Councillor Paul Johnston » Blogs

Exams and Scottish Higher Education

Paul — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:21:10 +0000

On the day that Scottish Exam results drop through the letterboxes of expecting students, there remains the unresolved debate about the future of higher education that underlies all the comments that will flow forth from the great and good.

My concerns that commentators will rubbish the results again, as they do when any increase in pass rates are announced. The requirements of any qualification change with time. It does not mean it gets easier – it can, but there is no evidence that it actually has. But there is evidence it has changed in another way.

Change in the the topics covered by exams have always happened. How many doing Maths now would be able to handle a slide rule? In my day, it was part of the exam. Now students would no know what a slide rule was.

For all those who are tempted to suggest the utter nonsense of advising students not to go to further Education but study things that industry bosses want now, could I enter the thought that we are really teaching people for occupations in technologies and systems that have not even been invented yet. Such is the challenge of the future.

Congratulations to all students in your results. I just hope that the generation currently making decisions about your futures, your higher education places and the very sustainability of the Country, will not indulge in the short term thinking of ‘government spending’. I hope they will have the courage for the investment in peoples’ futures and not our selfish present.

Common fish business

Paul — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:35:10 +0000

There has always been a debate about what is ‘common’ in a fisheries policy. I remember being quoted the legalese english of the common fisheries policy and Common Market treaties and it always bore out this idea that Scotland and Britain more widely had to ‘give away’ fisheries – as it was now a common policy.

This persists today. Reform of the CFP is predicated by anti EU arguments that reform cannot alter the common element – its always going to ‘given to the Europeans’ when it was ours before and that was not going to change.

The idea of common fisheries policy is so sullied from all of this semantic argument that it is hard to see how it can ever be explained in terms of fisheries management. perhaps its not worth trying and one should use a new language, new words and concepts explained without reference to the ‘Common market’

It was with all this in mind I read the news and have been following progress on the unilateral quota ‘allocation’ by Iceland and Faeroe Islands. Now Iceland is already one third through its self awarded stock quota. http://xrl.in/5vya

Iceland. That country held up as a model of fisheries management by nationalists – British or Scottish was indulging in a bit of uncommon behaviour. But surely they have a right as its in their waters say some? Well, its the same population that at different times are in different waters and have for generations been fished by others. They take more because -or we do and someone takes less? There is the core of the problem – as stocks are not capable of being managed solely by national governments without recourse to COMMON FISHERIES agreements or (wait for it…) POLICIES.

Pelagic species such as Mackerel are, I believe, the stocks that are most easily managed. The lessons of the past in herring management weigh heavy on the collective memory of fisherfolk. There has long been a desire by all North Sea nations for agreement and that might have come regardless of a CFP. But the current Iceland issue illustrates how, even after all these years that consensus can break down.

What the CFP has been about is management within protocols and systems, that prevent free-for all fisheries however, imperfectly.

What we should question now, is the circumstances and nationalistic claptrap that overlay fisheries that has allowed the Iceland and Faeroe quota grab and may allow our politicians ‘standing up’ for our fishermen. We still have to find a way even under a CFP of allowing the management of fisheries in a sustainable way – and this grab is not it.

Shellfish on Prozac

Paul — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:07:38 +0000

It’s the silly season for the news again. The headlines are that shellfish are getting high on Prozac. Just another laugh?

It is the way the media reports science. This case it’s environmental science and the media chosen to rubbish it, is Fishing News.

All this is based on a piece of research done at Portsmouth University which shows that the chemical Flouxetine (which is a constituent of Prozac) among many other elements of drugs are being flushed through the waste system and out through outfall pipes into the sea.

There is nothing particularly new in stories of chemicals that are not degraded or broken down through sewage treatment or other biological processes, making it into the wider environment through waste discharge. The Macaulay Institute can regale anybody who asks with all of the problems associated with the release of chemicals into the environment whether water-borne or into soils as they have found.

Portsmouth University have found that there may be very low concentrations of a very potent drug affecting the marine environment. It is not uncommon and has been a worry of mine for some considerable time. In this instance it is anti-depressants but could well be a vast array of other manufactured chemicals that while generally harmless enough in low doses to humans, can seriously affect the ecosystem. The concentrations that effect marine life need to be investigated further and that is the work that Portsmouth University are undertaking.

From chemicals to Nano particles, science is only beginning to understand the effect that human activity has on the ecosystem. Each new discovery of consequences of human activity by the introduction of chemicals and processes does not instantly mean catastrophe. However, we are developing more and more complex chemicals because of our understanding of biochemistry and our understanding of their effects and consequences, often lagging behind, needs to not only keep pace but be part of the very ethical process of deciding to introduce such chemicals and/for organisms into the environment in the first place.

So the serious part of this silly season story is that once again we have decided to use chemicals on ourselves without first understanding that what we do in the human domain can have consequences in the wider environment which we have yet to understand, need to guard against and in future plan for.

The landscape of coalition

Paul — Sun, 30 May 2010 22:13:33 +0000

I am not a great supporter of unequal partnerships. The world of politics in this country has grown up as an adversarial battleground with only outward courtesy although their are friendships that can transcend it. So it is that a coalition between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives has come about. There is outward courtesy but there is still a real fundamental tribal divide and that divide is governed by the real politik of numbers and elections.

The coalition in Scotland with Labour was forged through a voting system that had created not only equal benefits of success but equal risks of failure. Coalitions at Local Government in Scotland have all been the subject of STV voting.

First past the post voting is unforgiving in the electoral arithmetic. This time we are in the position of a traditional junior partner.

While in local government, the realities of the numbers are covered by the local circumstances, the background noise of politics; at national level the picture is unlikely to be so fortunate. The mass media is focussed on the big picture of power politics – and they all have axes to grind.

I cannot help remembering why we have the 1922 committee. Its also worth understanding the nature of the political debate when the Liberals under LLoyd George had lost few votes but had suffered from being third against polarised Labour and Conservative parties. Its in the nature of the system that severe changes can happen under first past the post to the party that has the most even spread, the least media support and presents itself as less credible in defeating one or other of its competitors.

The politics of the agreement are largely irrelevant. They have been dealt by the electorate and is in the numbers. I believe the Liberal Democrats have little option but to either allow Tory minority government or make the best of the situation and seek a national coalition agreement. Labour needed opposition and the Conservatives needed government. I’m not sure the Liberal Democrats needed coalition.

Coalition for the Liberal Democrats is a high risk strategy. If it goes wrong ( and some think its only a matter of time) then the result could be devastating for the Party. What matters is the clear vision to be able to handle the political situation – it does not have to turn out badly. While it is a risk it is also an opportunity. Can we be confident the leadership of the Liberal Democrats have learnt to handle this unequal partnership? I sincerely hope so.

The lessons of the 1920′s should never be lost on us.

Truth and the 2010 Election

Paul — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:52:09 +0000

The Leader’s Debate

Paul — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:51:49 +0000

I am not sure if it was a good use of time for somebody campaigning in politics to sit and watch the leaders’ debate – the first ever televised – last night on ITV.

I wanted to get a ‘flavour’ and also just be there for what is a small piece of political history.

I did not have the highest expectations for the spectacle. It could have so easily been a dreadful stultifying experience. I was, however, pleasantly surprised.

All three leaders acquitted themselves fairly well, compared to the American equivalent.

It was the one who had most to gain, who gained most – by taking the opportunity with both hands. I appreciate that winning any debate is not the same as winning votes. On top of the poll results are always underlying tribal loyalties of political groups.

What was interesting was the level of agreement that Nick Clegg had done well.

Credibility is the name of the game in third party politics. Paddy Ashdown on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme hit the nail on the head as usual, saying that when all is said and done, what the debate showed was that this was no longer just a two-party contest.

A seismic shift can occur in British political thinking if opinion polls show that the Liberal Democrats can overtake Labour in the popular vote.

All sorts of bizarre calculations can take place on seats won and lost. We would be in uncharted territory. Even the vague similarities that existed in political voting changes that occurred during the immediate post World War One years of the 1920s would be only a flimsy guide.

Let’s see which way the opinion polls begin to shift the British public and how the other parties will now direct fire at the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg will have to face 2 further debates. He can however take comfort from the fact that like Kennedy verses Nixon it was the first one of a series of debates that set the process in motion which led to Kennedy’s victory. Here the next two debates may be fascinating but Nick has now got the credibility and it is now game on.

At later stages of a campaign anyone can lose an election. But ‘winning’ by whatever measure, is much less likely in the last few weeks. The opening leaders debate has set the possibility in political terms that there would be sufficient shift for something significant to happen at this election which we have not seen in a political generation.

It could be lost, but it is there for the winning.

No saving grace

Paul — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:46:10 +0000

If I ever want to be reminded what the Conservatives would be like in control, I only have to listen again to the double speak of Andrew Lansley MP this morning on Radio 4′s Today programme. when faced with the fairly reasonable point made simply by the Kings Fund, that the ‘savings’ from their proposed cancelling of the NI tax increase would allow for more Cancer drugs only at the expense of other NHS services as this was not an actual saving as no savings were possible on money not yet spent.

No, no says Andrew Lansley , this is a saving and that it ‘allows’ the NHS to spend on his Party’s drugs proposal. Confronted with the ‘bleeding obvious’ as one friend put it, he just ignores the reality and suggests again and again this is a saving. To spend the money on the drugs policy the NHS would have to save the money from elsewhere in its budgets. It will have to forgo other treatments, staff etc to fund the Tory policy – so not a penny saved. It would have been honest to say we would divert spending from other NHS services to Drugs. But nothing like that passed his lips. Just double speak on savings from the NI increase.

What angers me is the further double speak of the Conservatives. Here they are preventing NHS trusts from directing their own budgets by demanding they continue to make unwelcome savings, to then direct those Trusts to make previously unplanned drugs purchases. The promised local control of spending priorities is nothing in the double speak world of Conservative MPs. Tory promises of decisions being taken by clinicians is all very well – unless Lansley says otherwise.

While I might have have characterised the Conservative economics of this as fairy tale before now, the elements of double speak in this have darker overtones More 1984 than magic.

Given the economics of this dark world portrayed by the Conservatives that has no saving grace, I can only really see the Liberal Democrats treasury spokesman Vince Cable and Steve Webb MP saying anything of sense when it comes to health service economics.

Our values

Paul — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:39:20 +0000

On the day that Kraft foods apologised to a House of Commons Committee for the ‘lie’ as one MP put it, that it was not going to close the Cadbury’s Bristol factory just prior to shareholders agreeing to the takeover of Cadbury by Kraft; I thought it worth mentioning the crisis I think is emerging in the lack of confidence of those in ‘business’ – as much as the confidence the public has in MPs.

If the image of business and commerce in and around our young people is one of unfettered greed and sharp practices that show low morals, most people would say that it is wrong and we, as a society should do something about it.

The national papers have covered the Cadbury story and people may now think less of Kraft Foods as a major company because of the way it mislead people over the factory closure. We all know of large companies and small ones which cheat on the employees over the minimum wage, hours of working and safety conditions.

Yet we don’t consciously teach ethics in business to young people. We rely on the cultural background generally to guide them in business as in any other walk of life. Society uses role models of those who, in business , have been shown to care and become wealthy within a strong ethical framework. Cadbury, Rowntree, Lever, are old names but in more modern times it might be Roddick, Robinson, Branson.

But there are those at all levels who confuse the competition of business for approval of a ‘dog eat dog’ world. Business ethics which allowed for driving down working safety, lowering wages to below acceptable levels, are confused as desirable commercial objectives. Should we hold these up as examples of business and economic development? I applaud those companies that have taken difficult decisions – some being pushed like Starbucks over the price of coffee it paid. The film Black Gold gave Starbucks that moral compass it needed -and hats off to for going down the Fairtrade route. Our own Co-Op, Bodyshop, and Lush show business and ethics are perfectly compatible. I like business and commerce and think more of it than most – but it is not outwith ethical and moral constraints in society. They can be, as these companies demonstrate, and all business have to be ethical, if all society is not to be the loser.

The point of the Kraft apology to the House of commons committee is for me that we see the incidents like Cadbury in focus only because the powerful business interests see it as an issue solely for Kraft Foods. But can we always recognise poor ethics? Can we recognise if those powerful interests in the commercial world including media, saw it in their interests to ignore the issues of ethics, conduct, fairness etc because of the ‘economic growth’ of their finances?

Would our lack of reasonable consistency in ethical business behaviour, some people’s liking for ‘get rich’ proposals and rough means of doing it; have any impact on the culture we pass on to the younger generations? The answer is yes, it will have an effect. We will devalue our society with unethical business and we will bring conflict and tension with our inconsistency.

Would we recognise the ethical and moral problem of the position of a wealthy property owner in seeking to use local Government to acquire for him, people’s homes against their will. To produce a ‘masterplan’ with their homes airbrushed out. Would we recognise when they lead a media dance of making offers to the residents with underlying ‘threats’ and ‘clear off’ shouts (as residents see it). What should we think about attempts to buy under false names, to buy at artificially low prices and to ‘blackmail’ by saying it is ‘essential’ they have what they have been unable so far to acquire; with the implications that they will walk away from their promised nirvana.

Would we recognise the ethics of the situation?

Budget Blues

Paul — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:04:11 +0000

The budget process in Aberdeenshire hardly made more than a dozen column inches in either of the main local papers. The broadsheet Press and Journal squeezed it to the minimum level because of the more highly charged decisions of Aberdeen City.

The Evening Express tabloid, equally saw the City’s financial difficulties as being the better news story.

However, this lack of news coverage hides some real tough decisions that have been taken by the Council.

Despite saying that frontline services will not be cut, the budget appears to drip with potential service reductions. One cannot say that there will be no effect when budget reductions remove 5% from the budget for each child in every school for books and materials in their devolved budgets..

There is little to criticise the administration for Council leadership for in making the attempt. My regret is that their troubles of their past year and a bit have led to a mental state of tribal siege. Unprepared to listen to any argument.

I described the budget cuts as “nascent” - just born as ideas and yet to be proved deliverable. And no criticism was made of them for going through the process of seeking these service reductions. Every Council in the country is doing this. But it is a hell of a risky strategy without any fallback position.

The proposals from myself and colleagues were to allow a balanced budget while looking for further savings. Giving room to be sure that these cuts were deliverable and the process did not smack of panic. But alas the tribal politics of the Council Chamber came to the fore and a series of diatribes attempted to rubbish myself and the small number of Democratic Independent Councillors. Even some shocking comments from leading SNP and Tory Councillors.

What I suggested was the opportunity of a more considered process of delivering savings, using all groups on the Council, testing and evaluating the savings proposals from all sides. Sadly we got an immediate rush to (not fully considered) financial savings which may prove difficult to deliver.

Myself and other members remain, absolutely fully open to listen to co-operative efforts to find transparent and open processes for determining the difficult budget decisions ahead. Not only that, but those decisions we will work for will be democratic and liberal as we can make.

The Council publicly says it will concentrate on its strategies. It is a public gloss. It hides behind managerial language to conceal the very real difficulties (we all have) in taking very human decisions.

The Council’s budget decision shows that it has not yet healed itself and is working in the manner that will benefit all the citizens of Aberdeenshire. It will be a difficult year ahead having taken this direction. I wish the administration well. But they want to do it all themselves and so therefore also want all the consequences of their decisions – good or bad. All this without any clear idea of where the budget is going.

Rail results prove the point.

Paul — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:25:04 +0000

The Press and Journal today had the story of the increase in rail passengers in and around Aberdeen. The success is down to the reality of travel. Its frankly better travelling by train than sitting in a car. The idea that one should then turn to NESTRANS to have this debated suggests its role is somehow positive. Well that’s not certain.

NESTRANS is a body that now sits in the way of discussion – its narrow political leadership now dictate the two Council’s policies about travel and transport. Aberdeenshire Councillors have failed to back Crossrail because NESTRANS have failed to stick up for Crossrail.

If NESTRANS is to redeem itself as actually being a body that carries out the wishes of an electorate rather than one which filters out any democratic or environmental demands, then they should take the figures and properly get to work making Crossrail a reality. More stations, better trains, improved track will – as the current figures demonstrate – will attract more passengers and therefore improve carbon emissions and reduce congestion.

All of this would be preferable to be done before construction of the Western Peripheral Car Park, because that is what it will be without the integrated Transport Strategy needed for the City and Shire. The WPR is only of benefit if it does not grow traffic but creates improved environments along with other schemes. Having a WPR and nothing else of note will be the worst of all worlds.

After restoring Crossrail and an Integrated Transport Strategy, perhaps they could think again on the East Coast mainline – point out to some of the Councillors who think it goes via Perth, that it is via Fife – and see if electrification and capacity can be improved.