Scotland

Jolly…

I’ve had enough of Unionism. It does nothing for Scotland.

An independent Scotland is the best outcome for Scotland.

Make it happen. Vote Yes.

Scotland's future is in her own hands.

Scotland’s future is in her own hands

The Act of the Union in 1707 was forced upon Scotland by rich conservative landowners in Scotland loyal to the Crown.

For the first time in more than 300 years Scotland will decide its own destiny.

The Referendum for Scottish independence: Read it online at www.scotreferendum.com or download the e-book.

– Be wary of the Unionist campaign to entice exiles to call home putting pressure on relatives to vote for the Union.

– An independent Scotland would control all of its own resources and would make all of its own political decisions. It wouldn’t need a penny from anyone.

– An independent Scotland can make a huge difference on the world stage. Small countries like Scotland will become the  catalyst for change in world economics.

– Under an independent Scotland Trident will be removed from Scottish soil.

– Westminster scaremongering over the currency to be used in an independent Scotland is just that, high-handed opportunism. How would Westminster expect Scotland to repay its fair share of the national debt? In buttons?

– Scotland is still being dictated to by a Westminster government it did not elect. Scotland is a country, not a region of the English counties.

– Scotland is pro-Europe and pro-immigration. Scotland’s future growth depends on others coming to Scotland to contribute.

– Under an independent Scotland those living in Scotland will be granted Scottish citizenship. People born in Scotland but living outside of Scotland will also be granted Scottish citizenship.

– An independent Scotland would operate a fairer welfare system.

– Scotland’s educational, legal and religious based institutions have always been unique and differ in many different ways to those that operate elsewhere in the UK. Throughout history our legal rulings have been continually diluted by the Westminster Parliament.  

– Westminster only wants Scotland for its resources.

– Kick the union into the long grass, it does nothing for Scotland.

– The Declaration of Arbroath was signed on 6 April 1320. See the document

– The Scottish Government has pledged that in an independent Scotland an oil fund will be created, something similar to the lucrative oil fund that already exists in Norway.

– Scotland is a resource-rich country, yet many people in Scotland cannot afford to heat their homes because energy policy is dictated by Westminster.

– Passport checks at the border, which the London Government said would happen if an independent Scotland comes into being, has backfired on the spin doctors affiliated to unionist parties. It would be for an English government to set these up as Scotland fully intends to encourage immigration.

Standard
Government, Health, Scotland

Concern over the rising incidence of hospital acquired infections in Scotland…

Clostridium Difficile

Recently released figures on the spread of C Diff in hospitals suggest that cases of this deadly infection are on the increase. Such findings will concern Health Boards given the years of advice to patients, staff and visitors to hospital wards on keeping good personal hygiene and cleanliness.

The rise, reported by Health Protection Scotland, is unexpected. For some time the incidence of Clostridium difficile has been in relative decline, as has that of another hospital acquired infection, MRSA.

The most recent quarterly period for which information is available depicts an alarming rise, with levels in the under-65 age bracket up by an alarming 35 per cent. Public health clinicians are not certain why this is, but have suggested a number of possible contributory factors, including the inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics and poor infection-control management.

For the layman, however, the suspicion must remain that people have let down their guard and are not being sufficiently meticulous in their cleanliness regime, whether those people be medical personnel, hospital cleaning staff or visitors to hospital wards who find it difficult to understand the words ‘now wash your hands’.

This is problematic because the issue cannot be isolated. Out of Scotland’s 14 health boards, ten have seen cases increase. In NHS Highland the rate more than doubled.

This will be a concern for everyone connected with the health service in Scotland. Hospitals are meant to be places that make you well and fit again, not give you potentially life-threatening infections.

It is incumbent upon administrators, clinicians and government ministers to work together in formulating a plan that will ensure the current trend is not a reversal of good progress and advances made in recent years.

Standard
Britain, Government, Human Rights, Legal, Media, Society

More transparency needed for the Court of Protection…

COURT OF PROTECTION

Intro: A court which has the power to jail people and make life and death decisions in secret could be made more transparent

The highly sensitive work of the Court of Protection often sits uneasily with the notions of freedom and transparency upon which the state rests. Judges sometimes make decisions on behalf of those individuals incapable of running their own affairs. The right to a dignified private life for society’s most vulnerable must certainly be protected, but the default position in which hearings are conducted behind closed doors and in secret does not reconcile with the central tenet of the law in Britain being based upon open justice.

The Court of Protection has made advances in recent years. Successive presidents of the Court have, for example, acknowledged the need for a special register in which nominated journalists become more acquainted with the workings and decisions of the Court – decisions which range from care arrangements to family access and to the disposal of assets.

The test case for others to campaign was in 2010, when the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the media to have access to hearings about whether a blind and profoundly autistic pianist, Derek Paravicini, should continue to perform. That case set legal precedent, and since then access has been granted in a handful of other cases. However, it is still only in instances involving invasive medical treatment or a life-and-death decision that the presumption applies. Even then, the press and public are often not acquainted with the case until the hearing has already been heard.

Last May, the case of Wanda Maddocks sparked a national debate about transparency after she was sent to prison for five months after she tried to remove her 80-year-old father from the care of Stoke on Trent city council. Ms Maddocks had not been present or even represented in court.

She was thought to be the first person to be imprisoned by the court, which settles the affairs and appoints deputies to act on behalf of people who are unable to make decisions about their personal health, finance or welfare.

The current Court of Protection president, Sir James Munby (Lord Justice Munby), has been working tirelessly to resolve the issue. During the summer of 2013, he issued draft published guidance for judges in which he explicitly stressed the need for ‘greater transparency in order to improve public understanding and confidence’. Sir James also resolved that, as far as is possible, the Court of protection should be governed by the same rules that apply to the family courts (of which he is also president). In a written ruling on a long running case last week, Sir James put the theory into practice; he said the judgement would become public, but the family would not be named.

Despite the welcome steps forward that have been made, there is still much to be done. Sir James is due to release a second tranche of guidance, expected imminently, and it can only be hoped this will go further, by giving accredited reporters automatic access to the Court of Protection as they have in the family courts. If permitted, the usual proviso of cases being aired publicly being subject to negotiation with the presiding judge would apply.

There are wider issues, too. Leading lawyers, for instance, are warning of a ‘marked variation’ in the willingness of judges to talk directly to those who are the subject of proceedings as well as to the appointed solicitor representing their interests. This not only raises concerns over the possibility of human-rights violations, but questions of judicial consistency also arise.

The Court of Protection delivers rulings on some of the most difficult, sensitive and contested questions of modern life, and makes decisions that may define the course and circumstances of a person’s life. Public confidence is needed in such a powerful institution, and to ensure that happens the procedures and practices must be standardised and applied with uniformity and better consistency. The justice the Court dispenses must be as open as it can be.

Standard