Drylaw Telford Community Council meets tonight (Wednesday 23 November) in Drylaw Neighbourhood Centre at 7pm. All Welcome!
Agenda
COLLISION COURSE: SUPREME COURT JUDGES SAY ‘NO’ TO SCOTTISH REFERENDUM
The Scottish Government has made a reference to the Supreme Court to establish whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an independence referendum.
The case was heard on the 11th and 12th of October and the verdict was made public this morning – Wednesday 23 November.
TIME FOR SCOTLAND RALLY
THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT:
Date:23 November 2022
Lord Reed (President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose
The Scottish Government has drafted a Scottish Independence Referendum Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. Under the Scotland Act 1998 (“the Scotland Act”), the power of the Scottish Parliament to make legislation (or its “legislative competence”) is limited.
A provision of a Bill will be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore not law if it relates to the matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster (sections 29(1) and (2)(b)). These reserved matters include “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)).
In this reference, the Lord Advocate (the senior law officer of the Scottish Government) asks the Court whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament because it relates to either or both of the reserved matters of the Union or the United Kingdom Parliament.
This is a legal question about the Scottish Parliament’s power to make legislation under the Scotland Act. The Court is not being and could not be asked to give a view on the distinct political question of whether Scotland should become independent from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The powers of the Scottish Parliament were not in issue during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. This is because, in 2013, an Order in Council under section 30(2) of the Scotland Act modified the definition of reserved matters to enable the Scottish Parliament to pass the 2014 referendum legislation. The United Kingdom Government is currently unwilling to agree to the making of another Order in Council to facilitate another referendum on Scottish independence.
The Lord Advocate’s reference was made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The Advocate General for Scotland (the Scottish law officer of the United Kingdom Government) raises two preliminary issues, namely, whether the Court can and should answer the reference.
There are consequently three questions which the Court must consider. First, is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a “devolution issue”? If not, it cannot be the subject of a reference under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6, which would mean that the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide it. Secondly, even if it is a devolution issue, should the Court exercise its discretion to decline to accept the reference? Thirdly, if the Court accepts the reference, how should it answer the question the Lord Advocate has referred to it?
In a unanimous judgment, the Court answers the questions before it as follows. First, the question referred by the Advocate General is a devolution issue, which means that that the Court has jurisdiction to decide it.
Secondly, the Court should accept the reference. Thirdly, the provision of the proposed Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” does relate to matters which have been reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the Scotland Act.
In particular, it relates to the reserved matters of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, in the absence of any modification of the definition of reserved matters (by an Order in Council or otherwise), the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.
Issue 1: Is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a devolution issue?
Only a “devolution issue” can be referred to the Court under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The term “devolution issue” is defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6. Under paragraph 1(f), it includes “any other question arising by virtue of this Act about reserved matters” [13-14]. The Court concludes that the question referred by the Lord Advocate falls within this description and is therefore a devolution issue which the Court has jurisdiction to decide [47].
In reaching this conclusion, the Court holds, first, that the question referred is one “arising by virtue of” the Scotland Act because it is a question which arises under section 31(1) for the person wishing to introduce the Bill into the Scottish Parliament [16]. That person is required, on or before the Bill’s introduction, to give a statement confirming that, in their view, the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [9]. Secondly, the existence of the separate scheme for the scrutiny of Bills for legislative competence by the Court in section 33 of the Scotland Act does not prevent a reference from being made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 in relation to a proposed Bill, before it is introduced [21-27]. Thirdly, the terms of paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 6 are very wide. They are intended to sweep up any questions arising under the Scotland Act about reserved matters which are not covered elsewhere [37-42]. Fourthly, it is consistent with the rule of law and with the intention of the Scotland Act that the Lord Advocate should be able to obtain an authoritative judicial decision on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in advance of the introduction of a Bill [44-46].
Issue 2: Should the Court decline to accept the Lord Advocate’s reference?
The Court concludes that it should accept the reference [54]. The reference has been made in order to obtain an authoritative ruling on a question of law which has already arisen as a matter of public importance. The Court’s answer will determine whether the proposed Bill is introduced into the Scottish Parliament. The reference is not therefore hypothetical, academic or premature [53].
Issue 3: Does the proposed Bill relate to reserved matters?
The question whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would relate to matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act (section 29(2)(b)) is to be determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances (section 29(3)) [56-57], [70], [75].
A provision will relate to a reserved matter if it has something more than a loose or consequential connection with it [57], [71-72]. The purpose and effect of the provision may be derived from a consideration of both the purpose of those introducing the legislation and the objective effect of its terms [73]. Its effect is not restricted to its legal consequences [74].
Applying this test, the reserved matters which are relevant here are “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)). The latter reservation includes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament [76]. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to hold a lawful referendum on the question of whether Scotland should become an independent country, that is, on ending the Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament over Scotland [77], [82]. The Bill’s effect will not be confined to the holding of the referendum. Even if the referendum has no immediate legal consequences, it would be a political event with important political consequences [78-81]. It is therefore clear that the proposed Bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Accordingly, the proposed Bill relates to reserved matters and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [82-83], [92].
The Scottish National Party (intervening) made further written submissions founded on the right to self–determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law [84]. The Court rejects these submissions, holding that the right to self–determination is not in issue here [88-89] and does not require a narrow reading of “relates to” in section 29(2)(b) so as to limit the scope of the matters reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act [90]. Similarly, the allocation of powers between the United Kingdom and Scotland under the Scotland Act does not infringe the principle of legality [91].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
Note
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available online. Decided cases
The UK Supreme Court has today determined that the draft Scottish Independence Referendum Bill is outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, said that the UK Government was committed to working with the Scottish Government on the issues that matter most to people in Scotland.
Alister Jack said: “We note and respect the unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court today.
“People in Scotland want both their governments to be concentrating all attention and resources on the issues that matter most to them. That’s why we are focussed on issues like restoring economic stability, getting people the help they need with their energy bills, and supporting our NHS.
“Today alone, 11.6 million UK pensioners – around one million in Scotland – are starting to receive up to £600 to help with their energy bills this winter.
“As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government in tackling all the challenges we share and face.”
NICOLA STURGEON’s RESPONSE:
“Earlier today, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the Lord Advocate’s reference, seeking clarity on whether or not the Scotland Act 1998 allows the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence.
“First of all – while I am obviously very disappointed by it – I respect and accept the judgment of the Court. In securing Scotland’s independence we will always be guided by a commitment to democracy and respect for the rule of law.
“That principle also reflects a practical reality – the route we take must be lawful and democratic for independence to be achieved. And as is becoming clearer by the day, achieving independence is not just desirable – it is essential if Scotland is to escape the disaster of Brexit, the damage of policies imposed by governments we don’t vote for, and the low growth, high inequality economic model that is holding us back.
“However, we must be clear today that the Supreme Court does not make the law – it interprets and applies it. If the devolution settlement in the Scotland Act is inconsistent with any reasonable notion of Scottish democracy – as is now confirmed to be the case – that is the fault of Westminster lawmakers, not the justices of the Supreme Court.
“In addressing the implications of today’s ruling, it is also important to be mindful of what the Court was not asked to decide and therefore what the ruling does not tell us.
“The Court was not asked to decide if there is a democratic mandate for a referendum. The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable.
“Nor was the Court asked if Scotland should be independent. Only the Scottish people can be the judge of that. And it was not asked if there is any democratic means by which Scotland can choose independence.
“The question the Court was asked to decide – the only question the court could reasonably answer – was a narrower one. Would a Bill providing for an advisory referendum on independence be within the current powers of the Scottish Parliament?
“In other words, can the Scottish Parliament legislate for an independence referendum without the prior agreement of Westminster? The Court has answered that question in the negative.
“It has determined that under the Scotland Act 1998 – which encapsulates the current devolution settlement – even an advisory referendum asking the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?’ is a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
“What that means is that without an agreement between the Scottish and UK governments for either a section 30 Order or a UK Act of Parliament to change its powers, the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for the referendum the people of Scotland have instructed it to deliver.
“That is a hard pill for any supporter of independence – and surely indeed for any supporter of democracy – to swallow. However, as I said back in June when I informed Parliament that the Lord Advocate had agreed to make this reference, it was always the case that in the absence of an agreement with the UK government, the question of the Scottish Parliament’s competence in relation to a referendum would end up in the Supreme Court – if not before legislation then certainly after any decision by Parliament to pass a Bill.
“So while it is a statement of the obvious that this is not the outcome I hoped for, it does give us clarity. And having that clarity sooner rather than later allows us now to plan a way a forward, however imperfect it might be. Now, I am enough of a realist to know that the immediate questions posed by today’s judgment will be for me and the SNP.
“I am also long enough in the political tooth to expect some triumphalism on the part of unionist politicians. However, unionists of a more thoughtful disposition will, I suspect, know that to be misguided.
“Indeed, they will have been hoping that the Court – as the UK government asked it to do – would have declined to answer the substantive question today.
“That is because they will understand that this judgment raises profound and deeply uncomfortable questions about thebasis and future of the United Kingdom. Until now, it has been understood and accepted – by opponents of independence as well as by its supporters – that the UK is a voluntary partnership of nations.
“The Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs back in 1950 said this: “Scotland is a nation and voluntarily entered into the Union as a partner”.
“That sentiment was echoed nearly 60 years later by the cross-party Calman Commission which described the UK as “a voluntary union and partnership”.
“And it was reinforced in 2014 by the Smith Commission which made clear that “nothing in its report prevented Scotland becoming an independent country should the people of Scotland so choose”.
“What today’s ruling tells us, however, is that the Scotland Act does not in fact uphold that long held understanding of the basis of the relationships that constitute the UK – on the contrary, it shatters that understanding completely.
Let’s be blunt: a so-called partnership in which one partner is denied the right to choose a different future – or even to ask itself the question —cannot be described in any way as voluntary or even a partnership at all. So this ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality.
“And that exposes a situation that is quite simply unsustainable. In the words of former Tory Prime Minister, John Major: ‘No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will’.
“Indeed, perhaps what today’s judgment confirms more than anything else, is that the only guarantee for Scotland of equality within the British family of nations is through independence – that fact is now clearer than ever before.
“The immediate question, of course, is what happens now. Obviously, I am making these remarks just a couple of hours after the Court issued its judgment.
“While the terms and import of the judgment are clear it will still be important to absorb and consider it fully. I think it is safe to predict that this will not be my last word on the matter.
“However, my initial views – building on what I said in June – are as follows. First of all, it is worth repeating that the Court judgment relates to one possible route to Scotland making a choice on independence – a referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament without Westminster agreement.
“While it is absolutely the case – if the UK was a voluntary partnership – that this would not be needed, it remains open to the UK government, however belatedly, to accept democracy and reach agreement.
“I make clear again today, therefore, that I stand ready at any time to reach agreement with the Prime Minister on an adjustment to the devolution settlement that enables a lawful, democratic referendum to take place – a process that respects the right of people in Scotland to choose their future, in line with the mandate of the Scottish Parliament, lets politicians make the case for and against independence and, crucially, allows the Scottish people to decide.
“What I will not do is go cap in hand. My expectation, in the short term at least, is that the UK government will maintain its position of democracy denial. That position is, in my view, not just unsustainable – it is also utterly self-defeating.
“The more contempt the Westminster establishment shows for Scottish democracy, the more certain it is that Scotland will vote Yes when the choice does come to be made.
“As for that choice – and for the avoidance of any doubt – I believe today, just as I did yesterday, that a referendum is the best way to determine the issue of independence.
“The fact is, the SNP is not abandoning the referendum route. Westminster is blocking it. And in that scenario, unless we give up on democracy – which I, for one, am not prepared to do – we must and will find another democratic, lawful and constitutional means by which the Scottish people can express their will.
“In my view, that can only be an election. The next national election scheduled for Scotland is the UK General Election, making it both the first and the most obvious opportunity to seek what I described back in June as a de facto referendum.
“As with any proposition in any party manifesto in any election, it is up to the people how they respond. No party can dictate the basis on which people cast their votes. But a party can be – indeed should be – crystal clear about the purpose for which it is seeking popular support.
“In this case, for the SNP, it will be to establish – just as in a referendum – majority support in Scotland for independence, so that we can then achieve independence. That, then, is the principle.
“However, now that the Supreme Court’s ruling is known, and a de facto referendum is no longer hypothetical, it is necessary to agree the precise detail of the proposition we intend to put before the country – for example, the form our manifesto will take, the question we will pose, how we will seek to build support above and beyond the SNP, and what steps we will take to achieve independence if we win.
“As you would expect, I have views on all of that. However, given the magnitude of these decisions for the SNP, the process of reaching them is one that the party as a whole must be fully and actively involved in.
“I can therefore confirm that I will be asking our National Executive Committee to convene a special party conference in the new year to discuss and agree the detail of a proposed de facto referendum.
“In the meantime, the SNP will launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy. For we should be in no doubt – as of today, democracy is what is at stake. This is no longer just about whether or not Scotland becomes independent – vital though that decision is.
“It is now more fundamental – it is now about whether or not we have the basic democratic right to choose our own future. Indeed, from today, the independence movement is as much about democracy as it is about independence.
“To conclude, I am well aware that there will be a real sense of frustration and disappointment today in both the SNP and the wider movement. I share it. My message, though, is this: while that is understandable, it must be short lived. And I believe it will be.
“Indeed, I suspect we will start to see just how short lived in the strength of the gatherings planned for later today in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. The fact is we have work to do.
“The case for Scotland becoming independent is more compelling and urgent than ever. Independence is now essential because of what Westminster control means, on a day-to-day basis, for people in this country, and for future generations.
“Thanks to Westminster control, the UK economy is in crisis – and we are entering a new age of Tory austerity. Low-income households in the UK are now 22 per cent poorer than their counterparts in France, and 21 per cent poorer than in Germany.
“To put that in context – it means the living standards of the lowest-income households in the UK are £3,800 lower than their French equivalents. Thanks to Westminster control, we are subject to an immigration and asylum system that neither works in practice, nor serves our need to grow our population.
“It mistreats those who come to our shores looking for sanctuary from oppression, and deprives us of the talents and taxes of those who want to live, work and contribute to our country. Thanks to Westminster control, even the limited measure of self-government that devolution provides is no longer guaranteed.
“The steady erosion of the powers of our Parliament, the undermining of the Sewel Convention, the imposition of the UK Internal Market Act, and now the Retained EU law Bill.
“And if we stick with Westminster control we are stuck outside the European Union permanently. And that comes at a heavy cost.
“According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Brexit will mean in the long-run a fall in national income of 4 per cent compared with EU membership. That is equivalent to a cut in public revenues in Scotland of £3.2 billion.
“All the main Westminster parties now support a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. And the Brexit conspiracy of silence that exists between them means the UK economy will become weaker, and people will pay a heavier and heavier price.
“That price will be paid in hard economic terms – but also in the narrowing of horizons and loss of opportunities for the generations to come. Scotland can do better than this.
“The example of independent countries across Europe and the world, many with nowhere near the assets and strengths we have, tells us that loudly and clearly. We hear from Westminster that what is needed is stability.
“But let’s be clear – the Westminster system has shown that it is not capable of securing stability. The people relying on food banks are not being offered stability.
“Those across our country afraid to switch on their heating are not being offered stability. The businesses struggling with Brexit are not being offered stability. The young people denied the rights and opportunities of EU membership are not being offered stability.
“A UK economic model which delivers low growth and low productivity coupled with sky high rates of poverty and inequality does not, and never will offer stability. Scotland can do so much better. So, yes, of course, this judgment is a disappointment. But it is not one we can or will wallow in.
“Indeed, getting the judgment now rather than later gives us the clarity we need to plot a definite way forward. Fundamentally, our job today is the same as it was yesterday. It is to persuade a majority of the Scottish people of the fact that independence is the best future for Scotland – and ensure a democratic process that allows majority support to be established beyond doubt.
“That job is not easy, I know – on some days, like today perhaps, it feels more difficult than ever. But nothing – nothing – worth doing is ever easy. There is no doubt in my mind that independence will be worth it. And my resolve to achieve independence is as strong as it has ever been. Indeed, it is if anything even stronger. Prosperity, equality, internationalism – and now, without any doubt, the very democracy of our nation – depends on independence.”
ALBA part leader Alex Salmond:
An important new chapter has begun for Port of Leith Housing Association and its subsidiaries which have revealed new names and branding.
Harbour is made up of:
Harbour Chief Executive Heather Kitely said: “We’re excited to unveil our new branding which reflects our growth to become a family of organisations all working together to make a positive impact on people’s lives in Leith, north Edinburgh and beyond by providing excellent affordable homes and a wide range of services.
“I’m very proud of everything each member of Harbour has achieved to date. I’m confident that as Harbour we will continue to find new ways to support our brilliant communities and to provide vital services that make a real difference to people’s lives.”
The rebrand process began in October 2020 with an extensive research and consultation process. You can read more about the rebrand story at:
The EIS condemned the Scottish Government and COSLA for presenting a revised pay offer to teachers that offers no tangible improvement on their previously rejected offers.
Following three months of delay, and the promise of an improved offer to teachers, the offer that was presented today provides no additional money and is, for many teachers, a worse offer than those previously rejected by teacher unions.
A special meeting of the EIS Salaries Committee, held online yesterday afternoon, has unanimously rejected the offer. As a result of this immediate rejection of the offer, strike action scheduled to begin on Thursday will go ahead.
EIS General Secretary Andrea Bradley said, “This offer is nothing less than an abject insult to Scotland’s hard-working teaching professionals. Teachers overwhelmingly rejected a 5% offer more than 3 months ago and now, after months of prevarication and weeks of empty promises, COSLA and the Scottish Government come back with an offer than is worth that same 5% to the vast majority of teachers.
“This is not, as the Scottish Government claims, a progressive offer – it is a divisive offer, made on a differentiated basis, which is actually worse for many teachers in promoted posts.”
Ms Bradley added, “Contrary to the claims made by the Cabinet Secretary in Parliament and in Scottish Government spin today, this is not an improved, realistic, progressive or generous offer. Our members will see this offer for exactly what it is – a kick in the teeth from their employers and the Scottish Government.
“This afternoon’s Salaries Committee expressed outrage at this offer, and that outrage is sure to be replicated in staffrooms across Scotland today and tomorrow. Our programme of strike action, which will commence as scheduled on Thursday, will clearly show the strength of feeling of Scotland’s teachers who will be out in numbers and with strong voice on picket lines and at regional rallies.”
Ms Bradley also corrected a false statement made by Cabinet Secretary Shirley Anne Somerville in the Scottish Parliament today, who repeatedly claimed that four offers had been made to teachers prior to today: “We have received, and rejected, three previous offers from COSLA and the Scottish Government before today: for 2%; 3.5% and 5%.
“Today’s offer, which is the fourth, is really no new offer at all, but a reheating of the previously rejected offer. Today’s offer includes no additional money, and is a sign of the contempt with which COSLA and the Scottish Government clearly view Scotland’s teaching professionals.”
A new progressive pay offer – the fourth which has been made to unions – recognises the impact of the cost of living crisis on lower-paid teachers, with an increase of up to 6.85%.
For those classroom teachers on the main grade scale, who benefit from pay progression, this offer will mean an increase in one year of over 10%.
Those at the top of the scale will receive a 5% increase, taking their salary to £44,453. A teacher moving from probation into a fully qualified post would gain an annual salary increase of 27%.
A fully qualified teacher in Scotland would receive £35,650 – over £7,500 more than their counterparts in England under the offer. The most experienced classroom teachers would receive £5,600 more than they would if they were teaching in England on the main pay range.
Overall, if accepted, this would represent a cumulative pay increase for the majority of teachers of 21.8% since 2018.
Education Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said: “This is a fair offer which recognises that the cost of living crisis is the priority, with higher increases for staff on lower salaries.
“This is now the fourth offer that has been made. In the same time EIS have not changed their request for a 10% pay increase – even for those on the highest incomes.
“I have been clear that we have limited room for manoeuvre. The financial situation for the Scottish Government is challenging and additional money for teacher pay means reduced public services elsewhere.
“In these challenging times it is important we focus our attention on those who are most impacted by the cost of living crisis, as well as ensuring fairness to all public sector workers. I would urge leadership to postpone plans for industrial action and consider this new offer.”
Commenting following the revised offer to the Teaching Trade Unions Councillor Katie Hagmann, COSLA’s Resources Spokesperson said: “Scottish Local Government values its entire workforce, of which teachers are a key part.
“We have this afternoon made a revised fourth offer to our trade union colleagues. It is fair, affordable and recognises that the cost-of-living crisis is the priority, with higher increases for staff on lower pay points. This is in line with the offers made to all other parts of the public sector.
“We have worked extremely hard and closely with Scottish Government to ensure such a revised offer could be brought forward and made today. I would call on our Trade Union colleagues to recognise that these are extremely challenging financial times we are operating in and we all need to make decisions with a full understanding of the consequences.
“Our offer ensures that we don’t place additional pressure on any other parts of our hardworking workforce and the essential services they deliver, and importantly it protects the best interests of children and young people. We hope our Trade Union partners will now postpone Thursday’s strikes.”
For the first time ever, Edinburgh Leisure, the charity dedicated to creating opportunities for everyone to lead more active, healthy lives, is running a members’ only event from Black Friday (25th November) to Cyber Monday (28th November), rewarding their direct debit customers.
The Black Friday members-only event will offer 5 activities for £5 each, allowing direct debit customers to book any of the following:
The offer is not available to non-members, although customers can join to take advantage of the offer. The offer is only available to buy online (with the exclusion of soft play at Scrambles, which needs to be paid in venue and is only available in-venue during the Black Friday event).
Edinburgh Leisure customers who pay their membership by direct debit will be able to log into their accounts during the offer dates and book the activities for £5 each. Customers will book as normal and will have 8-days to use the activity following payment. Customers will be able to book multiple activities, multiple times.
Edinburgh Leisure is a charity dedicated to creating opportunities for everyone to lead more active, healthy lives. They do that by running over 30 sports and leisure facilities across the city and deliver their Active Communities programme, which helps improve the lives of people affected by health conditions, poverty, inequalities, and disabilities.
Friday pub nights introduced to help improve quality of life for care residents
RESIDENTS at an Edinburgh care home have been enjoying a night at the pub – without even having to leave the development.
Dedicated staff at Cramond Residence launched ‘Friday Pub Nights’ in a bid to engage residents in a social event imitating what they would ordinarily experience in their own home lives.
A pub environment with simulated pub seating, a bar, music, Sports TV and table games has been set up within the home.
Residents have used this activity to engage in lively and meaningful debates about current and past affairs, as well as enjoying a good sing-song to a wide range of music.
Garylee Rushforth, one of Cramond Residence’s Lifestyle Co-ordinators, said: “The pub nights are designed to help to combat loneliness, whilst also improving our residents’ quality of life.
“We are one of a few care home’s offering evening activities as we feel it is important for the independence and wellbeing of our residents.
“Old traditions have certainly not been forgotten at our pub nights, and frequently the first drink of the evening is welcomed with a Scots toast.”
The new activity, which occurs every Friday evening between 7pm and 9pm, has proven a hit with residents, having already developed around eight regulars.
Christian Daraio, Cramond Residence’s Client Liaison Manager, said: “The pandemic highlighted the negative effects of social isolation and loneliness, so in our care home, we have endeavoured to create a highly-enriching social calendar that fosters social interaction and enjoyment, ensuring that every resident feels involved in our small community.
“Our lifestyle coordinators have worked hard to put together an extensive activities programme and other activities offered include baking, painting, pet therapy and cheese and wine nights, to name a few!”.
All activities are optional, with residents being able to dip in and out of the daily excursions and classes. Nonetheless, participation in a few activities every week is encouraged by the Cramond Residence team to ensure residents make the most out of the offerings from the care home.
Launched in 2018, Cramond Residence offers uncompromising nurse-led care, as well as specialist services such as respite and dementia care. The care home currently has 74 residents spread across nine luxuriously-appointed homes.
Residential life is full of activities, freshly prepared meals and top-class facilities, ensuring that all residents enjoy a rich and satisfying life at the care home. The facilities provided include a cinema and function room, a games room and also a sensory experience which offers therapeutic activities for those with dementia.
Each resident also receives a personal care plan from health care professionals which is continually assessed and revised, ensuring that residents have access to the best possible level of care.
Cramond Residence offer tours of their quality accommodation and facilities in the north of Edinburgh. The tour allows potential residents and their loved ones to see the residence for themselves, meet the team and discuss any additional requirements.
Today Glenigan, one of the construction industry’s leading insight and intelligence experts, releases the November 2022 edition on its Construction Review.
The Review focuses on the three months to the end of October 2022, covering all major (>£100M) and underlying (<£100M) projects, with all underlying figures seasonally adjusted.
It’s a report which provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of year-on-year construction data.
The key takeaway of the November Review is a softening in the downward trajectory of project-starts registered throughout the second half of 2022. However, this brief period of respite should be approached with caution as geopolitical turmoil persists in Eastern Europe, material and energy costs soar, and the UK enters a recession.
Whilst the sector overall experienced relative stability in the three months to October, with project start levels remaining largely unchanged, figures were still down 4% against the previous year.
Underlying Issues
Major project starts performed well, helping to maintain sector-wide stability, rising an impressive 28% on the preceding three months to stand 19% up on a year ago.
The same could not be said for underlying project starts, which plummeted 17% against the previous three months and were 13% down on 2021 levels.
Overall main contract awards slipped back 7% against the preceding three months, 5% lower than a year ago. Although major projects performed well, growing almost a quarter (24%) on 2021 levels and up by a fifth on the three months to October, underlying projects declined by 13% against last year and 15% compared to the previous three months.
Despite the November Review’s generally sluggish outlook, there are indications of gradual recovery, with a pipeline of work starting to flow following almost six months of blockage. Refreshingly, detailed planning approvals were up 29% against the preceding three months and a nifty 22% higher than 2021 levels.
Major projects rose a stunning 99% compared to the previous three months and an even more monumental 126% up on last year’s figures. Underlying approvals dipped a modest 2% on 2021 but, encouragingly, increased 8% on the preceding three months.
Commenting on the results, Glenigan’s Economic Director, Allan Wilen, says, “UK construction continues to be buffeted by myriad external headwinds, many of which are entirely out of the industry’s control. However, it was encouraging to see a significant uplift in major projects over the period covered by the Review.
“Of course, the release of the November Review comes in the wake of The Chancellor’s sober Autumn Statement, which will no doubt have an effect on future iterations of this report. Significantly, as part of his drive for growth, Hunt outlined the largest public works package for 40 years and substantial funding for critical infrastructure, which will no doubt provide the shot in the arm many contractors have been looking for. Furthermore, the commitment to reduce built environment emissions by 15% by 2030 will provide plenty of opportunities for retrofit specialists.
“No doubt many housebuilders and developers will feel let down, particularly as the one significant point around the ending of Stamp Duty relief will no doubt disincentivise potential buyers in the second half of 2023.”
The Sector specific and regional Index, which measures underlying project performance, was characterised by a bottoming out of project-start levels. However, recent events have dented market confidence, meaning levels remain relatively depressed.
Sector Analysis – Residential
The value of residential work starting on site fell 21% against the preceding three month period to stand 10% lower than a year ago.
Drilling down into the figures, social housing project starts fell a substantial 26% on 2021 levels, yet fared less poorly against the previous three months to the end of October, only dipping 7%. This was a relatively good performance compared to other verticals.
In contrast, private housing dropped 24% compared to the preceding 3 months but only 6% against 2021 levels.
Sector Analysis – Non Residential
Bright spots were few and far between, however, office project starts experienced a good period, rising 11% against the preceding three month period to remain unchanged on a year ago. Industrial starts also experienced modest growth during the Review period, but remained 15% behind 2021 figures.
Hotel and leisure experienced the sharpest decline of any vertical (-38%) against the previous year, also slipping back 19% against the preceding three months.
Education (-24%) and health (-41%) fared little better in the three months to the end of October, respectively crashing 28% and 31% compared to 2021.
Utilities construction starts were the only ones to experience growth on last year (+14%), despite tumbling 15% against the previous three months. Looking at the wider civils landscape, work starting on site slipped back 13% against the previous three months to remain largely unchanged on a year ago.
Regional Performance
Regional performance was generally weak.
Once again, Northern Ireland posted the most positive results, increasing 16% against the preceding three months, to stand an impressive 35% higher than a year ago.
Scotland also had reasons to be cheerful, with starts 10% up on 2021 and 19% up on the preceding three months.
Whilst project starts in Wales advanced on a year ago (+25%), they slipped back 5% on the preceding three months. The North West performed relatively well compared with other regions and, whilst project-starts remained unchanged on the previous three months, they dipped 2% against the previous year.
All other regions experience a decline against the preceding three months and previous year.
To find out more about Glenigan click here.
Do you get tax credits and no other means-tested benefits? Your second #CostofLiving Payment of £324 will be paid between 23 – 30 November.
No need to contact us
If you’re eligible you’ll be paid automatically into your bank account
Sign up for the online information evening on Tuesday 29th November at 7.30pm here:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/edinburgh-north-east-scouts-information-event-tickets-445103174577
We know everyone is busy, so this event is taking place online to fit in around family, work and life. It’ll only take 1 hour and will be informative.
Did you know Edinburgh North East Scouts has almost 100 young people on a waiting list to join? And they need new helpers to support their 14 Scout Groups in Portobello, Craigentinny, Craigmillar, Duddingston, Calton, Joppa, Stockbridge, Pilrig, Broughton, Trinity, Leith, Newhaven, Wardie and Willowbrae.
Sign up for this event to find out about the exciting things the Scout Groups get up to and flexible volunteering opportunities.
Demand by young people to join Scouts in the Edinburgh North East area is good with youth waiting lists growing. However, they need new adult volunteers to reduce the waiting list and enable more local young people to benefit from Scouting.
Edinburgh North East Scouts is looking to the local community and organisations to help change the lives of local young people. They are appealing for help to reduce the youth waiting list and support 100 more young people to benefit from Scouts.
Scouts is only possible thanks to superstar volunteers – ordinary people, like you, making an extraordinary difference in young people’s lives. They are looking for new adult volunteers to assist their existing leader and executive team. So please consider what you can do and if you know anyone who may be willing to get involved and ask them to come along to the event too. It is possible that they may consider a job share if that was of interest to you?
Scouting has a reputation for helping young people to develop resilience, a positive character, respect for others, good community skills, as well as physical and mental fitness. Can you help inspire the doers and give it a goers of the future!
FACTS MATTER:
FACT 1: There are 14 Scout Groups in the Edinburgh North East area and they all want to provide more Scouting to more local young children.
FACT 2: You don’t need to have any specific skills or be Bear Grylls to lend a hand.
FACT 3: They have a collective youth waiting list of almost 100.
FACT 4: If you volunteer as a Leader to get involved now then they can look at how your child could get automatic entry into their preferred Scout Group.
FACT 5: You don’t have to have previous Scouting experience to get involved.
As a District, they want to offer your child and other local children across the Edinburgh North East area the chance to participate in all the fun experiences and adventures they do in Scouting week to week such as: camping, fire-lighting, climbing and abseiling, and yes, learning how to tie and use knots (these will come in handy in later life!)
Are you passionate about seeing local young people succeed? Are you a team player with a positive, can-do attitude? Do you enjoy fun activities? Do you want to do more in your community? Are you more of a ‘behind the scenes’ person? Do you have a skill or hobby you can share? Then this event is right up your street. Scouts has the opportunities – you just show up, get stuck in and make memories for life!
We all have the power to help young people to realise their potential. You don’t need to have been a Scout when you were younger. You don’t even need to know how to put up a tent.
Their door is open to people of all ages, genders, races and backgrounds, and they’re only able to change lives because people like you lend a hand.
There’s lots of ways you can get more involved with Scouts as a parent, carer or family member. From helping out occasionally on a family rota or as part of their Executive Committee to stepping up as a leader, their volunteering activities are as varied as you.
The good news is you shape what you do and the time you have to give. Scouts happens when a lot of us give a little …and no, you don’t have to be a Scout or outdoors expert to volunteer.
Most of their volunteers work directly with young people aged 6-18 through their Beaver, Cub and Explorer groups – helping young people gain skills for life through fun activities.
District Commissioner, Rob Whitelaw, said, “This isn’t a job application, and you certainly don’t have to be an adventurer like Bear Grylls to get involved with Scouting and in fact not many of our volunteers are!
“Do you have first aid knowledge? Are you good with numbers? Handy in the kitchen? Or are you a DIY whizz? We all have useful skills, and you can volunteer and help in many ways. Are you ready to inspire a generation of young people to experience fun, friendship and real adventure?
“The opportunities to volunteer with us are flexible. Think of something you’d like to do, and chances are it’s just what we require. Whatever your skills, experience and interests, we can find a role for you!”
Contact/sign up:
Sign up for the online information evening on Tuesday 29th November at 7.30pm here:
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/edinburgh-north-east-scouts-information-event-tickets-445103174577
Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) “is achieving one of its key aims” according to Ministers after a new report concluded that it has been effective in cutting alcohol consumption.
Looking at the first three years since introduction, new research by Public Health Scotland and Glasgow University has concluded that the policy is reducing overall sales.
The level of minimum unit pricing is currently under review and a consultation on restrictions on the marketing of alcohol to help drive down hazardous consumption is also underway.
Public Health Minister Maree Todd said: “I welcome this report which shows that minimum unit pricing has been effective in creating a 3% net reduction in total alcohol sales in the first three years of implementation.
“This important conclusion takes account of other factors such as the impact of the pandemic on alcohol sales, seasonal variations, existing trends, household income and comparison with England and Wales where MUP was not in place.
“Minimum unit pricing is achieving what it set out to do – a reduction in sales overall with a focus on the cheap high-strength alcohol, which is often drunk by people drinking at harmful levels. Further studies on MUP, including a final evaluation report, which is due next year, will examine how MUP has impacted on alcohol harms.
“Our focus is not only on MUP – last week, we launched a consultation on restrictions on the marketing of alcohol to help drive down hazardous consumption, and we are reviewing Scotland’s Alcohol Brief Interventions Programme which aims to motivate people to cut down on drinking.”
Report highlights impact of MUP
Public Health Scotland (PHS) published a report last week which evaluates the price and range of alcohol products in the Scottish off-trade sector in the 12 months following the implementation of Minimum Unit Pricing of alcohol (MUP).
The research shows that the average price of alcoholic drinks in the off-trade increased in Scotland to a greater extent than was seen in England and Wales over the same period. The increase in average prices during the study period was also greater than the rises seen between the two years in Scotland prior to MUP.
Before the implementation of MUP, supermarkets tended to have lower alcohol pricing than convenience stores. In the first 12 months after the introduction of MUP, prices in supermarkets increased more than those in convenience stores, meaning that both had a similar pricing level.
The greatest increases in price were seen in the types of alcoholic drinks that were priced the lowest relative to their alcohol by volume (ABV) prior to MUP, such as some ciders, perries and supermarket own-brand spirits – all of which tended to be priced below £0.50 per unit prior to MUP being implemented.
The products that increased the least in average price, such as some ready-to-drink beverages, or those that decreased in price, such as some fortified wines in convenience stores, appeared most likely to see increased sales.
Changes were seen in sales across different container sizes, including reductions in the amount sold in larger single-item containers, especially for some ciders and own-brand spirits in containers of 1 litre and over. The amount of beer and cider sold in the largest multipacks also declined, while sales in smaller multipacks increased.
Dr Karl Ferguson, Public Health Intelligence Adviser at Public Health Scotland, said: “In the first 12 months after MUP was implemented, we found that, especially for products that were priced below £0.50 per unit of alcohol prior to MUP, prices went up, the amount sold in larger container sizes went down, and sales also declined.
“We also found that, because of the price increase, even in instances where the volume of sales went down, the value (£) of sales remained fairly constant or increased.”
Most data (price outcomes, container size, multipacks, volume and value sales) were derived from weekly off-trade electronic point of sale data covering May 2016 to April 2019, obtained from market research specialist NielsenIQ.
