La Asociación para la Defensa de la Función Pública Aragonesa, con la finalidad de fomentar el diálogo sobre los temas centrales que afectan a la función pública aragonesa y propiciar el intercambio de ideas y opiniones entre los funcionarios públicos de la Comunidad Autónoma, ha decidido impulsar la celebración de “Coloquios Públicos”, abiertos a todos los empleados públicos y ciudadanos interesados por dichos temas.
El objetivo principal de tales coloquios es contribuir a la creación de opinión y formación de criterio sobre los problemas y desafíos a los que han de enfrentarse las Administraciones Públicas para cumplir adecuadamente su misión, y el papel que en todo ello corresponde jugar a los servidores públicos y al régimen jurídico por el que se regula su actividad profesional.
El primer Coloquio, celebrado el pasado 4 de noviembre, abordó el trabajo de supervisión de la función pública llevado a cabo por parte del Justicia de Aragón, y contó con la intervención de Víctor Solano, Asesor del Justicia de Aragón para los temas de función pública y funcionario superior de la Administración de la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón.
El nuevo Coloquio programado por la Asociación propone un análisis de la nueva Ley del Presidente y del Gobierno de Aragón, aprobada por las Cortes de Aragón en mayo de 2009, al entender que el diseño institucional de la Comunidad Autónoma, y en especial el de los órganos de su poder ejecutivo, tiene una incidencia decisiva en la dirección y funcionamiento de la Administración autonómica.
Actuará como ponente de este segundo Coloquio Luis Latorre Vila, funcionario superior de la Administración General del Estado que, en la actualidad, ejerce como Letrado de las Cortes de Aragón.
Dicho Coloquio tendrá lugar el próximo día 1 de diciembre, a partir de las 19:30 horas, en el Salón de Grados de la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales de la Universidad de Zaragoza (C/ Gran Vía, 2), y versará sobre la nueva Ley del Presidente y del Gobierno de Aragón, haciendo especial hincapié en la incidencia que la regulación de ambas instituciones tiene en la Administración Pública.
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)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario