Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

SNP must keep its resolutions

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 January 2008
IT IS seven days into 2008 and my New Year's resolutions are hanging by a thread. Back to back episodes of Shameless hit my hopes of reading more books and watching less TV, the salad was ditched in favour of a Chinese takeaway, and my gym bag was dumped, unused, in a corner of the room.
Resolute, I am not. It is fortunate I was not elected to any kind of office on the back of my good intentions. The SNP, however, cannot blame "one too many" if they break any pre-election pledges."

Manifestos are a lot like resolutions – we all k
now the kind of things that need changing in our lives and confidently promising to do so comes pretty easy at the dawn of a new era.

But unlike my doomed resolutions, any failure of the SNP to live up to its promises will impact on lives up and down the country – millions of lives. One such promise was "a presumption against centralisation of core hospital services to protect local access to healthcare".

The Scottish Government will soon decide whether to centralise the highest levels of brain surgery and cancer treatment for children. Reports are being written up which will spell out the benefits some consultants believe exist in creating one centre of excellence for these services, instead of having them spread between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

Putting expertise, skill and research under one roof does offer hope for real improvement in the kinds of operations and treatments that save young lives.

But at what cost? The SNP must not lose sight of what Edinburgh stands to lose if it does centralise these services.

There is a real risk that Glasgow's new £100 million children's hospital would be chosen above Sick Kids in Edinburgh, immediately downgrading a world-renowned institution.

Any centre of excellence would have to be very excellent indeed if it is to outstrip what is on offer at our Sick Kids. We have a top-class facility that means the world to so many patients and their families who have relied on it over the years.

If Sick Kids is downgraded many children with complex conditions will be forced to go elsewhere. This, would force top consultants to question whether Sick Kids is the best place for them, triggering a brain drain from the hospital.

Research, set to be carried out at the £600m biomedical research park at Little France, should fuel pioneering treatment at Sick Kids, but it must be feeding its results into top-quality children's clinics, not some outpost of Glasgow.

And then there are the patients. Whether they voted SNP or not, whether they were old enough to vote at all, they will be waiting on Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon's decision with bated breath.

Over the last few weeks countless Edinburgh families helped by the hospital have come forward explaining why Sick Kids should not be downgraded. They know what it would mean to lose such a great children's hospital – countless journeys to Glasgow or Aberdeen, long periods away from home for children already facing a terrible time, and the difficulty for parents trying to strike a balance with work.

It hasn't mattered if children were at Sick Kids for something other than cancer or brain surgery – as Mike Pringle and Councillor Ewan Aitken's testimonies prove – they know the impact centralisation of those services could have.

If brain surgery or children's cancer is to be removed it will lead to a general downgrading of the hospital.

The reversal of plans to close accident and emergency units at Ayr and Monklands hospitals gives us all hope.

At the time Ms Sturgeon said not enough consideration had been given to the opinions of people who lived close to the two Lanarkshire hospitals. We can only hope she is listening to Edinburgh people now – as well as those from the Lothians, Borders and Fife – who are resoundingly telling her that these services must be kept in Edinburgh.

For the debate is not Edinburgh against Glasgow or Aberdeen, it is Edinburgh's children's services as it is now against what we fear it could be.

If this was Glasgow or Aberdeen we would undoubtedly be arguing as strongly as we are for Edinburgh. Aberdeen has already been campaigning and there is no doubt that Glasgow will fight its corner.

And the fact that three quarters of this country would get so upset about such a move must be enough for the Scottish Government to refuse centralisation.

The Government has stressed it has nothing but patients' interests at heart. It has made no decision yet – reports have been submitted, with more to come.

Consultation is to take place although the Child Brain Injury Trust has said that more consultation with neurosurgery patients and their parents is needed.

The Scottish Government must listen to those opinions and remember the promises they made. They have to realise that all the voices straining to be heard in this debate cannot be wrong. There is no reason Scotland cannot have three centres of excellence and many reasons it cannot afford to have only one.

It is hard enough for people from the Borders to get to Edinburgh in an emergency, let alone to Glasgow, or for that matter from Dumfries to Aberdeen. The last thing we need is to downgrade our best hospitals, the Sick Kids in Edinburgh most definitely included. The people have spoken, it's up to the SNP to listen.



The full article contains 916 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Ninian Reid,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 11:40:33
This is a cautiously ambitious Government and , believe you me, is the envy of many of our cousins south of the border.If there's a dynamic, caring initiative that will brighten the lives of the less fortunate , you can bet your bottom dollar the SNP is behind it.But I'd like to see more doves of peace fluttering down to the desks of responsible opposition members. There is much work to be done jointly as we progress onward and forward towards Independence.
2

,

07/01/2008 11:45:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 12:40:17
3. Our priority list was alphabetised for us by a deranged unionist hence we lost a grip of it?
4

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 12:55:12
How about reminding the combined opposition that they should seriously consider their actions before lumbering the Scottish Government with the bill, such as voting through the trams for Edinburgh.
5

Farky,

07/01/2008 13:27:03
AM2, Here is my answers...

Which one of the following is *not* a trite SNP excuse?

(a) We’re just a minority. True enough, makes it difficult to pass legislation.

(b) We inherited this mess. True - COMPLETELY!

(c) Westminster cheated us. True - and they still do and always will!

(e) The other parties wouldn’t let us. Sometimes they will if there is something in it for them.

(f) We need more powers. Can't come soon enough!

(g) Trams are evil. This must be a personal opinion.

(g) We overpromised to get elected and can’t count anyway. Sorry. SNP fought a great (and fair) campaign. If anyone can't count, it's the Labour lot down south who, for example, forgot to calculate VAT into the Olympic Games bid. Hmm... who can't count?
6

Merouane,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 13:28:36
#3.

(a), (b) and (f) are not trite excuses, they are facts.

(c) is debatable, but I don't think they have used it as an excuse per se, just stated that the block grant was less than expected and that this has to be taken into account.

(e) would be the same as (a).

(g; the first one) would also be the same as (a). The SNP did not budget for trams and they are going ahead only due to the fact that the SNP are a minority.

(g; the second one) is not a trite SNP excuse because they have never used it. Who knows whether, had the electorate had elected voted in a majority SNP government, whether they would have been able to keep all their promises?
7

BIG EYE,

Paisley 07/01/2008 14:11:06
It is upon this hoary old chestnut that the Labour opposition place all their hopes.

Sorry to spoil the fun but the Scottish electorate are not stupid, they know the SNP manifesto was written on the basis of a majority SNP government and that with only a minority adminstration many pledges will have to be compromised or abandoned.

Labour can hardly make a great point about this after eight years of delivering very liitle despite having a majority administration. The public are looking for progress and commitment to Scotland. The SNP are currently providing this in spades.

Be careful Labour the Scottish public can work outa solution to all this and you won't like the answer....a majority SNP Government and the same number of Labour MSP's or even below the current Tory level...keeping going you are certainly on track.

Can't come soon enough!
8

FrancesP,

07/01/2008 16:00:30
I'm confident the SNP will keep their promises, but whatever they do, they'd have to go some to match Labour's cynicism in introducing top-up fees after the following pledge in their 2001 manifesto - "we will not introduce so-called 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them".
9

Merouane,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 16:18:11
#11. AM2, which 'cyber-activists' are you referring to?

You were the one that brought up the trams. You said that the SNP are claiming that 'trams are evil'. The SNP have not said any such thing. The trams clearly are an issue though, as they were not budgeted for by the SNP and were pushed through by the other parties.

Your point regarding the efficiency savings is meaningless as the SNP had already budgeted for it without the trams.

The trams are a good example of how the SNP government is limited by its minority status. They seem to have accepted that and are dealing with the reality of the situation, you might think about doing likewise.

AM2: "They must think the Scottish public are complete idiots."

I think it is you who is treating the readers of this website like complete idiots.
10

Merouane,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 16:54:10
#17. I thought you were referring to someone posting on this topic as a 'cyber-activist'. Thanks for clearing that up.

Regarding your list of 'broken promises' though, I think the money that has had to be spent on the tram line is one of many factors. Worth mentioning all the same. Of course the cost of the tram line is not the only 'unexpected' drain on the SNP's budget, they had also accounted for more money via the block grant. Perhaps you can look up the figures on that.

While we're on the subject, could you please tell me what promise the SNP have failed to deliver on 'wealth gap reduction'? Thanks.
11

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 18:22:54
17 AM2

your entire contention is disingenous, false, twisted and skewed to suit your tediously predictable anti-SNp agenda. The SNP programme was costed on the assumption of an increase in block grant funding similar to previous years - a not unreasonable assumption. The UK Gov, strangely and I am sure in no way reacting to the election result, imposed a much lower increase than previous years.

Removing the trams expenditure (of which you continue to exclude the portion of Edniburgh City Council's council tax freeze under-written by the Scottish Government to achieve the freeze) the SNP programme is fully achieveable within the budget, if one takes assumption of interest payments on student debt as a first step in removing the burden of debt. Including trams there is indeed a gap - increased efficiency targets is a response to that.
12

,

07/01/2008 18:37:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

,

07/01/2008 18:45:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 19:02:47
22. AM2

I am to understand you are rebutting my analysis of your flawed, skewed and biased mis-interepretation f budgetary facts by refering me to figures you set out after my post? Not being chronologically displaced I am afraid I will have to deal with your posts as they occur.

Question: Have you ommitted Scottish government funding for Edinburgh City Council (CT freeze) which includes EdC expenditure on Trams. A yes/no will do for now.
15

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 19:12:17
20. AM2

you concede the very point you try to dispute - even by your skewed figures you say that over the 3 yeasrs the SNP were expecting £147 million more than current expenditure. Minus the trams at £500 million.
16

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 19:29:37
26. re. 24. was that a yes or a no?
17

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 19:31:29
Expecting £1,837. What was the projected incremental total cost of SNP porgramme elements, including assumption of studtent debt interest payments, exluding trams?
18

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 19:55:29
29. 3rd time, 26 re 24. Is that a yes or no? You seem to be having difficulty
19

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 19:56:44
29

the £147 million, as shortfall or suprlus, is conmsiderably less than the Tram costs. Either way, proves the point.
20

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 07/01/2008 20:05:20
Personally I'll wait for a few years before deciding on how well the SNP have done as regards their commitments.

I'm sure not all their commitments will be fully met - but I fail to see why Labour are trying to make an issue out of this. Labour not just failed to meet some of their commitments but cynically & repeatedly lied in making some promises.

Talk of broken promises at this stage from Labour is akin to a peodophile rapist complaining that some people have sexual relationships outside marriage.

Labour's 'puritan shock' is ridiculous & hypocritical to an extreme.

On the other hand the SNP should learn to be careful in making commitments and make clear the conditions. I do think the SNP have opened themselves up to legitimate criticism by promising too many things in not the clearest way.

Personally I will judge the SNP on their core promises surrounding the economy.

21

FrancesP,

07/01/2008 20:14:43
#14. AM2, all you're doing is parroting back at me the Blair spin from the time (which even by his standards was breathtakingly weak, a sure indication he had absolutely nothing else left to cling to).

The legislation to introduce top-up fees in England was passed in the 2001-05 parliament, and was indisputably therefore a direct breach of the commitment in the 2001 Labour manifesto. The start date of the fees themselves is irrelevant. If a party came to power on a manifesto pledge "not to renew Trident" and then went ahead and renewed Trident anyway, would you argue that wasn't a breach of faith just because the missiles wouldn't physically be on the Clyde for another 10-15 years?
22

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 20:18:00
33. 4th time. It was not a hard question. Did your Tram cost figures include money from the Scottish Government to EdC directly consequent of the Trams.

Yes or no? We can discuss the rest and my "point" in asking when you have seen fit to answer this very straight forward question.
23

Merouane,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 21:00:43
#20. Sure AM2, I'm being spun from all sides.

So far, I can see that the increase in the block grant was £700m less than expected (although of course debatable, but you said you'd play along with that figure). The trams have accounted for another £500m most of which will be spent over the four year government. That's the SNP £1.2bn down on the expected figure.

You then throw in this £874m 'end-year flexibility'. I'm not sure it's sensible to make budget commitments based on this fixed sum of money. Is it not also sensible to leave much of this fund to allow any necessary leeway in spending commitments.

Either way, allow for that £874m and we're left with a £326m shortfall.

As for the change in SNP's commitment to 'close the wealth gap', I welcome it. Focussing on the three lowest income deciles rather than the six lowest seems sensible.

Now AM2, you obviously have a party political bent, so it's to be expected for you to try and spin this as a 'broken promise'. It is equally expected for the SNP to deny that. Personally, I care about what they can deliver and if re-evaluating their targets allows them to deliver tangible benefits, then I will welcome that.
24

FrancesP,

07/01/2008 21:15:09
#38. It didn't LOOK like a serious u-turn, it WAS a serious u-turn! You've conceded the legislation was passed in the 2001-05 parliament - there is no other salient fact here. There is a very simple way they could have introduced top-up fees without breaching their manifesto - they could have waited until after May 2005, when they had a fresh mandate based on a different manifesto, and then legislated. They very deliberately chose not to do that. They breached their manifesto in breathtaking fashion, and they had no conceivable defence.

"Contrary to the way in which you presented it, there are usually two sides to such stories." Absolutely, there's the truth, and then there's what Tony Blair tells you on the ten o'clock news.
25

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 21:21:57
38 AM2


"Why are you continuing to ask a question which I have asked you to clarify? I'll be more specific. Please answer the following ..."


ROTFL.

You quoted figures for Trams expenditure. I asked iuf they included Scottisg Government consequentials of EdC spending.

It was a simple yes/no. You have declined to answer 6 times now. And now you pose a question as the answer.

Want to just answer?
26

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 21:36:42
44. AM2.

I did not suggest that the bulk of CT freeze monies were tram related.

I asked you a simple question on your Tram monies that you quoted, which you have declined to asnwer 7 times.
27

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 21:45:34
48. Then our conversation ends. You decline to answer a simple question.
28

,

08/01/2008 00:01:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

frank mcbride,

08/01/2008 00:48:17
#56, famous 15.

He's away to his job as a foreversick accountant.
30

frank mcbride,

lusitania 08/01/2008 00:55:40
#56, famous 15. (It was me in #57)

The above is not completely true. He is, in actual fact, away to prepare his, "cut & paste", retaliation first post, based on his,personal, unembargoed tomorrow's Hootsman.
31

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta 08/01/2008 06:08:55
54
AM2,
Glasgow,UK

35
Ayrshire Scot™

Are U two dudes paid by political parties. You both sound obsessed and fanatical.

Chill out dudes.
You Dudes like all the rest of us, are mere particles in time, between the last and next Ice Age.

GC
32

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/01/2008 09:49:20
#11 AM2 I think you are confusing capital and revenue budgets.
33

 Ayrshire Scot™,

08/01/2008 11:23:59
59 Galactic Dude

cheers. Send the shrooms (AM2 will provide a PO Box number) - that should help our chillin.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Has the Scottish Budget saga been damaging to the SNP Government?
Yes
No

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.