Zaragoza, 4 de enero de 2007.
La Asociación para la Defensa de la Función Pública Aragonesa ha solicitado al Consejero de Presidencia, Javier Velasco, la anulación del proceso de selección de personal laboral, para cubrir con carácter indefinido seis puestos de trabajo, llevado a cabo por la Corporación Aragonesa de Radio y Televisión, proceso hecho público a través de una anuncio insertado en prensa el pasado día 2 de diciembre de 2007, al carecer tal selección de la necesaria autorización a través de la Oferta de Empleo Público aprobada por el Gobierno de Aragón.
La Corporación Aragonesa de Radio y Televisión es una entidad de Derecho público de la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón, dependiente del Departamento de Presidencia, y como tal se halla sujeta, en materia de selección de personal, a lo establecido por el Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público, aprobado por Ley 7/2007, de 12 de abril, de las Cortes Generales. El Estatuto establece que la selección de personal de todas las Administraciones y entidades incluidas en su ámbito de aplicación ha de venir autorizada por la correspondiente oferta anual de empleo público, sin que la Oferta de Empleo Público para el año 2007 aprobada por el Gobierno de Aragón incluyera previsión alguna de necesidades de personal para la Corporación Aragonesa de Radio y Televisión ni ninguna otra entidad de Derecho público.
Llama la atención que la vulneración del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público, al proceder a una selección de personal fijo no autorizada por la Oferta de Empleo Público aprobada por el Gobierno de Aragón, se produzca en una entidad dependiente del Departamento de Presidencia, al que corresponde precisamente la dirección de la política de personal de la Administración de la Comunidad Autónoma, asegurando el cumplimiento de la normativa por el conjunto de los Departamentos y organismos públicos que éstos puedan tener adscritos.
Dicha selección, al haber prescindido del procedimiento necesario y carecer de la habilitación imprescindible para su desarrollo, resulta nula de pleno de derecho, por lo que se solicita al Consejero de Presidencia que, al amparo de las normas de procedimiento administrativo común en materia de revisión de actos administrativos, anule y deje sin efecto tal convocatoria.
Like the battle of Waterloo, the battle for Scotland was a damn close-run thing. The effects of Thursday’s no vote are enormous – though not as massive as the consequences of a yes would have been.
The vote against independence means, above all, that the 307-year Union survives. It therefore means that the UK remains a G7 economic power and a member of the UN security council. It means Scotland will get more devolution. It means David Cameron will not be forced out. It means any Ed Miliband-led government elected next May has the chance to serve a full term, not find itself without a majority in 2016, when the Scots would have left. It means the pollsters got it right, Madrid will sleep a little more easily, and it means the banks will open on Friday morning as usual.
But the battlefield is still full of resonant lessons. The win, though close, was decisive. It looks like a 54%-46% or thereabouts. That’s not as good as it looked like being a couple of months ago. But it’s a lot more decisive than the recent polls had hinted. Second, it was women who saved the union. In the polls, men were decisively in favour of yes. The yes campaign was in some sense a guy thing. Men wanted to make a break with the Scotland they inhabit. Women didn’t. Third, this was to a significant degree a class vote too. Richer Scotland stuck with the union — so no did very well in a lot of traditonal SNP areas. Poorer Scotland, Labour Scotland, slipped towards yes, handing Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire to the independence camp. Gordon Brown stopped the slippage from becoming a rout, perhaps, but the questions for Labour — and for left politics more broadly — are profound.
For Scots, the no vote means relief for some, despair for others, both on the grand scale. For those who dreamed that a yes vote would take Scots on a journey to a land of milk, oil and honey, the mood this morning will be grim. Something that thousands of Scots wanted to be wonderful or merely just to witness has disappeared. The anticlimax will be cruel and crushing. For others, the majority, there will be thankfulness above all but uneasiness too. Thursday’s vote exposed a Scotland divided down the middle and against itself. Healing that hurt will not be easy or quick. It’s time to put away all flags.
The immediate political question now suddenly moves to London. Gordon Brown promised last week that work will start on Friday on drawing up the terms of a new devolution settlement. That may be a promise too far after the red-eyed adrenalin-pumping exhaustion of the past few days. But the deal needs to be on the table by the end of next month. It will not be easy to reconcile all the interests – Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish and local. But it is an epochal opportunity. The plan, like the banks, is too big to fail.
Alex Salmond and the SNP are not going anywhere. They will still govern Scotland until 2016. There will be speculation about Salmond’s position, and the SNP will need to decide whether to run in 2016 on a second referendum pledge. More immediately, the SNP will have to decide whether to go all-out win to more Westminster seats in the 2015 general election, in order to hold the next government’s feet to the fire over the promised devo-max settlement. Independence campaigners will feel gutted this morning. But they came within a whisker of ending the United Kingdom on Thursday. One day, perhaps soon, they will surely be back.
(Artículo de Martin Kettle, publicado en "The Guardian" el 19 de septiembre de 2014)
1 comentario:
Aunque breve, este tema se reflejó en las páginas del Heraldo.
Publicar un comentario