The Scottish Politics Thread

[Jock42]

What constitutes rampant then? Is there an official definition for rampant?

No there's not. Which is why I used a qualifier.

Based on?

[Northern Lights]

Elimination is not a daft goal! Rather than debate this I would suggest you just read Devi Sridhar, Linda Bauld et al from UoE - they seem to know what they are talking about?

Focusing just on the death rate - whether it is 0.3% or 0.6% or 1% - is missing the point entirely. A not insignificant percentage of other folk who contract covid19 and even have just a mild infection may still develop significant health problems. These may be long lasting and will likely place a significant burden on the NHS. I watched the documentary on BBC last night with the van Tulleken twins, one of whom suffered ongoing cardiac issues post covid and is getting regular cardiac monitoring and interventions when required to manage it. Personally I ended up with a blood clot in my lungs as a result of covid and so far a 3 night stay in hospital, 1 GP consultation, I outpatient appt, 1 x-ray, 2 CT with contrast scans, 1 echocardiagram, numerous blood tests, 3 months on expensive anticoagulants, etc all as a result of covid. The idea that this is no more than a flu, has a very low death rate and only kills very old folk is at best only part of the wider picture. Folk need to waken up to the wider health ramifications of this virus. The docs I know and work with are very concerned about the wider and longer term impact of this virus and are seeing increasing range of issues across all our body organs/systems.

For me we need to drive the number of cases as low as possible and have an effective Track and Protect system working closely with local GPs and primary care and other systems i.e. education, housing, transport, etc to implement actions when required in response to local outbreaks. We need to keep the number of cases as low as possible. Up to now, and after we saw a divergence with the UK Gov approach, I think the SG strategy and how it has been implemented has been the right one and has been achieving the results. Loosening the lock down bit by bit, monitor the impact and react accordingly and when safe move onto the next loosening off stage has worked. However there will be the expected local outbreaks as in Aberdeen, and have been seen across the world, and these need to be controlled as quickly as possible. What we have in effect is a real working version of what the Blonde Bumblecunt would call (I hate this phrase!) the 'whack-a-mole' strategy. Unfortunately in England whilst this is what he said he wanted the way the have set up their systems, based around an expensive and incompetent private sector provision, they will struggle to achieve this.

It is a daft goal unless you want to accept having no economy left and deal with this virus to the exclusion of far more widespread and deadlier health issues.

I do not doubt the expertise in virology of the UoE team you quote but I most certainly won’t be looking to them on the wider economic and other associated costs that will come as a result of this policy and actions.

I firmly believe history will judge our response harshly.

As I and others have pointed out, there is very little difference between England and Scotland and their approach to this virus, not that you will accept this and are quite happy to emphasise differences that just aren’t there.

I don't think an elimination strategy and a functioning economy are mutually exclusive! In fact I think the elimination strategy being adopted by the SG is the best way of getting the economy running again. If you get the number of cases as low as possible then keeping it there is about local response to outbreaks. However for the majority of the country the low number of cases will enable the economy and society to build confidence and get back to normality with minimal social distancing requirements. It avoids any damaging major or national lock downs and avoids the NHS and associated systems being overwhelmed. It does however require a working and effective Track and Protect system in place and the lock down mechanisms ready if required. As we get better at this and understand the data around testing, cases and hospital info, then the actions required will get more focused, more targeted and more effective. We will hopefully develop our understanding of how the virus spreads and adjust accordingly. The public will begin to see the cause and effect of not following the guidance and behaviours will adapt.

To be honest if we don't do this then what is the option - a Trump style let it roam free!

On England v Scotland or indeed Wales and NI differences. I accept there was a joined up UK wide response to the initial stages of the pandemic. However the strategies began to diverge half way through and we have seen both a more careful and measured easing of lock down approach in Scotland, Wales and NI, a different communication and information strategy and more importantly a difference in the systems and mechanisms in implementation of the strategies. Since then we have seen an ongoing divergence in the number of deaths and cases between England and the other three countries.

The economy is already permanently scarred, this just going to get worse. The actions being taken are just deepening the damage. It is so interlinked that the drop in activity has knock on effects across everything and although this isn’t being felt now the level of spend on public services is going to end up being drastically cut as we will simply not have the tax base to support it.

For elimination you are looking at isolating the economy and that means a significantly smaller economy.

And Dogbert it’s not letting it run rampant, leave shite like that at the door, it’s about opening the economy as far as possible with the understanding that this virus adversely affects the elderly and those with pre existing conditions which is not the vast majority of the population and locking the majority down just hurts everyone more long term.

[Biffer]

What constitutes rampant then? Is there an official definition for rampant?

No there's not. Which is why I used a qualifier.

Based on?

Sorry, not sure what you mean here?

[Jock42]

No there's not. Which is why I used a qualifier.

Based on?

Sorry, not sure what you mean here?

You've said its not rampant but offered no basis for your definition of rampant (or lack of rampancy (is that a word? My post nightshift fuddle feels it should be).

[Biffer]

Based on?

Sorry, not sure what you mean here?

You've said its not rampant but offered no basis for your definition of rampant (or lack of rampancy (is that a word? My post nightshift fuddle feels it should be).

I didn't say that. I said it wasn't that rampant. And then you went off on one, possibly due to the nightshift

[Jock42]

Fair enough. Apologies

[Biffer]

Fair enough. Apologies

No worries. Go to bed.

[dpedin]

It is a daft goal unless you want to accept having no economy left and deal with this virus to the exclusion of far more widespread and deadlier health issues.

I do not doubt the expertise in virology of the UoE team you quote but I most certainly won’t be looking to them on the wider economic and other associated costs that will come as a result of this policy and actions.

I firmly believe history will judge our response harshly.

As I and others have pointed out, there is very little difference between England and Scotland and their approach to this virus, not that you will accept this and are quite happy to emphasise differences that just aren’t there.

I don't think an elimination strategy and a functioning economy are mutually exclusive! In fact I think the elimination strategy being adopted by the SG is the best way of getting the economy running again. If you get the number of cases as low as possible then keeping it there is about local response to outbreaks. However for the majority of the country the low number of cases will enable the economy and society to build confidence and get back to normality with minimal social distancing requirements. It avoids any damaging major or national lock downs and avoids the NHS and associated systems being overwhelmed. It does however require a working and effective Track and Protect system in place and the lock down mechanisms ready if required. As we get better at this and understand the data around testing, cases and hospital info, then the actions required will get more focused, more targeted and more effective. We will hopefully develop our understanding of how the virus spreads and adjust accordingly. The public will begin to see the cause and effect of not following the guidance and behaviours will adapt.

To be honest if we don't do this then what is the option - a Trump style let it roam free!

On England v Scotland or indeed Wales and NI differences. I accept there was a joined up UK wide response to the initial stages of the pandemic. However the strategies began to diverge half way through and we have seen both a more careful and measured easing of lock down approach in Scotland, Wales and NI, a different communication and information strategy and more importantly a difference in the systems and mechanisms in implementation of the strategies. Since then we have seen an ongoing divergence in the number of deaths and cases between England and the other three countries.

The economy is already permanently scarred, this just going to get worse. The actions being taken are just deepening the damage. It is so interlinked that the drop in activity has knock on effects across everything and although this isn’t being felt now the level of spend on public services is going to end up being drastically cut as we will simply not have the tax base to support it.

For elimination you are looking at isolating the economy and that means a significantly smaller economy.

And Dogbert it’s not letting it run rampant, leave shite like that at the door, it’s about opening the economy as far as possible with the understanding that this virus adversely affects the elderly and those with pre existing conditions which is not the vast majority of the population and locking the majority down just hurts everyone more long term.

The economy has been badly damaged because of the lock down when the virus first emerged. I'm not sure anyone is disputing that nor suggesting that, given what was known and not known at the time, this was the most sensible thing to do. How we get the economy going again is the issue.

My strategy would be what the SG is doing at the moment which is drive down numbers of cases via slow easing of the lock down, managing the impact and when required take action to control local outbreaks as they occur. This will help reduce numbers of cases and let folk get back to normality whilst still taking some socially distancing actions i.e. masks, 1 or 2 metre rule, etc. As number go down and are maintained confidence will return and economy will return. Our numbers are very low and the recent rise was predicted because of the impact of easing lock down and local systems have now kicked in to manage these.

I'm not sure what you are proposing instead of this NL? Let the virus run through the under 65 population, because we know it will if we do nothing to try and control it, and keep those over 65 or those with pre existing conditions sheltered? Pre existing conditions include obesity, type 2 diabetes, COPD, cardiac conditions, vascular issues, cancer, immune deficiencies, BAME backgrounds, etc. Thats a lot of folk in Scotland to be sheltered, for how long? A lot of them are of working age. Until we get herd immunity?

I think we agree we need to open up the economy as soon as possible but have different views on how this can be achieved.

As the evidence and number of cases emerges then will the under 65s be happy to take the risk of getting the virus and not dying but developing cardiac issues like the van Tulleken guy on the BBC, blood clots leading to PE (like I had), strokes and heart problems, ongoing vascular issues, chronic fatigue like symptoms or other major health issues?

I'm sorry but you're not exactly clear how you would open the economy 'as far as possible'. What does this mean in detail thats different to whats happening at the moment?

Finally elimination does not mean isolating the economy but managing very carefully the opening of the economy in such a way so as we develop confidence in the population, the economy and our neighbours and don't end up in a 2nd major lock down. The only country that has completely isolated itself from the rest of the world at the moment is the US who opened up their economy and dispensed with the public health strategy completely. They now have closed borders with almost every country in the world because of the levels of infection. Given a choice I know what I would want.

[Northern Lights]

I wouldn’t have locked down like we did in the first place. I would have had kids in school but would have enforced more localised lockdowns on London/ Inverclyde etc that were at the point of being overwhelmed. Large parts of the rest of the country were absolutely fine and got nowhere close to capacity.

By allowing the virus to run through the u65’s we do get much closer to the herd immunity and the community transmission drops dramatically. This is just delaying the inevitable.

I would have opened up sooner than we have and would have looked to have opened things like pools etc.

Strong companies are simply running out of cash now and will not reopen.

Sweden has seen less economic damage, quickly falling case count but yes higher mortality rate again predominantly in the elderly. The obsession with care homes is frankly ridiculous, people go into care homes to die, it’s part of life, that’s not to say we make it unpleasant or throw them to the wolves but obsessing on death rates in these places is ridiculous.

[tc27]

Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

[dpedin]

But you ignore my point that by letting the virus run through the u65s we are in effect exposing them to risk of ongoing health issues which will affect their own health and well being, lead to significant drain on the NHS, have an impact on their ability to work and dent public confidence. Even the twat Hancock recognises this https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... 9-12028821

Letting the virus run uncontrolled over a short period of time, which is what would happen if we let the virus run wild, would really stress the NHS and public confidence. I gave you a couple of examples of what this has meant for me and the tv doc and the consequences for the NHS. I see Tom Wood, the English flanker also suffered from a blood clot in the lungs due to covid19 and is off work and on anticoagulants, so even the fittest and healthiest guys with fantastic healthcare provision are suffering! Even if it was only 1%, well below the estimates being suggested, of the under 65s impacted adversely the impact would be huge on NHS and the economy.

Some solid evidence is emerging that a significant chunk of folk who have had covid19, even those asymptomatically, are suffering real and ongoing health issues. I really doubt letting a virus with as yet unquantified and fully understood long term health care implications for the whole population is a very responsible strategy as far as both public health and economic growth is concerned! OF course we need to balance PH and economy but without PH there is no economy.

On specific points:

- any responsible Gov with an unknown and potentially fatal virus could not have done anything else but lock down the country to buy time until they knew what they were dealing with. I suspect your working with the benefit of hindsight
- we were not overwhelmed because we had a lock down
- we wouldn't have been able to implement a localised lock down strategy without the initial lock down and got cases down to a low number. We also didnt have sufficient testing capacity at that point to identify and implement a local lock down strategy.
- developing herd immunity (even if possible with a large % of pop shielded and without knowing at the time if folk developed anti bodies once having had covid19) would quickly would have overwhelmed the NHS with the small % developing severe covid19 even in the under 65s plus the significant % of them who would also have developed related serious health issues - see my earlier comments re cardiac, stroke, etc
- the lock down was exactly about delaying the inevitable - smoothing the curve - so we had a fighting chance of managing the consequences without overwhelming the NHS and social services and even possible social breakdown
- opening up sooner .... just like the US? Thats going to work out well.
- Some companies are running out of cash and we need to support them, others have done very nicely thank you so perhaps it is more about distributing the costs and profits more fairly across all the sectors? A role for Gov to fulfill
- it doesn't matter how old folk are, we have a moral and social obligation to help them live their lives as they wish and not implement a euthanasia policy by stealth because it means more folk can go to the pub! They've paid all their lives via income tax and National insurance and got us through the difficult post war issues ... we now forget that, stop obsessing about protecting our grannies and let them 'die off' but make it 'pleasant'? At this point I'm done!

[Smutley]

I wouldn’t have locked down like we did in the first place. I would have had kids in school but would have enforced more localised lockdowns on London/ Inverclyde etc that were at the point of being overwhelmed. Large parts of the rest of the country were absolutely fine and got nowhere close to capacity.

By allowing the virus to run through the u65’s we do get much closer to the herd immunity and the community transmission drops dramatically. This is just delaying the inevitable.

I would have opened up sooner than we have and would have looked to have opened things like pools etc.

Strong companies are simply running out of cash now and will not reopen.

Sweden has seen less economic damage, quickly falling case count but yes higher mortality rate again predominantly in the elderly. The obsession with care homes is frankly ridiculous, people go into care homes to die, it’s part of life, that’s not to say we make it unpleasant or throw them to the wolves but obsessing on death rates in these places is ridiculous.

I have a professional interest in all of this and have been following it closely.

We can't write off care home deaths as some sort of inevitable clear-out. An epidemiologist colleague, whom I greatly respect, pointed out that medicine is not about whether you die, it's about when.

The care home thing - and it's happened in every country I've looked at - came about IMO because of professional blinkers. Everybody focused on the impact on the health service, and there was no-one in the room thinking about care homes, or indeed care at home.

Social (and, to an extent, primary) care had to reorganise itself from the ground up but lacked direction and guidance. Care staff had poor PPE and also lacked guidance and training.

Sweden is a mess btw and it's far from clear that their approach has been worth the extra deaths in the first wave.

[Caley_Red]

Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

[Wylie Coyote]

Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

A pretty devasting read. I know more than a few Yes voters who have made very similar points to me in recent months.

[Biffer]

Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

It's also substantially caused by the other parties in Scotland being so completely and utterly incompetent. Autocracies can happen because countries just drift into them, it's not always a plan by some evil group.

Also, the whole single chamber setup can mean there's not enough scrutiny.

[Northern Lights]

But you ignore my point that by letting the virus run through the u65s we are in effect exposing them to risk of ongoing health issues which will affect their own health and well being, lead to significant drain on the NHS, have an impact on their ability to work and dent public confidence. Even the twat Hancock recognises this https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... 9-12028821

Letting the virus run uncontrolled over a short period of time, which is what would happen if we let the virus run wild, would really stress the NHS and public confidence. I gave you a couple of examples of what this has meant for me and the tv doc and the consequences for the NHS. I see Tom Wood, the English flanker also suffered from a blood clot in the lungs due to covid19 and is off work and on anticoagulants, so even the fittest and healthiest guys with fantastic healthcare provision are suffering! Even if it was only 1%, well below the estimates being suggested, of the under 65s impacted adversely the impact would be huge on NHS and the economy.

Some solid evidence is emerging that a significant chunk of folk who have had covid19, even those asymptomatically, are suffering real and ongoing health issues. I really doubt letting a virus with as yet unquantified and fully understood long term health care implications for the whole population is a very responsible strategy as far as both public health and economic growth is concerned! OF course we need to balance PH and economy but without PH there is no economy.

On specific points:

- any responsible Gov with an unknown and potentially fatal virus could not have done anything else but lock down the country to buy time until they knew what they were dealing with. I suspect your working with the benefit of hindsight
- we were not overwhelmed because we had a lock down
- we wouldn't have been able to implement a localised lock down strategy without the initial lock down and got cases down to a low number. We also didnt have sufficient testing capacity at that point to identify and implement a local lock down strategy.
- developing herd immunity (even if possible with a large % of pop shielded and without knowing at the time if folk developed anti bodies once having had covid19) would quickly would have overwhelmed the NHS with the small % developing severe covid19 even in the under 65s plus the significant % of them who would also have developed related serious health issues - see my earlier comments re cardiac, stroke, etc
- the lock down was exactly about delaying the inevitable - smoothing the curve - so we had a fighting chance of managing the consequences without overwhelming the NHS and social services and even possible social breakdown
- opening up sooner .... just like the US? Thats going to work out well.
- Some companies are running out of cash and we need to support them, others have done very nicely thank you so perhaps it is more about distributing the costs and profits more fairly across all the sectors? A role for Gov to fulfill
- it doesn't matter how old folk are, we have a moral and social obligation to help them live their lives as they wish and not implement a euthanasia policy by stealth because it means more folk can go to the pub! They've paid all their lives via income tax and National insurance and got us through the difficult post war issues ... we now forget that, stop obsessing about protecting our grannies and let them 'die off' but make it 'pleasant'? At this point I'm done!

I’m not going through this point by point but it’s suffice to say I disagree with pretty much all of it.

It’s also clear you’re utterly blinkered by your hatred of the tories that you’re the opposite side of the bimbo coin. You never fail to drop the odd insult in.

So I basically can’t be arsed, life is far too short to smack my head off this sort of brick wall.

[Northern Lights]

Interesting and highly critical article from Robert McAlpine of all people:

https://sourcenews.scot/robin-mcalpine- ... uld-worry/

The evident anger towards Sturgeon/Murrell particularly notable particular as a legal firewall exists around reporting anything to do with them as a couple.

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

It's also substantially caused by the other parties in Scotland being so completely and utterly incompetent. Autocracies can happen because countries just drift into them, it's not always a plan by some evil group.

Also, the whole single chamber setup can mean there's not enough scrutiny.

Well when you’ve got the media tearing into the tories down south the ones up here don’t stand a chance.

Sturgeon as is oft pointed out is rarely held to account by them.

I do concede the batch up here are very weak though, oh to have likes of Dewar back in the labour ranks or a Rifkind for the tories. Will see how Douglas Ross works out, the snp attack dogs are already on him though

[Biffer]

That's a fantastic and chilling article.

Would help explain why the SNP is an entirely different party than the Salmond years despite similar cabinet appointees.

It's also substantially caused by the other parties in Scotland being so completely and utterly incompetent. Autocracies can happen because countries just drift into them, it's not always a plan by some evil group.

Also, the whole single chamber setup can mean there's not enough scrutiny.

Well when you’ve got the media tearing into the tories down south the ones up here don’t stand a chance.

Sturgeon as is oft pointed out is rarely held to account by them.

I do concede the batch up here are very weak though, oh to have likes of Dewar back in the labour ranks or a Rifkind for the tories. Will see how Douglas Ross works out, the snp attack dogs are already on him though

You almost sound like you think the media shouldn't be tearing into the tories down south.

[Northern Lights]

It's also substantially caused by the other parties in Scotland being so completely and utterly incompetent. Autocracies can happen because countries just drift into them, it's not always a plan by some evil group.

Also, the whole single chamber setup can mean there's not enough scrutiny.

Well when you’ve got the media tearing into the tories down south the ones up here don’t stand a chance.

Sturgeon as is oft pointed out is rarely held to account by them.

I do concede the batch up here are very weak though, oh to have likes of Dewar back in the labour ranks or a Rifkind for the tories. Will see how Douglas Ross works out, the snp attack dogs are already on him though

You almost sound like you think the media shouldn't be tearing into the tories down south.

The way Sturgeon and her hubby are behaving should concern even you hardened Nats, no surprise you are happy deflecting onto the tories, again.

I’ve made my views perfectly clear on Boris but as it was between him and Corbyn there was no choice.

I’m desperately hoping Ross makes a fist of it up here as weak opposition gets us Boris or in our case an autocrat in Sturgeon. I want labour to sort their shit out fwiw but they are still busy getting their Westminster house in order.

[dpedin]

But you ignore my point that by letting the virus run through the u65s we are in effect exposing them to risk of ongoing health issues which will affect their own health and well being, lead to significant drain on the NHS, have an impact on their ability to work and dent public confidence. Even the twat Hancock recognises this https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... 9-12028821

Letting the virus run uncontrolled over a short period of time, which is what would happen if we let the virus run wild, would really stress the NHS and public confidence. I gave you a couple of examples of what this has meant for me and the tv doc and the consequences for the NHS. I see Tom Wood, the English flanker also suffered from a blood clot in the lungs due to covid19 and is off work and on anticoagulants, so even the fittest and healthiest guys with fantastic healthcare provision are suffering! Even if it was only 1%, well below the estimates being suggested, of the under 65s impacted adversely the impact would be huge on NHS and the economy.

Some solid evidence is emerging that a significant chunk of folk who have had covid19, even those asymptomatically, are suffering real and ongoing health issues. I really doubt letting a virus with as yet unquantified and fully understood long term health care implications for the whole population is a very responsible strategy as far as both public health and economic growth is concerned! OF course we need to balance PH and economy but without PH there is no economy.

On specific points:

- any responsible Gov with an unknown and potentially fatal virus could not have done anything else but lock down the country to buy time until they knew what they were dealing with. I suspect your working with the benefit of hindsight
- we were not overwhelmed because we had a lock down
- we wouldn't have been able to implement a localised lock down strategy without the initial lock down and got cases down to a low number. We also didnt have sufficient testing capacity at that point to identify and implement a local lock down strategy.
- developing herd immunity (even if possible with a large % of pop shielded and without knowing at the time if folk developed anti bodies once having had covid19) would quickly would have overwhelmed the NHS with the small % developing severe covid19 even in the under 65s plus the significant % of them who would also have developed related serious health issues - see my earlier comments re cardiac, stroke, etc
- the lock down was exactly about delaying the inevitable - smoothing the curve - so we had a fighting chance of managing the consequences without overwhelming the NHS and social services and even possible social breakdown
- opening up sooner .... just like the US? Thats going to work out well.
- Some companies are running out of cash and we need to support them, others have done very nicely thank you so perhaps it is more about distributing the costs and profits more fairly across all the sectors? A role for Gov to fulfill
- it doesn't matter how old folk are, we have a moral and social obligation to help them live their lives as they wish and not implement a euthanasia policy by stealth because it means more folk can go to the pub! They've paid all their lives via income tax and National insurance and got us through the difficult post war issues ... we now forget that, stop obsessing about protecting our grannies and let them 'die off' but make it 'pleasant'? At this point I'm done!

I’m not going through this point by point but it’s suffice to say I disagree with pretty much all of it.

It’s also clear you’re utterly blinkered by your hatred of the tories that you’re the opposite side of the bimbo coin. You never fail to drop the odd insult in.

So I basically can’t be arsed, life is far too short to smack my head off this sort of brick wall.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you don't want to go through this point by point! It gets a lot harder when we move from over generalised guff and have to back up it up in a bit more detail. Rather than run away lets have the discussion, I'm happy to debate any of the above with you.

Blinkered hatred of the Tories ... all I did was call Hancock a twat but then acknowledged that he has recognised the long term health implications of covid19 and provided the link to the article.

[Slick]

What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

[dpedin]

What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

[Caley_Red]

What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Yeah, from the outside it looks completely farcical: an administration making policy in the hoof.

Also, I see Mr Bean has added his name to a growing list of critics of Sturgeon's anti free speech law, I don't even remember the Lab/Lib Dem coalition undertaking this many reverse ferrets.

[Yr Alban]

What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

[Slick]

What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

If you had read above you would have seen that I defended their original decision.

As I understand it they looked at the teachers predictions from individual schools over the last few years and found that a number of them consistently predicted much higher than actual results. It so happened that a lot of those that inflated grades were in poorer areas. I'm sure it's teachers trying to help students but if this has been a pattern over several years I can't see the problem with taking that into account. Individuals will be upset, but that happens every year. So, again, I actually supported their original decisions.

What has annoyed me now is that they have folded so quickly and you can't help but get the feeling that the particular demographic that was up in arms - young, from poorer areas - are where a lot of there votes come from, or will come from. It feels very much like a reaction to a worry about losing votes rather than a policy decision and that is worrying.

given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

I'd hope that this is the start of giving more Scottish students the chance to go to Uni and stop the Uni's over relying on foreign students, and not just a 1 year gimmick. This is another area I think they have messed up.

[Biffer]

What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

Yeah, If it was going to be a fuck up, I'd rather it was this way round - the other one would have seen either kids getting downgraded or their qualifications being ignored.

The big question is what happens next? Is there an inherent bias in the system against kids from schools in more deprived areas? How do we stop that from re-establishing itself if so? Is this, in fact, a watershed moment for the qualification system in Scotland?

[Slick]

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

Yeah, If it was going to be a fuck up, I'd rather it was this way round - the other one would have seen either kids getting downgraded or their qualifications being ignored.

The big question is what happens next? Is there an inherent bias in the system against kids from schools in more deprived areas? How do we stop that from re-establishing itself if so? Is this, in fact, a watershed moment for the qualification system in Scotland?

I guess the other worry is that these kids will always have * against their grades, will that affect them in the future when going for jobs etc.

[S/Lt_Phillips]

What a fucking fiasco

Shit, we might lose votes, reverse the whole thing.

so Highers just the 14 points up on last year and AH nearly 14.

Agreed but not sure what they could have done in current situation? Applying the historical rates of adjustments/appeals outcomes looked statistically sensible but when you get down to individual cases it is a nonsense and impacts those in the most disadvantaged groups more adversely. However it is not going to help these kids get a job given the current climate and foreseeable job market so perhaps, given the lack of overseas students coming to Scotland this year, we should take opportunity to let more go onto Uni or FE and use the opportunity to try and skill them up for the future?

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

The SQA knew that teacher estimates were going to be inflated, because they collect this data every year. And so they knew that the predicted grades in deprived areas would be even more inflated, because this happens every year (and this was the baseline from which the downgrading was done). Swinney and the SQA were advised when they proposed their methodology for moderating the grades (months ago) that it would penalise individuals, especially talented pupils from deprived areas, so the outcry really should not have been a surprise.

I completely understand their wish to have a credible set of grades in 2020 - otherwise there's a danger that unis, colleges & employers will look at a candidate and say "oh, 2020, the Covid year, your grades really aren't worth what you think they are, sonny."

The solution? What I would have done if I were the SQA would be write to the head teacher/rector of every school in Scotland well before the submission date, with the history of that school's actual results per subject (showing the trend and a measure of variability), and instruct them that the set of predicted grades would only be accepted if they were within some tolerance of their historical norm. Now, there's an argument that says there is no reason why this year's pupils aren't better on average, but there is no reason to suggest it is true either.

This way, there would have been a credible set of results, there would have been no need for any downgrading, and schools could have identified which pupils should genuinely get the top grades.

Seems like a perfectly sensible and obvious solution to me, but then I work with a lot of historical performance and benchmarking data. Also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Instead, we have the SQA looking discredited, Swinney & the SG looking weak and pandering to their voter base, teachers looking unprofessional and the poor kids ultimately not knowing if their grades are appropriate and if they are good or not.

Here endeth the sermon.

[Biffer]

Quite. I’d love to know what people putting the boot in right now would have done instead.

They couldn’t hold the exams, so they used the teachers’ estimates. These were way above the grades seen in recent years - so if they accepted them it would have been ‘dumbing down’. So they got the SQA to adjust them, which got results similar to previous ones, but resulted in kids from more deprived areas losing out compared to those from more affluent areas. This is possibly fair on a purely statistical basis, but hugely unfair on an individual one. So what is the magic solution that pleases everyone and disadvantages nobody? Because if there is one, then I haven’t seen anyone come out with it yet.

They have accepted they got it wrong with the adjustments and reversed the decision. Yes, this year will be an outlier for attainment. Can’t be helped. At least this way everyone is in the same boat. It can’t be the wrong decision to adjust the grades and also the wrong decision not to. Unless you have that magic solution, of course.

Yeah, If it was going to be a fuck up, I'd rather it was this way round - the other one would have seen either kids getting downgraded or their qualifications being ignored.

The big question is what happens next? Is there an inherent bias in the system against kids from schools in more deprived areas? How do we stop that from re-establishing itself if so? Is this, in fact, a watershed moment for the qualification system in Scotland?

I guess the other worry is that these kids will always have * against their grades, will that affect them in the future when going for jobs etc.

Unless it truly is a watershed moment where an inequity in the system is identified and rectified. I don't know enough about the way the system normally works - are coursework marks usually normalised by school, for example? If so an unfair bias could have been in place in the results for years.

[sockwithaticket]

Yeah, If it was going to be a fuck up, I'd rather it was this way round - the other one would have seen either kids getting downgraded or their qualifications being ignored.

The big question is what happens next? Is there an inherent bias in the system against kids from schools in more deprived areas? How do we stop that from re-establishing itself if so? Is this, in fact, a watershed moment for the qualification system in Scotland?

I guess the other worry is that these kids will always have * against their grades, will that affect them in the future when going for jobs etc.

Unless it truly is a watershed moment where an inequity in the system is identified and rectified. I don't know enough about the way the system normally works - are coursework marks usually normalised by school, for example? If so an unfair bias could have been in place in the results for years.

I work for an English exam board, so maybe not directly comparable, but with coursework here schools do the marking then they send in a sample of candidates, selected at random from the centre's candidate list by the exam board's software, to an exam board selected moderator. Edit - Additional samples can be requested if significant issues are discovered by the moderator, sometimes to the extent of a full re-mark.

On a wider point a general trend to lower attainment outcomes the further down the socio-economic ladder you go is fairly established. How exactly to tackle that is up in the air because it's a real cocktail of stuff. Just as a sample:

One that doesn't get enough focus, imo, is nutrition. Hungry or malnourished kids (i.e. fed in correct quantities, but with rubbish) have poorer concentration and cognitive development.

Having been a teacher my anecdotal experience matched that of others in the field when we compared notes - a lot of parents don't care about education and generally this increases as you go down the socio-economic rungs, they absolutely pass this on to their kids. So many parents' evenings or academic interventions are met with shrugs or 'well, he doesn't need to know that"/"This is a waste of time".

Some of this feeds into expecatations of attainment as well. If no one in a family has gone to university and have always done 'low skill' work, there's no expectation that anyone in the family could or will do better.

Even the conscientious parents, though, often don't have the time or perhaps the ability (functional illiteracy during school years is astonishing, I fail to see those affected improving once out the door) to assist with their kids, not to mention that, despite what some like to think, education has become more rigorous than it used to be. Middle class parents are more likely to read to their children or undertake other educational tasks from an early age which gives them such a leg up, partly through attitude towards education, but also because they're more likely to have at least one parent who can put the time in.

None of this is unique to the working class/those further down the socio-economic scale, but the incidence is greater.

[robmatic]

The SQA knew that teacher estimates were going to be inflated, because they collect this data every year. And so they knew that the predicted grades in deprived areas would be even more inflated, because this happens every year (and this was the baseline from which the downgrading was done). Swinney and the SQA were advised when they proposed their methodology for moderating the grades (months ago) that it would penalise individuals, especially talented pupils from deprived areas, so the outcry really should not have been a surprise.

I'm actually surprised that it's the deprived areas where the inflated grades are coming from. I went to a comprehensive school and discovered when I arrived at Edinburgh Uni that the privately educated kids were used to getting 'assistance' with their coursework and had received optimistic predicted grades. Admittedly this was a while ago.

[Smutley]

The solution? What I would have done if I were the SQA would be write to the head teacher/rector of every school in Scotland well before the submission date, with the history of that school's actual results per subject (showing the trend and a measure of variability), and instruct them that the set of predicted grades would only be accepted if they were within some tolerance of their historical norm. Now, there's an argument that says there is no reason why this year's pupils aren't better on average, but there is no reason to suggest it is true either.

This way, there would have been a credible set of results, there would have been no need for any downgrading, and schools could have identified which pupils should genuinely get the top grades.

Seems like a perfectly sensible and obvious solution to me, but then I work with a lot of historical performance and benchmarking data. Also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Instead, we have the SQA looking discredited, Swinney & the SG looking weak and pandering to their voter base, teachers looking unprofessional and the poor kids ultimately not knowing if their grades are appropriate and if they are good or not.

Here endeth the sermon.

Good idea, but can imagine heads gaming the heck out of/making a balls-up of that. Ours couldn't find his own arse with both hands with the lights on, it turns out.

Why not just do a global adjustment instead of weighting it by school attainment?

There's pretty good evidence (*) that kids from less advantaged backgrounds generally score lower than they should in the normal setup. By removing the weighting from the equation you might find that you'd done the right thing.

* I'm sure there's loads, but one (prospective) study by Oxbridge which found evidence of "grade inflation" in private schools compared with compo kids. Students from less well-off backgrounds turned out to do better at uni than privately educated ones with the same grades at intake. Conclusion = expensive education makes your A levels better than they would otherwise be.

[sockwithaticket]

The solution? What I would have done if I were the SQA would be write to the head teacher/rector of every school in Scotland well before the submission date, with the history of that school's actual results per subject (showing the trend and a measure of variability), and instruct them that the set of predicted grades would only be accepted if they were within some tolerance of their historical norm. Now, there's an argument that says there is no reason why this year's pupils aren't better on average, but there is no reason to suggest it is true either.

This way, there would have been a credible set of results, there would have been no need for any downgrading, and schools could have identified which pupils should genuinely get the top grades.

Seems like a perfectly sensible and obvious solution to me, but then I work with a lot of historical performance and benchmarking data. Also, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Instead, we have the SQA looking discredited, Swinney & the SG looking weak and pandering to their voter base, teachers looking unprofessional and the poor kids ultimately not knowing if their grades are appropriate and if they are good or not.

Here endeth the sermon.

Good idea, but can imagine heads gaming the heck out of/making a balls-up of that. Ours couldn't find his own arse with both hands with the lights on, it turns out.

Why not just do a global adjustment instead of weighting it by school attainment?

There's pretty good evidence (*) that kids from less advantaged backgrounds generally score lower than they should in the normal setup. By removing the weighting from the equation you might find that you'd done the right thing.

* I'm sure there's loads, but one (prospective) study by Oxbridge which found evidence of "grade inflation" in private schools compared with compo kids. Students from less well-off backgrounds turned out to do better at uni than privately educated ones with the same grades at intake. Conclusion = expensive education makes your A levels better than they would otherwise be.

I think that's not so much grade inflation as the requirement of a different learning style some private school kids never adapt to. With small class sizes, less disruptive behaviour, staff generally run less ragged and so on it's much easier for kids to learn in private environments and the fees paid mean that a certain roi is expected by the parents so these schools go out of their way to spoon feed the students as much as possible. Some become reliant on that and can't adjust to having to drive their own learning at university. Conversely a lot of the state school kids who've made it to uni had to become fairly proficient at independent learning in order to get there and so the adjustment is far less profound.

[Northern Lights]

Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

[Caley_Red]

The SQA knew that teacher estimates were going to be inflated, because they collect this data every year. And so they knew that the predicted grades in deprived areas would be even more inflated, because this happens every year (and this was the baseline from which the downgrading was done). Swinney and the SQA were advised when they proposed their methodology for moderating the grades (months ago) that it would penalise individuals, especially talented pupils from deprived areas, so the outcry really should not have been a surprise.

I'm actually surprised that it's the deprived areas where the inflated grades are coming from. I went to a comprehensive school and discovered when I arrived at Edinburgh Uni that the privately educated kids were used to getting 'assistance' with their coursework and had received optimistic predicted grades. Admittedly this was a while ago.

Same experience at Edinburgh 10 to 15 years ago.

I also noted that- prior to the SNP changes- higher and advanced highers put you substantially ahead of A Level candidates in terms of knowledge, particularly in areas such as Maths.

[Smutley]

Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

[Slick]

Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

fucking hell.

[Biffer]

Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

fucking hell.

Assuming that all politicians make mistakes, which I’m pretty sure is a valid assumption, are you saying you’d rather vote for someone who either denied they’d made a mistake when it was blatantly obvious that they had, or was completely incapable of recognising they’d made a mistake instead?

[Northern Lights]

Kids this year are awesome, Highers are now 15% better than historical average.

Well done Class of 2020

In no way are are the usual defenders of the SNP willing to vote for them regardless, they are doing the ANC proud.

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

fucking hell.

This is a pretty common theme for those that support the SNP. They now want to vote for them because they admit to their fuck ups. The fact the fuck ups keep happening is irrelevant it would seem.

The other cry is well the rest are no better or are worse. How do we know that when they haven’t had a shot at running things for 13 years. The snp got in because the country was sick of the Labour efforts who had become stale and fresh out of ideas.

Education is in decline, has been for a while now but it is just a shambles now. They love to criticise Westminster but there is simply no way Swinney would still be a government minister with his numerous fuck ups if he served down south.

Mediocrity is what Scotland now aspires to and that won’t change until we change the actors in charge.

I do find it desperately disappointing that a smart guy like Smutley would vote for this shower and not want better.

[Northern Lights]

This year's exams were always going to have an asterisk. They've made a right dog's breakfast of it and no mistake.

But guess what? They admitted it.

Maybe Swinney should step down, he seems like a bit of a liability. However the willingness to admit to mistakes directly to the public is exactly why I will be voting for them.

fucking hell.

Assuming that all politicians make mistakes, which I’m pretty sure is a valid assumption, are you saying you’d rather vote for someone who either denied they’d made a mistake when it was blatantly obvious that they had, or was completely incapable of recognising they’d made a mistake instead?

They can still resign when they admit the mistake, admitting culpability when it lies squarely at his feet is hardly something admirable unless you are desperate to find something to cling to.