Lib Dems: in need of a reality check

It’s been something of a roller coaster for Liberal Democrat supporters since the general election. Going from the dizzying heights of becoming a party of government in coalition at Westminster (not just the Welsh or Scottish assemblies (it’s a parliament cheers Vince)) to the utter drubbing the electorate handed them last Thursday.

The reaction from Libs has been interesting also. Seemingly only Scottish leader Tavish Scott seems willing to take the blame for the poor results and admit that these were a damning indictment of the Lib Dems joining the Tories in Coalition.

Lib Dems: it matters not what progressive policies you have implemented in government, it matters not that you believe you have softened the nasty party and taken the edge off the Tories.

All the ultimately matters is the electorates perception of you as a political party – the reality is neither here nor there. But it is also worth considering the reality and perhaps, I am afraid to say, the electorate just doesn’t care as much about the same things as Lib Dems as Lib Dems do.

So all your “look, look what we’ve done” jumping up and down might only make you look like a small child begging their parent to watch them do a trick. The parent will watch but won’t give a shit.

If the Lib Dems want to win the electorate back they need to start persuading them that they are doing more harm than good as opposed to telling us that we are wrong for thinking that they betrayed us.

Obviously this is harder and requires more fortitude than playing the victim – but it’s the only way back and if nothing else it’s a damn sight better than blaming Labour for everything that’s gone wrong.

Tavish resigns!

Tavish Scott has resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats

Statement from Tavish Scott 

“I want to announce that I am resigning the leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats with immediate effect.

“Thursday’s Scottish General Election result was disastrous and I must and do take responsibility for the verdict of the electorate.

“The party needs a new direction, new thinking and new leadership to win back the trust of the Scottish people.

“I am honoured to serve as Shetland’s MSP in this Parliament.”

Normally one could find little fault with such a decision after such a disastrous showing in the polls and that is why many are wondering why Clegg is still leading the Lib Dems after the drubbing handed to them across the UK.

But should Tavish have gone?

Arguably the Lib Dems performance had little to do with it’s campaign in Scotland (despite those misleading and now embarrassing “only the Lib Dems can win here” leafelts) and had little to do with the Lib Dems who had sat and represented their constituencies and regions in Holyrood. Tavish Scott did the best he could with the hand he was dealt and falling upon his own sword, whilst admirable, is I believe mistaking.

The person who should resign for this is clearly not Tavish Scott. Tavish has become in effect nothing more than a proxy for Nick Clegg.

In leading his party into a coalition with the Tories Clegg  effectively signed their death warrant in Scotland and in many parts of England and Wales.

Will Clegg now resign?

I suspect not.

The Lib Dem leadership will now have a shortlist of just four: Jamie Stone, John Farquar Munro, Liam McArthur and Willie Rennie. Of those I suspect some permutation of Stone and Farquar Munro in leader and deputy roles seems most likely.

There are huge issues for the Lib Dems to now confront.

• How much of their core support still exists?
• Can they rebuild and fight back in Scotland or are they doomed for a generation?
• How much of their vote have they lost by no longer being a protest vote?

Tavish has left his party but whoever comes to lead it faces the challenge of ice skating uphill. I wish them luck. Leading the Lib Dems in Scotland has become a poisioned chalice less tempting than managing the Scottish football team.

I’m sorry to see you go Tavish – it wasn’t your fault.

Gorgeous George and Gender

In the aftermath of the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary elections there are things to be grateful for and things to analyse and question.

I for one am grateful that the good people of Glasgow saw fit not to elect George Galloway to Holyrood.

Galloway is a marmite politician it’s almost impossible to be indifferent to him – you either love him or hate him. Galloway was a master rhetorician and remains an impressive and passionate public speaker. However he has also, in my opinion, become a shadow of his former self – a parody of the passionate crusader he once was.

There is also Galloways questionable support of certain Arabic regimes - I wonder what he makes of the Arab spring?

If anyone doubts Galloways status as an amazing orator they should watch his performance against the US Senate. Where he effectively showed them what it was to be a politician.

However despite barnstorming political performances like this Galloway is unfortunately better known and ridiculed for the likes of this:

The reason to celebrate the non-election of Galloway is simple. He is no longer a politician and has become more of a media circus. His presence in the parliament would have been an unwelcome combative influence and denigrated the institution. The Scottish people were right not to elect George despite a history of good political performances such as this:

Galloway is correct to take Paxman to task on this issue and it relates to one of the issues arising from this years Scottish election.

That of the ratio of male to female MSPS.

I would say that it is incorrect to look at the election results in debating this issue. As then all you are doing is debating the electorates decision in not electing women. You are basically doing nothing to criticise the parties involved in how they selected or promoted their candidates rather you are describing and bemoaning the perceived role of women in our society.

If you want the parties to address the issue you have to confront how they select, who they select and where they select them.

If they have a bias towards selecting men in safe seats then they have a case to answer.

If they have a bias towards selecting men in general, through whatever means, they have a case to answer.

They most certainly do not have a case to answer based on the electorates decision. The only people they have to answer to in that regard are the people they now represent.

This is a complex issue and one that needs tackling but sensationalist spreading of misleading information and data will only harm the cause of equality not strengthen it.

In politics the argument that can be dismissed because it is based on false premises is no argument at all.

Well unless it reflects the prejudices and biases of the society in which it rises – and let’s face it any argument about women being unfairly represented rises in a male dominated patriarchal society still.

It is this society that we have to change – not our voting systems, nor I suspect the parliamentary selection processes of the parties. We risk losing more by “gaming” the system to force society into a shape it is not. Of course in some cases equality legislation can work – but I suspect only in the sense that they reduce the opportunities for discrimination and not where they err on the side of positive discrimination.

Positive discrimination reinforces prejudices and I would be cautious in implementing anything like that – particularly in an electoral system.

Women are already under-represented in politics, there is lots of research that suggests they are also treated differently and more unfairly in some cases than their male counterparts. Changing the system so it makes it harder to see if a female MSP or MP is selected and elected under their own merits as oppossed to just their gender is not the way forward.

In my opinion such an approach would only denigrate the standing of our female political representitives and set the cause of a more equal and fair society back rather than push it forward.

Of course this is a complex issue and I welcome debate and discussion. I also look forward to reading better informed and reasoned takes on the issue.

I also hope you will forgive me the conceit (and perhaps irony) of using a man as a means of introducing and framing this issue.

Scotlands Portillo Moment

In 1997, John Majors Conservatives lost an election. Tony Blair and New Labour swept to a landslide victory and the Tories were completely obliterated in Scotland.

It ushered in New Labour and the age of Champagne Socialism and the Spin Doctor.

But before Noel Gallacher was invited through the door at number ten, before we were told Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to launch in a mere 45 minutes there was another event that came to define the result on mayday 1997.

In the  Enfield Southgate seat Michael Portillo lost to labour.

It came as a shock to many politicians and commentators, and came to symbolise the extent of the Conservatives’ defeat.

Before the result Portillo was unable to answer the question :

“Are we seeing the end of the Conservative Party as a credible force in British politics?”

People still remember that moment and the phrase “were you up for Portillo?” came to represent a night blue turned to red and every Tory seat in Scotland vanished.

Now Scotland has it’s very own “Portillo moment” and it illustrates one of the reasons Scottish Labour find themselves facing a formidable SNP majority.

But it wasn’t Tom McCabe, Frank Macavety, Andy Kerr or Pauline McNeil or any other high profile candidate from the class of ‘99 losing their seat and it illustrates in part why Labour fared so badly in this campaign.

It was the reaction of shocked gasps of incredulity from the BBC Scotland election show panel to the taking of Shettleston that for me will define this election.

It was the moment it looked like something truly historic was happening.

The moment it started to look like the nationalists would win in a system which was set up to foil just such an event.

The SNP didn’t so much slip into Labours West Coast Citadel they stormed it.

The SNP also stormed the Lib Dems mainland strongholds.

All through the night Labour and the lib dems engaged in a back and forth trying to blame each other for their losses .

Labour repeated the mantra that the SNP had won because they had  received the Lib Dems vote and the Libs suggested that the Labour campaign played a hand.

The Lib Dems election devastation is undoubtedly down to their involvement in a coalition with the Tories. Scotand has effectively punished them.

So what of Labour? Why didn’t the centre hold?

I think they have reaped what they have sown. There has been a gradual drain of talent from the Scottish Parliament. No more do they have the Dewars, The McCleishs or even the McConnells. They became the B-team, a reserve team party – the talent went to Westminster and the Scottish electorate felt that labour didn’t care. They felt betrayed and neglected.

Now Scottish Labour have to rebuild and they have to prove to their heartlands they haven’t abandoned them. Scottish labour cannot take the Scottish electorate for granted anymore.

This is an exciting time in Scottish and UK politics.

I look forward to see where the future takes us.

…and your election microscope 2: The yes campaign starts now

Jeezo.

What can I, as a Nat, say that hasn’t already been said. When I went to sleep before the result of the AV referendum was known I never would have guessed that Scottish Independence had become slightly more likely than electoral reform!

Firstly every single SNP member, supporter, politician and activist must be congratulated for convincing Scotland nae to be feart of us anymore. Let’s not kid ourselves that we’ve made the case for an independent Scotland yet but rejoice that we have made the case successfully for the SNP to be seen as not only a credible party but the best choice to lead Scotland at Holyrood. Negative campaigning claiming all the SNP wants is to break up the Union and an expensive divorce with the rest of the UK won’t work anymore. The Scottish electorate aren’t stupid they see through those claims because they know we will do our very best for them without kowtowing to Westminster and that they can always vote no in the referendum.

That is why we SNP supporters, activists, politicians and the like must never forget that independence is still a question of “IF” rather than “WHEN” and the yes campaign starts from today. Politically the party can make the case by continuing the politics of consensus in the Scottish parliament and fighting for more powers under devolution plus (and perhaps even devolution max) and meeting it’s promises of making Scotland a better and fairer nation. It’s going to be tricky – tuition fees are going to be a one major challenge that we really need to address carefully and well – what is our “Scottish solution”?

No longer can we legitimately say that we are hindered by the other parties – we have achieved a great victory but with that victory comes a great responsibility to meet as many of our pledges and election promises as possible. We cannot and must not emulate the Liberal Democrats as that would tear asunder all the hard won ground we have made in convincing Scotland there is more to the SNP than independence and that we aren’t some bogeyman to be scared of but rather the best party to lead the Scottish Parliament.

We must be wary of the inevitable end of the honeymoon period as the reality of Tory cuts bites and we find ourselves the bad guys forced into implementing their cuts (and in all likelyhood some of our own – it seems depressingly unavoidable). If we get tax raising powers we may need to exchange some of our hard won popularity in order to raise taxes, maintain public services and meet our objectives of making Scotland a better and fairer nation. If that does happen – and anything seems possible now – then we have to be prepared to take the hit in the polls.

We will need to be realistic about this fantastic and unprecedented result: it’s a once in a lifetime event. In five years the political landscape in Scotland may be unrecognisable so we need to make the most of this opportunity and squeeze every positive we can from it to try and convince people that at the least we deserve autonomy within the UK or that we could survive and flourish as an independent nation.

Big Eck needs to continue from his victory speech and remain humble in victory. Now is not the time for bragging, now is the time to focus on whats important – improving this nation and making things better. The SNP members of the Scottish parliament have to hit the ground running and not rest on their laurels. Despite our majority we need to maintain the politics of consensus and take as many people as we can with us on this exciting journey.

But what’s needed more than anything is for us grassroots supporters to make the case for independence. But not in a romantic shortbread tin numpty way. We shouldn’t argue for independence with the language of treachery and betrayal but rather in the language of hope for the future and what might be.

We must look forward not back.

If we are to win hearts and minds we have to convince the sceptical Unionist majority that we aren’t hung up on history, that we don’t blame the English for all Scotlands ills and that our vision of Scotland outside the Union is based on what can happen in the next 300 years not the last.

So I ask you grassroots activists to abandon narratives of treachery and traitors, of histrionics and history and to focus on the future.

The potential prize that lies before us.

A better nation.

…and your election microscope

Have heard a number of things from people who aren’t going to vote SNP of late.

1. I don’t want to be seen as supporting independence

2. I don’t want to be associated with their more knuckle dragging supporters.

Both of these points made with a caveat along the lines of “I like their policies” or similar.

Well folks if you like their policies than vote for them – at least in Holyrood. On point 1. Yes your vote will go to a party that supports having a referendum on independance. That afterall is the official SNP line, even if the party was founded for independence and most of it’s members want independence all the party is committed to is having a referendum for the public to decide. Indeed far from being a single issue party the SNP have, I belive, shown themselves to be a competent and successful (in the main – there are a few things I take exception to) party of Government and Big Eck (strangely) has become quite the statesman. Their centre left policies play well to most Scots and their confidence and supply agreements with the Tories mean they please those on the right who want more bobbies on the beat and the like. As a minority government (which under the Scottish electoral system is all they will likely be) the SNP have performed really quite well over the last few years with only minor hiccups.

But all I want to say is: A VOTE FOR THE SNP IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE.

It is in fact a vote for perhaps the most competent government Scotland could currently have (in my admitadlty partisan opinion). Realistically the Libs and Tories are out of it, the greens are only fielding constituency candidates (so much for being the only real alternative…)  which leaves Ian Gray led Scottish Labour. Whose manifesto is pretty poor and who are consistantly just utter rubbish. To the extent I am becoming less of a tribal SNP voter and supporter and more of a tribal anti-scottish labour supporter. The b-team of British politics.

Most Lib Dems should probably be voting SNP is they want to see Lib Dem policies enacted in Scotland. Most people who are on the centre left should vote SNP to see centre left policies enacted in Scotland. Perversley and conversley if the SNP were elected as a confidence and supply minority government again there is even more chance of the occassional Tory policy being enacted in exchange for concessions in other areas!

I mean I know I am extremely partisan but seriously – why wouldn’t you vote SNP?

If your answer is INDEPENDENCE – get over it. What you are essentially against in the context of a Holyrood election is the people of Scotland being given the chance to decide on the issue once in a generation. If you think the majority is pro-independence you have a reason not to vote SNP – abeit a perverse one in a democracy…

On the second point: well idiots and knuckle draggers support every party and if you don’t vote for a party whose policies you agree with because someone you don’t like also supports them than you are an idiot. An idiot and a coward.

The tolerance paradox

Later this month Scotland will see the start of the first papal visit to this island in many, many years. Understandably this has stirred up a hornets nest of controversy.

With various calls to ignore rather then disrupt him and accusations that people criticising the pope are being naive of Catholicism (see the exchange on twitter between @gimpyblog and @johannhari101 for one.)

On the subject of disruption – given the major travel chaos expected when the Holy Father visits later this month I find it hard to think that anyone could conceivably believe that protesters could cause much more disruption than we currently do expect simply by receiving this state visit. For one thing they could just stick him on the number 16 bus and have done with it: But I do find the follow sentence interesting:

Not only would the rightful freedom of expression of the Pope and his followers be unfairly undermined by a noisy and determined group; it is likely that such protests would be counter-productive.

I intend to return to this sentiment shortly.

Now I intend to protest the Pope’s visit – not because of the cost or because of any militant anti-catholic or anti-religion sentiment (although I have no love of the sins of the Catholic church in the spread of AIDs in Africa and recent remarks about Islam that can to my mind only be described as bigoted, ignorant and wouldn’t be out of place in a BNP election pamphlet) but purely and simply because I don’t believe it is right to honour someone who is widely regarded as being complicit in the covering up of decades of child abuse across Europe.

One should rightly, to my mind, protest a state visit by someone who put their church above the safety of children. Just as we should protest someone like Mugabe or a state visit from the Israeli government or any other such event. To my mind  ignoring these things borders on tacit acceptance that such people should be allowed to enter our country and not face any opposition for the wrongs they have committed.

To do so under the guise of “tolerance” of religion or that it might disrupt those who wish to see the Pope is to my mind misguided – although understandable.

Religion is not an issue here – the fact that the Pope could have been complicit in the cover up of heinous crimes against innocents is. Apologies for using “loaded” language – but it is hard to be entirely dispassionate about such an issue.

The issue at hand is the Popes actions not his faith.

However it is easy to see why people find the idea of protesting the Pope distasteful – essentially there exists a tolerance paradox. We should encourage the tolerance of other cultures and faiths and not be seen to denigrate them or try and force our own culture upon them (with one important caveat as long as the beliefs are consensual (a can of worms in of itself) and cause no harm (again another can of worms)). Given there is a long history of anti-catholic sentiment in Britain this makes it all to easy to dismiss genuine protest as bigotry.

To digress slightly I experienced this myself when I imagined that Tim Minchins “Pope song” could be adopted by Rangers fans…

However there is a sharp difference between tolerating some ones faith and tolerating some ones actions.

Essentially we suffer from a tolerance paradox – we want to been seen to tolerate the Papal visit as we don’t want to be seen as some sort of anti-catholic mob and because people have the right to hold whatever beliefs they should wish to. But we can’t tolerate brushing his actions under the carpet?

So what can we do?

Which value system will win out?

That to my mind is a tolerance paradox.

Draw Mohammed day.

I didn’t participate.

I generally disapproved of the whole shebang: and I can am more generally described as a “militant atheist” as opposed to an apologist for religion: so why didn’t I support this “protest” in favour of free speech and solidarity with those whose lives have been threatened by those fanatics and fundamentalists who violently oppose non-muslims drawing the prophet.

Well essentially because the whole thing came across as a childish, ill-conceived and haphazardly carried out “protest”. Actually I wouldn’t classify it as even a protest as to be a legitimate protest there must be some proper aim or thing to protest against or for?

Protesting in favour of free speech is fair enough: indeed protesting against or opening a dialogue about drawing Mohammed is fine, more than fine: it’s warranted and necessary. But it should ideally be on theologically not reactionary level and use understanding and sensitivity to bring both sides together rather than drive a crudely drawn cartoon wedge between them.

I mean god/allah/the flying spagetti monster forbid we actually try and talk to people who we have a difference of opinion with.

So firstly I think the protest is of questionable legitimacy on the grounds that it’s aim was really reactionary and provocationary as oppossed to having any well defined aim rather than the vauge concepts of “freedom of speech” and “solidarity” with those who had their lifes threatened or have indeed been killed over the issue.

But lets think about that for a minute: is freedom of speech a license to say whatever you want without consequence? No. It’s also not something you should be killed over or have your life threatened over mind. But we have the right to free speech as long as we excercise it responsibly.

Is that what “draw mohammed day” did? Not to my mind. The protest would have gathered slightly more sympathy from me if some of the images produced weren’t deliberatly provocative and others downright offensive: Mohammed fucking a pig? Drooling lavicisiouly over Aishia (who was portrayed as a blonde white girl…) that is not legitimate protest: that borders on Islamaphobia and out and out racism.

If the protest wanted to make a serious point than I should have very clearly instructed people to draw a stickman that proclaimed to be the phrophet Mohammed. That might have made a point and not allowed racists and bigots to jump on the bandwagon.

Secondly I don’t hold the protest to be legitimate because a protest should be about something that is serious and meaningful: it’s all very well saying that this is a “free speech issue” but lets consider how not being able to draw the phrophet Mohammed affects anyone in everyday life?

NOT. A. JOT.

I’m not drawing Mohammed now, I’m won’t draw Mohammed later, If I do draw Mohammed and don’t shove it in the face of any Muslims I know or encounter than my life (and theirs) are utterly unaffected by whether I draw Mohammed: unless I want to go out of my way to offend or challenge Muslims why would I publically draw Mohammed? What is gained by pitting one value system against another?

Is the concept of free speech is undoubtedly important morally and something everyone should hold dear: but is it any more rational than not wanting someone to draw a religious figure? Or rather should I say the concept of “absolute free speech” which is something I’m not sure I agree with – it’s a matter of rights and responsibilities essentially. I don’t hold anyone should have or indeed (anywhere in the world) actually does have absolute free speech. We all have a degree of free speech but we are also all subject to censure. It’s worth remembering that: Britains Libel laws, race hate laws and the like (at least up to this moment) mean our “freedoms to speak” are some of the more restrictive in Europe.

The whole thing comes across as petulant. Not least those who took part in “draw Mohammed day” and their incomprehension that “draw the holocaust day” has arisen. The cries of “well it just shows how horrible they are – drawing something offensive like the holocaust” just, to my mind, display a startling lack or percipacity.

Cheers.

Good for democracy? Debatable…

So a lot of folk have been discussing the leaders debates of late. Most of the discussion has centred on the impact they are having on British politics and how much they are responsible for the unprecedented swing towards the Lib Dems and making the election seem a three horse race rather than simply a two horse race.

However the important questions, to my mind, are being ignored: are the debates a good thing for democracy? Will they lead to more engagment with politics? What effect will they have on the smaller parties?

Paying no attention to the order in which I wrote those down I will start with the question of engagement.

Are the debates engaging people with politics more? Well research (see the twenty-first floor blog for more info on this) suggests that debates in the past in the US and other countries are most watched by pundits and those who are already partisan. However there are strong arguments that this is perhaps not the case in the UK.

Certainly people are talking a lot about the debates: but are they talking any less than they would about an imminent general election? Who can say – we should have measured that at the last election for comparison.

But does water cooler chat equate with engagement? To my mind no. A lot more people may have listened to the rhetoric and spin that constituted the first two debates but how much do they know about the parties actual policies? How aware are they of their manifesto pledges beyond soundbites?

At a guess I’d say not much. In short I’d say the debates don’t engage people with politics they engage people with personality. They encourage style and over substance and spin over sense. Do we really want to measure a future leaders potential on how well they speak to an audience or can present an argument? None of this makes them right or anything more than charismatic and a good manipulator. Perhaps good to represent the country on the international stage but no substitute for actual policies and competency.

There is also the worrying side effect of the debate that it further marginalises the small parties who struggle to get media attention as it is (there is also the tacit and (to my nationalist tastes) insidious ignoring of potential constitutional change issues).

Changing the election from a two horse race is seen by some as a good thing – but is it really? I doubt they will expand the leaders debates to ever include the smaller parties: a move that could effectively cost them votes and ultimatly damage the amount of democratic choice we have in this country.

In short I think the debates will ultimatly damage and devalue democracy in Britain and lead to an (even) more media driven government and more disproportionate influence for the Daily Heil and the Murdoch press.

Their value isn’t debatable to my mind: they may well serve as the point at which historians look back at as when Britains political system irrevocably changed. Not for the better but for the worse.

Cheers

“A reduction of treatment is desirable

Orignallly from the twenty-first floor

Stop NHS Scotland funding quackery and Pseudoscience: Join the Facebook group and Sign the petition!

On the 22nd of February this year, the House of Commons Science and Technology committee published “Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy” with its conclusion that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concluded that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. Furthermore it stated that as they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA.

Those who had been involved in the highly successful 10:23 campaign and the mass homeopathic overdose were understandably pleased – although it remains to be seen what impact the report will actually have. North of the Border Edinburgh and Glasgow Skeptics took part in the mass overdose and were very active in the campaign. However, north of the border, health is a devolved matter and the Sewell Convention states that “Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”. Thus if Westminster enacts the recommendations of the science and technology committee, Scotland may not be bound to follow.

How much does the Scottish NHS spend on homeopathy?

The NHS in Scotland comprises 14 health boards and we contacted each of them under the Freedom of Information Act to find out how much money they spent on funding homeopathy. The information- 13 provided- is given below (Greater Glasgow and Clyde has a separate section below):

NHS Ayrshire and Arran

NHS Ayrshire And Arran provided the following response:

We are unable to provide this information as it is not centrally recorded. CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) is used in a number of disciplines, however, it is part of the patient’s overall treatment. For example, acupuncture for pain is a recognised treatment in Physiotherapy.  It is the Physiotherapist’s professional opinion as to whether this is part of a full treatment programme. No patients are referred specifically for this treatment.

NHS Borders

NHS Borders has referred patients for CAM outwith Borders or to an independent practitioner for treatments with the following spend per annum:

NHS Borders
Year	Spending
03/04	£2,071
04/05	£6,349
05/06	£2,738
06/07	£7,766
07/08	£1,192
08/09	£2,418

NHS Dumfries and Galloway

NHS Dumfries and Galloway spent the following on homeopathy:

NHS Dumfries and Galloway
Year	Spending
2005/06	£1770.22
2006/07	£1434.98
2007/08	£1307.26
2008/09	£1551.99
2009/10 (Apr-Nov)	£1229.59

NHS Fife

NHS Fife gave the following response:

Routinely, NHS Fife does not refer patients to Complementary and Alternative Medicine and does not provide any clinic within NHS Fife.

Infrequently a patient may have been referred to an external provider but due to the small number of occasions, this information cannot be provided, as it could be patient identifiable.

NHS Forth Valley

NHS Forth Valley does not routinely provide complementary and alternative medicine or fund these treatments.

NHS Grampian

Figures for NHS Grampians’ spend on homeopathy are given below:

NHS Grampian
Year	Spending
2004/05	£52,000
2005/06	£48,000
2006/07	£49,000
2007/08	£43,000
2008/09	£41,000

NHS Highland

Figures for NHS Highlands spend on homeopathy and number of patients attending is given below:

NHS Highland
Year	Budget	Amount Spent	Number of Attendances
2004 / 05	26,000	17,808	507
2005 / 06	28,000	15,553	415
2006 / 07	28,800	18,243	422
2007 / 08	29,400	15,633	273
2008 / 09	30,300	13,728	311

NHS Lanarkshire

NHS Lanarkshire provided the following response:

Complementary service set up costs (excluding salaries costs) were initially funded using ward endowment funds / Macmillan cancer support. This included room furnishings, equipment, supplies and training costs. Thereafter, NHSL have supported the ongoing needs of the service. There are two Complementary Therapists employed by NHS Lanarkshire

Individuals are offered 6 sessions thereafter, a further assessment may be carried out and if necessary the treatment period would be extended.

The following therapies are available.

* Aromatherapy
* Aromatherapy Massage
* Indian Head Massage
* Reflexology
* Reiki
* Clinical Hypnosis
* Cranio Sacral Therapy
* Bach Flower Remedies

NHS Lothian

NHS Lothian provided the following information on the cost of homeopathic services:

NHS Lothian cost of homeopathic services
	Cost
Area	03/04	04/05	05/06	06/07	07/08
Service level agreement with NHS Greater Glasgow	24909	25879	26193	26700	27322
St Johns Service	22390	23262	23544	24000	24560
Dalkeith Clinic inc Leith CTC	57980	53629	43867	61517	48680
Total	102987	92063	78751	112217	84803

The following figures for patients attending homeopathic services were provided:

NHS Lothian homeopathic patients
Year	New patients	Return Patients	Total
2003/04	214	997	1211
2004/05	205	1257	1462
2005/06	295	1457	1752
2006/07	273	1806	2079
2007/08	144	1099	1243
Total	1131	6616	7747

NHS Orkney

NHS Orkney does not provide complementary and alternative medicine care. There are no NHS funded complementary and alternative medicine clinics in Orkney. NHS Orkney does not have a budget for or planned expenditure on homeopathic treatment.

A very small number of Orkney patients (<< 10) have had appointments in Glasgow, at an annual cost of less than £1000.

In 2005 NHS Orkney funded a £30 talk on homeopathy, and spent £449 on an acupuncture course and expenses for members of staff. In 2008 £402 was spent on an acupuncture course and expenses for members of staff.

NHS Shetland

NHS Shetland gave the following information on use of homeopathy:

NHS Shetland
Year	Number of Patients	Cost
06/07	6	£2,484
07/08	2	£268
08/09	4	£1052
09/10	3	£768 (Figures to date)

Total of 7 individual patients.

These are patients with follow up appointments as we have not referred any new patients since 2008.

NHS Tayside

The use of homeopathic services and their cost in NHS Tayside are as follows:

NHS Tayside Homeopathy Services
Year	New Patients	Return Patients	Clinic Cost	Prescribing Cost	Total Cost
2004/05	253	1283	Not held	Not held	Not held
2005/06	214	1292	54,775	700	55,475
2006/07	195	1400	55,100	9,700	64,800
2007/08	203	1379	55,000	14,800	69,800
2008/09	176	1148	58,000	12,800	70,800
2009/10	(interpolated)		58,400	15,700	74,100

NHS Western Isles

NHS Western Isles has not spent anything on providing CAM since 97/98 and does not hold figures electronically for before then.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and Gartnavel Homeopathic Hospital

Glasgow Homeopathic hospital cost £2,780,189 to build funded by the New Homoeopathic Hospital Endowment Fund. Homoeopathy Endowments can be traced back to a public fund raising effort in the 1930’s to provide a new homoeopathic hospital. The New Homoeopathic Hospital Fund was established in 1974. The New Homoeopathic Hospital as it exists today was built in 1999.  There are 15 staff at the hospital: all, apart from having their basic Medical Degree, have completed post-graduate training in homoeopathy and have attained Membership of the Faculty of Homoeopathy (MFHom).

In 1974, an agreement was reached regarding the homeopathic hospital- the provision was made that the building could only be used for something else (other than homeopathy) if the demand for homoeopathic treatments had diminished to such an extent that the provision of homoeopathic facilities could no longer be justified.

The number of patients treated by the Homeopathic Hospital at Gartnavel is given below:

Number of Patients attending Gartnavel Homeopathic Hospital.
Year	Total Inpatients	Total Outpatients
2005/2006	476	9788
2006/2007	443	9998
2007/2008	419	8846
2008/2009	448	8629
2009/2010	339 year to date	6272 year to date

In 2004/2005 the inpatient service at the Homeopathic Hospital was reviewed, the conclusion from this review was to continue offering these services and this remains the position today. How much the homeopathic hospital and associated services cost is given below:

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
Year	Expenditure
2005/2006	£1.383m
2006/2007	£1.293m
2007/2008	£1.430m
2008/2009	£1.468m
2009/2010	£1.272m as at end Jan’10

…and finally:

NHS Highland also provided me with the following list of what homeopathy referrals should be considered for:

Children With:
Ø      Recurrent infections or ill health
Ø      Skin problems
Ø      Behavioural problems / learning disabilities
Ø      Generally below par in general health

Adults With:
Ø      Asthma
Ø      Headaches and migraines
Ø      Post viral syndrome
Ø      Irritable bowel / abdominal pain
Ø      Allergies
Ø      Pre menstrual / menopausal symptoms
Ø     Post natal depression

In Circumstances Where:
Ø      There is no effective orthodox treatment
Ø      Side effects of current treatment are unacceptable
Ø      A reduction of treatment is desirable

If homeopathic treatment is being provided for all these reasons then I suggest that a reduction of treatment is desirable. A reduction to none, so the people of Scotland can get the safe and evidence based healthcare they deserve.

Stop NHS Scotland funding quackery and Pseudoscience: Join the Facebook group and Sign the petition!