dpedin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:10 pm
Northern Lights wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:08 am
Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:51 pm
Never going to happen. Being on a committee advising the Scottish government carries little kudos compared to editing journals with high impact ratings. Or chairing conferences in their field. These people are all highly paid already and wouldn’t compromise the academic reputation by limiting what they could talk about publicly.
What you you’re pushing is the thin end of authoritarianism.
I am not just speaking about this specific case but it also highlights to me where the Scottish Government have now waded into areas that ahve been pretty grey in the whole what is devolved and what isnt. Public Health is but i dont see what they gain by setting up mini SAGE as opposed to just taking direction from the proper SAGE experts who there most certainly will be kudos on being on that but equally they should be paid for it.
I would contrast it with the BoE who definitely speak about monetary policy but dont comment on political issues unless in extreme examples like with Brexit or Indy when whatever they say is then leapt on as inevitably they say that Brexit/Indy will be bad on economic terms as that is their professional opinion, they are very measured with respect to when they are probed by the journos who try and push a political angle.
This is not remotely close to authoritarianism, if we are trying to shut them up when they arent on these committees or have left because they are unhappy that their advice isnt taken you would have a point, being an expert that is shaping government policy not commenting on political matters, sorry no that is not authoritarianism.
PH is a devolved issue, what is more important and core to a Gov than protecting the health of its people! This is not a grey area, although I agree some of the levers to ensure PH are less clear, such as controlling borders. The SG have set up their own group to provide them with expert advice, the members are just as expert as the 'proper Sage experts', whatever that means, but they will have more knowledge of the Scottish context. SG will take advice from both, and lots of other groups, which seems sensible to me? Don't see what the issue is here?
If you start paying these advisors then you set up a system whereby their expert advice might be constrained by not losing their paid role, they in effect lose their independence and ability to say what they want. It also suggests a misunderstanding of what these folk bring to the table and how it works - they will all be expert in their own areas but will often disagree with other experts and have different views as to what is happening, why it is happening and what needs to be done. Science is full of grey areas, they will not come up with an 'answer' or a 'solution' but provide scenarios or options to be considered. These folk do not determine policy, they provide their own expert views - the civil service will pull it together, set it into wider context and put in front of politicians, it is the politicians who determine policy. If you want paid advisors then think Trump and where that could lead. Or perhaps even Priti Patel?
They can comment on whatever they want including political matters. They are professional people and will behave appropriately about the meetings they attend and any confidentiality issues. They give their advice freely and are not making or determining policy. It is their independence, academic freedom and ability to speak out and express their own views and thoughts, even if i disagree with them, that is important. To try and muzzle folk because they are willing to provide expert advice to a Gov, regardless of its politics, is pretty authoritarian to me.
The health of the population is just as important down south but they clearly have better resources just by virtue of pulling in top academics throughout the UK including Scotland. In the sphere of this virus i really dont see what differentiates us from the RoUK given the similar outcomes, similar mistakes have been made both sides of the border. I really dont see the need for a separate Scottish Covid mini-SAGE they have been proven to be as effective or ineffective as those down south. The mixed messaging throughout this pandemic with the rules constantly changing and different countries within the UK operating to different rules has also not helped this.
With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to now say we should have shut borders and limited travel, there was zero appetite for this back in Feb/March when it would have made a difference, probably should have been in January.
Of course they can comment on whatever they want, I just dont think they should as it impairs the message they are giving as it shows they are not free from bias and irrespective of political leanings you will have the other side disagreeing with it just because it came from the other side you, have to be extremely naive to think otherwise. For the record one of Sridhars proclamations was that Unionists were anti-Scottish, she later retracted this but this is not indicative of a professional who will behave appropriately and just insulted half of Scotland.
Professionals are not beyond reproach irrespective of how many letters they get after their name, if they are acting in the public interest by sitting on these committees giving their advice they have a duty to be far more careful with their words and imo stick to areas of their expertise. By commenting in the way she has done her advice on things she does know a lot about is viewed with suspicion especially in the charged political arena of Scotland.
This is not authoritarianism however much of a leap you and Biffer want to make, if they are unhappy being bound in this way they are more than able to leave the committee and spout forth to all and sundry on pretty much any subject they choose, well until Yousef gets his hate crime bill through parliament, now that is authoritarian in case you want to comment.
