Yesterday the Scottish government proposed the figure of 45 pence the minimum price per unit of alcohol. If approved, this measure will affect everyone, casual and social drinkers and those with an alcohol problem.
Is paying more for our alcoholic drinks something we want? From an individual perspective, it is not nice to have to pay more for something considered enjoyable and relaxing. Scotland’s relationship with alcohol is complex. Excessive drinking is socially acceptable within our society and connected with fun and having a “good night out”. However, excessive drinking comes at a cost and we are all paying for collateral damage connected to excessive drinking.
The Scottish Parliamentary Labour Group published yesterday The Report of the Alcohol Commission. The report is an interesting read. For starters, it stresses the need for a national strategy for action on alcohol because there are no magic bullets or quick fix solutions for changing the culture of Scottish drinking. Aye to that.
The writers of the Labour report are not convinced that simply hiking the price of booze will deal by itself with the alcohol problem. Moreover, they argue that it has not been done anywhere else in the world. Maybe not, but let me ask you a question. If money is tight all around, is it rocket science to assume that people will buy less alcohol, simply because it is dearer ? Alcohol is not an essential food item.
Minimum pricing is not about making drinking democratically available to all sectors of society. It is one of many possible steps to be taken to reduce alcohol consumption overall. Taking that step does not preclude a strategy with many other policies attached.
As a society, are we not willing to pay more for a drink if this cuts the alcohol related street-violence, car accidents, domestic situations and increases the overall health of our nation? I trust the answer is AYE!
Friday, 3 September 2010
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Who needs palliative care?
We might think that palliative care is for those with a terminal illness, during their last months of life; however according to the Palliative Care Bill currently discussed in Holyrood, palliative care is not just for cancer patients, or terminally ill people. This Bill proposes that palliative care be given for everyone with a progressive life-limiting condition as well as their families. This is a step in the right direction because the Bill recognises that palliative care is not just for people at the end of their life, but also for those with illnesses such as Alzheimer’s, heart failure, or Parkinson’s. These type of progressive illnesses are very stressful on the patient and on the whole family. The main thrust of the Bill focuses on the delivery of care within a hospital environment. In all fairness, palliative care in Scotland has been delivered through churches, charitable organisations and hospices. It must therefore be recognised that palliative care can be delivered not just in hospitals, but in hospices, churches, GP practices and in the home. The Church of Scotland has a long tradition in providing spiritual help to patients and families afflicted by progressive and life limiting illnesses and has been actively involved throughout the consultation processes of the Bill.
Friday, 27 August 2010
Regressive or progressive emergency budget?
We heard yesterday discussions about whether the emergency budget is either progressive or regressive. Fancy wording for fundamental questions? It might be better to simply ask whether the budget is equitable and protects the most vulnerable in our society ?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), not a “radical” organisation, considers that the poorest families amongst us will be proportionately bearing the brunt of the cuts. It is tragic that in spite of previous efforts by a number of organisations to eradicate child poverty by 2020 it is now apparent that this goal will not be met. A quarter of the children in Scotland live in persistent poverty and most of them are part of single parent households. According to the IFS, this is one of the groups that will be the hardest hit. Only those able to bear a load should help carry the burden. The challenges are understood; but why does it have to be those least able to withstand the brunt that carry the biggest share of the load? In other words Mr. Cameron and Mr Osbourne, why does it have to be our children?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS), not a “radical” organisation, considers that the poorest families amongst us will be proportionately bearing the brunt of the cuts. It is tragic that in spite of previous efforts by a number of organisations to eradicate child poverty by 2020 it is now apparent that this goal will not be met. A quarter of the children in Scotland live in persistent poverty and most of them are part of single parent households. According to the IFS, this is one of the groups that will be the hardest hit. Only those able to bear a load should help carry the burden. The challenges are understood; but why does it have to be those least able to withstand the brunt that carry the biggest share of the load? In other words Mr. Cameron and Mr Osbourne, why does it have to be our children?
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Protecting the human rights of Iranian dissidents in Camp Ashraf, Iraq
In 2008 the General Assembly received a report on Iran (which can be found on page 69 of this link).
It outlines some of the history and the present reality of life in a much misunderstood country, and seeks to offer some reflections on some of the key issues facing the international community. These are still very relevant two years later.
The report paints a picture of a society which is perhaps more complicated than the media might suggest. The stereotypical idea of an Islamic Republic may make some in the West think immediately of places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban. But Iran is a diverse and complicated society. As well as recent reports of a women sentenced to death by stoning, Iran also reportedly has the most number of bloggers per head of the population. Repression and expression, seemingly, coexist, though not always peacefully.
Inside and outwith the country, political dissidents and groups work to bring human rights protection to Iran, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Attacks against the Bahá’í community in Iran have caused an international outcry by religious leaders.
Another situation that I’ve just recently become aware about are the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. There are reports that the Iraqi authorities wish to disperse the camp and deport the dissidents back to Iran, where they face fear of persecution, torture or even death.
Campaigners are trying to put pressure on Iraq to make sure that the human rights of the Camp Ashraf people are respected. One group, the International Committee for the Third Option, is campaigning for greater international attention for the situation in Camp Ashraf and are calling on the international community to do all it can to help them.
Whilst the politics are complicated – Iraq is now a functioning sovereign state with its own legal and human rights institutions. How best does the international community intervene in its domestic affairs?
For the Church, it is to pray, for peace, and for reconciliation. It is also important that we don’t forget that just because the Iraq war is now over all the problems and issues are no longer our concern.
The issues of human rights, justice and dignity are often taken for granted in Scotland. For the people in Camp Ashraf and their supporters, however, they are matters of life and death.
It outlines some of the history and the present reality of life in a much misunderstood country, and seeks to offer some reflections on some of the key issues facing the international community. These are still very relevant two years later.
The report paints a picture of a society which is perhaps more complicated than the media might suggest. The stereotypical idea of an Islamic Republic may make some in the West think immediately of places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban. But Iran is a diverse and complicated society. As well as recent reports of a women sentenced to death by stoning, Iran also reportedly has the most number of bloggers per head of the population. Repression and expression, seemingly, coexist, though not always peacefully.
Inside and outwith the country, political dissidents and groups work to bring human rights protection to Iran, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Attacks against the Bahá’í community in Iran have caused an international outcry by religious leaders.
Another situation that I’ve just recently become aware about are the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. There are reports that the Iraqi authorities wish to disperse the camp and deport the dissidents back to Iran, where they face fear of persecution, torture or even death.
Campaigners are trying to put pressure on Iraq to make sure that the human rights of the Camp Ashraf people are respected. One group, the International Committee for the Third Option, is campaigning for greater international attention for the situation in Camp Ashraf and are calling on the international community to do all it can to help them.
Whilst the politics are complicated – Iraq is now a functioning sovereign state with its own legal and human rights institutions. How best does the international community intervene in its domestic affairs?
For the Church, it is to pray, for peace, and for reconciliation. It is also important that we don’t forget that just because the Iraq war is now over all the problems and issues are no longer our concern.
The issues of human rights, justice and dignity are often taken for granted in Scotland. For the people in Camp Ashraf and their supporters, however, they are matters of life and death.
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Why we should say No to Hunterston Power Station
Friday is the final day by which objections can be submitted against the development of the “clean coal-fired” power plant proposed by Ayrshire Power.
I hope the application submitted by Ayrshire power to the Scottish government will be rejected for the following reasons:
1) The technology on which it is based is dubious and has not been tested in the large scale application envisioned by Ayrshire Power.
2) The increase in carbon dioxide emissions which such a development will undoubtedly bring about will make the national targets of Scotland’s Climate Change Act very difficult to achieve.
3) The development of the plant will be on a site of Special Scientific Interest SSCI which is supposed to be protected by law.
4) The development does not have the support of local people, nor of major environmental charities as evidenced by the campaigns organised against it.
The Church of Scotland is against this type of development. We have a moral responsibility of stewardship and care for the earth. The Church of Scotland addressed this responsibility in very concrete points by asking all of its congregations to reduce its carbon footprint both in church buildings and in their own lives. The Church is also a supporter and contributor to Eco-Congregation Scotland, a Scottish charity with over 250 congregations working to take action to care for the earth. Eco-congregation Scotland represents a huge number of people actively working in Scotland towards the reduction of carbon emissions.
On a personal level, and as part of my role as convener of the Church and Society Council, I have blogged against this particular issue and campaigned as part of the Stop Climate Change coalition to raise awareness on the importance of climate change. I therefore urge all of you to contact the Scottish Government Scottish Government at the Energy Consents Unit, 4th floor Atlantic Quay 150 Broomielaw Glasgow G2 8LU to lodge your objections against the proposed power station.
We have one week to say no.
I hope the application submitted by Ayrshire power to the Scottish government will be rejected for the following reasons:
1) The technology on which it is based is dubious and has not been tested in the large scale application envisioned by Ayrshire Power.
2) The increase in carbon dioxide emissions which such a development will undoubtedly bring about will make the national targets of Scotland’s Climate Change Act very difficult to achieve.
3) The development of the plant will be on a site of Special Scientific Interest SSCI which is supposed to be protected by law.
4) The development does not have the support of local people, nor of major environmental charities as evidenced by the campaigns organised against it.
The Church of Scotland is against this type of development. We have a moral responsibility of stewardship and care for the earth. The Church of Scotland addressed this responsibility in very concrete points by asking all of its congregations to reduce its carbon footprint both in church buildings and in their own lives. The Church is also a supporter and contributor to Eco-Congregation Scotland, a Scottish charity with over 250 congregations working to take action to care for the earth. Eco-congregation Scotland represents a huge number of people actively working in Scotland towards the reduction of carbon emissions.
On a personal level, and as part of my role as convener of the Church and Society Council, I have blogged against this particular issue and campaigned as part of the Stop Climate Change coalition to raise awareness on the importance of climate change. I therefore urge all of you to contact the Scottish Government Scottish Government at the Energy Consents Unit, 4th floor Atlantic Quay 150 Broomielaw Glasgow G2 8LU to lodge your objections against the proposed power station.
We have one week to say no.
Monday, 5 July 2010
The glorious weather
It was very difficult to resist the temptation to take advantage of this weather , so, I shall be away on holidays for a couple of weeks. It will be nice to have a break from my computer, my schedules and my mobile.
See you soon
See you soon
Friday, 25 June 2010
The strength of our democratic processes
It is really positive that the Scottish Parliament’s Information Centre has recently analysed data showing that most of the people that have given evidence to Holyrood on the Assisted Suicide Scotland Bill are against the Bill.
It is a sign of the strength of our Parliamentary process that civic society takes the time and becomes involved in debating the issues and presenting their considered viewpoint to our Parliament. That’s not the same as an “orchestrated campaign” as some have suggested. The thousands of cards delivered to MSPs today against the bill are part of a campaign encouraging people to express their voice. All of this is in true democratic practice.
The Church of Scotland has long had a position against assisted suicide because such practices devalue the life and human dignity of the individual. I would encourage anyone interested in finding out the difficulties with this Bill to go the briefing paper prepared by the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office; alternatively, Dr. Donald MacDonald has written an incisive personal perspective against the Bill. Donald is a minister, a medical doctor and a user of a wheelchair. I value his perspective. I can only applaud the wisdom of those people in Scotland who will continue to make use of their civil liberties and influence the making of our laws
It is a sign of the strength of our Parliamentary process that civic society takes the time and becomes involved in debating the issues and presenting their considered viewpoint to our Parliament. That’s not the same as an “orchestrated campaign” as some have suggested. The thousands of cards delivered to MSPs today against the bill are part of a campaign encouraging people to express their voice. All of this is in true democratic practice.
The Church of Scotland has long had a position against assisted suicide because such practices devalue the life and human dignity of the individual. I would encourage anyone interested in finding out the difficulties with this Bill to go the briefing paper prepared by the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office; alternatively, Dr. Donald MacDonald has written an incisive personal perspective against the Bill. Donald is a minister, a medical doctor and a user of a wheelchair. I value his perspective. I can only applaud the wisdom of those people in Scotland who will continue to make use of their civil liberties and influence the making of our laws
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
