Ask an impertinent question!
In all the brouhaha about whether Scotland will keep the pound if people vote Yes in the referendum - one important question has been glossed over.
"Why didn't George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander ask Nigel Farage to join their coordinated attack on the Yes Campaign?
"Why didn't George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander ask Nigel Farage to join their coordinated attack on the Yes Campaign?
Because UKIP are a significant force in UK politics at the moment, at least south of the border, and I'm pretty sure Nigel would have been singing from the same hymn sheet as the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems.
After all the Labour First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, was quick to get his tuppence worth in and dutifully followed his party's line which seems to be that Scotland will become a pariah country - if we are foolish enough to vote for independence.
But if you ask me the whole business has been a terrible mistake and I suspect the Yes campaign will receive a boost from the big Westminster parties trying to throw their weight around.
Ask an impertinent question! (4 January 2012)
As we as being a very learned person - able to talk with authority on just about any subject under the sun - Dr Bronowski was a down to earth kind of chap.
No airs or graces - not puffed up and full of his own importance - physically he resembled a hobbit, small in stature - but possessed of a lively, indomitable and generous spirit.
And Dr Bronowski had some advice for viewers who watched his TV programme - which has stayed with me to this day.
'Ask an impertinent question', he would exhort the viewers - with visible passion and conviction.
Before going on to explain that the sum of human knowledge has only grown down the ages - because of people challenging and questioning a perceived wisdom - or orthodoxy - of the day.
It's a bit like the the old adage - 'there are no stupid questions'.
So here goes:
"Does the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) intend to pay a £1500 lump sum to the ambulance staff who failed to respond to 999 calls from families in Tomintoul and Crieff - both highly controversial incidents in which two people died - tragically and perhaps needlessly?
And if so, what is the logic behind the SAS decision and the proposal to use public funds in this way?"
And by way of background and explanation - here's what I wrote about the big SAS 'giveaway' only last month.
Money, Money, Money (December 28th 2011)
The offer of a 'new deal' for ambulance staff made the news headlines - just before Christmas.
As regular readers will know there has been a long running dispute about 'rest breaks' - and whether ambulance crews should respond at all times to an emergency 999 call.
The existing Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS) policy up to November 2011 - encouraged staff to give up their entitlement to an 'uninterrupted' rest break - in return for a payment of £250 a year - plus £5 for every time their break was disturbed.
The SAS has since confirmed that the number of rest breaks disturbed in 2010 was 2248 - or roughly once per year on average for each member of staff - of whom there are 2445 apparently.
See previous post dated December 20th 2011 - 'And The Weasel Goes To.....'
Because of the inability of the SAS and the trade unions to resolve their differences - the Scottish Government and Health Secretary - Nicola Sturgeon - stepped in an 'imposed' a temporary solution - pending further negotiations.
The result of those talks was announced during the week - and the basis of the new deal is that all ambulance staff will receive a one-off payment of £1,500 - plus an extra £5 every time their rest break is disturbed.
So 2445 x £1,500 = £3,667,500 plus 2248 disturbed rest breaks (using 2010 figures) x £100 = £224,800 or £3,892,300 - to settle the dispute this year.
Now what the SAS has not explained to me or anyone else is the cost of the old (2010) policy - compared to the cost of the new policy.
I can see the logic behind a big increase in the payment for someone's rest break being disturbed - twenty fold from £5 to £100 a time - which compensates people for being flexible on the basis that those disturbed the most - get a greater reward.
But what I'm not so convinced about is that handing over a one-off payment of £3.7 million - represents very good value for public money.
If people are being adequately compensated in the future - what is the point of spending £1,500 or £3.7 million in a one-off 'buy out'?
I will need to ponder that question over the holidays - and see if I can come up with a sensible answer
