The Working Group on Scottish Sport and the Scottish Independence Referendum: an Unrealised Political 'Imaginary'?

In September 2014, a historic referendum on the issue of Scottish independence was held, with the potential to dissolve the political union between Scotland and the other constituent nations of the United Kingdom which had survived intact since the 1707 Act of Union. On a significantly high electoral turnout of 84.6%, the Scottish electorate opted to reject the proposals of the governing party in the devolved Scottish Parliament, the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP), to create an independent Scottish state, with 55.3% of the electorate voting ‘No’ to Scottish independence against a 44.7% ‘Yes’ vote. In the grand scheme of the Scottish independence referendum campaigns, sports policy remained a somewhat peripheral issue within the arguments forwarded by the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns. Nonetheless, developments such as the formation of the 'Sport for Yes' campaign sub-group, the inclusion of sport within the Scottish Government’s White Paper on Scottish independence and the establishment of the Working Group on Scottish Sport demonstrated that the potential implications of independence were still deemed significant enough to merit a degree of policy planning by the Scottish Government (Lafferty, 2014; Scottish Government, 2013; Working Group on Scottish Sport, 2013, 2014). This paper will critically consider the implications of the 'No' vote in the Scottish independence referendum for the latter of these developments, the policy proposals of the Working Group for Scottish Sport. Drawing upon the principles of critical discourse analysis, specifically the analytical framework proposed by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012), the content of this group's proposal will be examined in order to critically explore the policy for Scottish sport it envisaged for an independent Scottish state. The paper will then conclude by reflecting upon the extent to which elements of this political 'imaginary' (Fairclough and Fairclough, 2012) of Scottish sport remain a possibility for future sports policy in Scotland following the eventual 'No' vote in the referendum.

Can the Revised UK Code Direct Practice?

The Nursing and Midwifery Council, the United Kingdom regulator of nursing and midwifery has recently revised its professional code of practice. This paper begins by arguing that a professional code must be capable of sustaining close reading and of action guidance. Using four exemplar clauses it is argued that the new revised code does not met this purpose. First, I show that in setting out requirements for consent and documentation, the meaning of the relevant clause has changed significantly during the editing process so that a literal reading of the final document bears little relation to established professional practice. Second, I argue that the clause concerning the nature of professional relationships has also been altered during the editing process so that it is inconsistent with other professional groups and established accounts of the professional nurse-patient relationship. Third, I argue that the clause concerning disclosure of confidential information, which survived revision and editing with its meaning intact is nevertheless factually incorrect and inconsistent with UK law and authoritative guidance. Finally, fourth, I argue that use of the word ‘inappropriate’ is inappropriate as it amounts to meaningless circularity, discussed in relation to a clause on expressing personal beliefs. Taken together, these examples demonstrate that the Code is seriously flawed and does not fulfil its purpose. One way that simple prescriptive clauses in the Code can be usefully understood is through the provision of detailed guidance. I argue that the NMC has changed its position on its view of the value of guidance and has significantly reduced the amount of written guidance and advice is provides. The paper concludes by arguing that in order to meet its action directing function, further clarifying revision and the provision of detailed guidance is required.