

Scotland Westminster VI (2-4 September):

SNP 35% (-2)
Labour 35% (+1)
Conservative 15% (-2)
Lib Dem 8% (+1)
Green 4% (+2)
Reform 2% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 5-6 August

Holyrood Regional List VI (2-4 September):

Labour 30% (–)
SNP 25% (-4)
Conservatives 15% (-3)
Green 14% (+5)
Lib Dems 9% (-1)
Alba 4% (+2)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Holyrood Constituency VI (2-4 September):

SNP 39% (+3)
Labour 30% (-2)
Conservative 16% (-3)
Lib Dem 8% (–)
Green 3% (+1)
Reform 3% (+2)
Alba 1% (–)
Other 0% (–)

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Snp should focus on independence and the swing voters, it seems almost all efforts are on the already converted. Holyrood a bit better but Humza won't last mp numbers being decimated and a clear no lead in the polls next year.

@RedfieldWilton
·
'No' leads by 5 points.

Scotland Independence Referendum Voting Intention (2–4 September):
No 49% (+1)
Yes 44% (-1)
Don't Know 6% (-1)
Changes +/- 5-6 August


SNP and Labour are TIED in Scotland!

Scotland Westminster VI (2-4 September):

SNP 35% (-2)
Labour 35% (+1)
Conservative 15% (-2)
Lib Dem 8% (+1)
Green 4% (+2)
Reform 2% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Changes +/- 5-6 August

Holyrood Regional List VI (2-4 September):

Labour 30% (–)
SNP 25% (-4)
Conservatives 15% (-3)
Green 14% (+5)
Lib Dems 9% (-1)
Alba 4% (+2)
Reform UK 3% (–)
Other 1% (–)

Holyrood Constituency VI (2-4 September):

SNP 39% (+3)
Labour 30% (-2)
Conservative 16% (-3)
Lib Dem 8% (–)
Green 3% (+1)
Reform 3% (+2)
Alba 1% (–)
Other 0% (–)

That would spell the end for Yousaf and usher in Stephen Flynn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stairway 2 7]

I'm confident it won't be this and I'm also confident SNP will do better closer to the election, but things need to start changing now. Election 12 months away and sleeping into a poor result.

ElectionMapsUK
My Seat Model (New Boundaries):

LAB: 28 (+27)
SNP: 18 (-30)
CON: 6 (=)
LDM: 5 (+3)

Changes w/ GE2019 Notional

[Jack]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://x.com/cllrscottarthur/status...dxJXScFNwz8V4A

If only we had a scheme for such things?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's been the same all over the city recently.

Between the end of the Festivals and the short term lets in Leith there were enough bottles around the bins to drain the Atlantic, normally you could only drain the North Sea!