Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Inside education: Backlash warning if 'listener' Hyslop is axed

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 July 2008
TIME is running out for the fragile harmony tentatively holding in education circles.
For the past year, anger in the sector has been held in precarious check by the presence of Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary.

University principals were mollified after receiving a mere fraction of the funding they claimed was necessary to
stay competitive with English universities, which have access to extra funding through fees.

Mounting anger among teachers also threatened to boil over, with unions considering strikes over investment in training and resources for the new school curriculum.

At the point of publicly berating the SNP-led Scottish Government for singularly failing to deliver on pretty much all of its education election promises, both groups were held in check.

Both were convinced by the reassuring noises made by Ms Hyslop and her willingness to listen to concerns.

She has won over many would-be critics and has gained wary respect from within education circles. However, they are now starting to think ahead.

Ultimately, senior figures in education have the best interests of their sector at heart and rumours are rife that a new education secretary is waiting in the wings.

People are asking whether they should put their support behind the existing minister or back a potential replacement.

Many are relishing the chance to let loose at a successor.

Alex Salmond is widely tipped to be planning a cabinet reshuffle in the summer, with Mike Russell tipped for the top post in education.

Rumour has it that Mr Salmond has not been impressed with Fiona's softly-softly approach and wants a hard-hitter to pull the university principals and teachers into line.

A source said: "If Fiona goes, the gloves could come off. She's managed to keep a lot of people happy by appearing to genuinely listen to their concerns.

"But there is a general feeling that there's been a lot of talk and we are still waiting for something to be delivered.

"If it becomes clear a new minister is not going to deliver, the lid could boil over."

Another source added: "People will be slightly disappointed if she goes because she's had a fairly firm grasp of the brief.

"People hold her in quite high regard and there could be some degree of backlash against the Scottish Government if she's no longer there."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 July 2008 9:53 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

AM2,

Scotland,UK 22/07/2008 22:34:24
Salmond should sack her. This, for example, is unforgivable...

Fiona Hyslop, 29/11/2006:
An SNP government will “write off the outstanding student loans debt.”

Fiona Hyslop, 28/2/2008 (after the U-turn):
“We never said we would write off student debt.”
2

frank mcbride,

lusitania 23/07/2008 01:17:28
Fiona Hyslop is a good Minister.

Unlike previous Ministers,she knows her brief, and has shown that she cares about education and, is willing to listen to the practitioners; not only the bosses and the "educationalists".

She has had no qualms concerning progressing the SG policy but, crucially, has taken into account the legitimate concern of the front-line workers.

Even the NuLab dominated EIS, within which I was active for 25yrs, has respect for her.

If the Unionist establishment is lobbying for her replacement, she must be pretty competent.

AM2.

BTW, re: LIT

www.treasury.gov.uk/pdf/2000/spf4.pdf

This proves your misinformation. NuLab did not "correct" this until OCT 2007 - 5mths after the election of the SNP Govt.

They referred to it as an "oversight"! Is this the same as "unintentional"??? Should we call it a "Wendyism"?

Is your misinformation an "oversight", "unintentional", oris genuinely a "Wendyism"?
3

frank mcbride,

lusitania 23/07/2008 01:21:37
Once again the Unionist propaganda unit destroys the thread on the Glasgow East By-election.

Does this indicate real fear?
4

AM2,

Scotland,UK 23/07/2008 01:22:22
#2 Frank McBride

Your link is as faulty as what you, presumably, imagine to be logic.
5

AM2,

Scotland,UK 23/07/2008 01:25:36
#3 Frank McBride

I think you'll find that McPravda/Ford Transit/Tripod/David Banks is one of yours. You'd have to ask him about his motives. Anyway, goodnight.
6

frank mcbride,

lusitania 23/07/2008 02:37:08
AM2.

My apologies, not the most computer literate person on the block. Link is,

http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/pdf/2000/sfp4.pdf

#5,AM2.

Whoever the h ell it is should give it a rest.
I presume it's a Unionist who knows that Glasgow East is about to return an SNP MWP.
7

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 23/07/2008 09:11:45
It's weird how tolerant AM2 is of Labour's many lies and backtracks. Is it "unforgivable" for Margaret Curran to lie to the parents of a dead child about supporting the air-gun ban? Or to lie about supporting the fire brigade? Or to lie even about where she lives? You'd have a lot more credibility if you were to demand resignations on all these things every day that yet another Labour politician went back on things they'd promised, the way you unfailingly do over the most trivial allegations about the SNP.

(Of course, it's not hard to have a lot more of something you currently have zero of...)
8

AM2,

Scotland,UK 23/07/2008 09:33:15
#6 Frank McBride

As it's off-topic, I've answered you on council tax benefit in this thread:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Warning-of--3913bn-black.4309960.jp

#7 "Rev" S Campbell

I have no tolerance either for Labour lies or SNP activists misrepresenting Labour politicians in order to falsely claim that they've lied.

You would have a lot more credibility if you didn't vilify and seek to discredit those with whose political perspectives you disagree, rather than debating on what you think are the merits of your case.
9

Alan B,

23/07/2008 12:12:16
#AM2

You say have no tolerance either for Labour lies but i have yet to see you condemn Margaret Curran for the lies she has told. The most ridiculous being that she lived in the east end of glasgow all her life. But are quick to call for the sacking of Hyslop for quotes you attribute to her.

In the post in the run up to this byelection as always you take the opposite view to the snp on all topics. Fair enough. That is your political right. But you have not critised Curran for the lies attributed to her. How can you reconsile that with having a zero tolerance to lying politicians. It does come accross that you will look the other way to politicians that lie if they are running against the snp as it fits with your own political goals.

To me more than any other party labour misrepresent and are more corrupt openly than any other.

Even your reply condemning labour lies had to have a dig about so called snp activists falsly claiming labour lies. Who are they. Posters on this site or actual activists. What false allegations are those.

What i have noticed is allegations like those of corruption round the previous labour mp in this constituency were not mentioned in the press but were routinely brought up by posters. Now after a few weeks of stories circulating the press are starting to report allegations round dodgy expenses and whether that was the real reason for his resignation.

Was Cairns lying yesterday when he replied to press stories about these allegations. It seems unlikely he was not aware of these stories.

Why also did the scottish based media ignore this. The herald i see has a story on it today.
10

Richard Taylor,

Aberdeen 23/07/2008 12:49:10
So the Hootsmon has stifled political debate. What a surprise.
11

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 23/07/2008 13:00:02
What a bunch of palaver about nothing.

Isn't it time for everybody to have their lunch break and get back their sanity?
12

frank mcbride,

lusitania 23/07/2008 14:41:57
#8, AM2.

You are a chancer.

My link to you, on LIT - the LIT thread allows no comments, proves conclusively that CTB was part of the SBG, from even before Devolution. It was only "amended" in OCT. 2007 - 5mths after the SNP Govt took office.

Twist facts, if you must BUT, please don't lie!!!!!
13

frank mcbride,

lusitania 23/07/2008 15:45:54
#sm753.

Strangely, this is exactly the sort of answer I would expect from AM2.

You are telling me that a Government document that states, explicitly, that CTB was part of the SBG before Devolution, and WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE WBG, was an "oversight"!!! An UNINTENTION inclusion!!!

This is straight from the Wendy House School of Politics.

As I said, twist fact however you like BUT, don't LIE!!!
14

AM2,

Scotland,UK 23/07/2008 20:20:11
#14 Frank McBride

The original version of the document was correct. It has been the original intention to include CTB in the Block. So the only oversight was in not updating or removing Appendix A in subsequent years' versions. Until 2007, as you said.
15

Calvinist,

23/07/2008 20:29:42
Why are you all avoiding this issue? The fact is that the current Scottish government is UNDERFUNDING Scottish universities and if this continues then they will cease to be competitive with our English counterparts. This is not only a disaster for our young people but for our Nation as a whole. If you actually care about the long term future of Scotland is up to all of us, including SNP supporters, to make the strongest representation to the Scottish government about this intolerable situation and stop playing childish partisan politics.
16

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 23/07/2008 22:30:12
Yet more useless palaver about absolutely nothing.

Don't some of youse posters ever STOP drinking and get nutritional sustenance to maintain whatever paltry brain cells you have left?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.