El Boletín Oficial de Aragón publica hoy los ceses de tres miembros del Gobierno de Aragón, como son el Vicepresidente del Gobierno, José Ángel Biel, el Consejero de Obras Públicas, Urbanismo y Transportes, Alfonso Vicente, y el Consejero de Ciencia, Tecnología y Universidad, Javier Velasco, ceses que se adelantan a los de los restantes miembros del Gobierno saliente, al haber sido nombrados miembros de la Mesa de las Cortes de Aragón, en la sesión constitutiva del Parlamento autonómico que tuvo lugar ayer.
De acuerdo con el artículo 12.3 del Estatuto Básico del Empleado Público, el personal eventual ha de cesar, en todo caso, cuando se produce el cese de la autoridad a la que presta la función de confianza o asesoramiento. Dichos ceses, que se producen por mandato expreso de la ley, han de ser objeto de publicación en el Boletín Oficial de Aragón, tal y como señala el artículo 25.5 de la Ley 2/2009, de 11 de mayo, del Gobierno de Aragón.
Frente a la incorrecta práctica seguida hasta la fecha por los miembros del Gobierno en cuanto a la publicidad de los nombramientos y ceses del personal de confianza, mediante la utilización de fórmulas improcedentes para eludir la obligación legal de publicación –lo que dio lugar a un recurso judicial de esta Asociación contra la actual Consejera de Presidencia, Eva Almunia-, el cese de dicho personal, al venir motivado por el cese del miembro del Gobierno al que prestan asesoramiento o apoyo inmediato, cabría publicarse mediante anuncio, ya que es un efecto legal y no una decisión de la autoridad cesante.
Nada tiene que ver con ese cese legal y colectivo, que afecta a todo el personal eventual de la Vicepresidencia, el anuncio publicado en el Boletín de hoy, referido a dos asesores. Esperamos que, en próximas fechas, se publique el cese de la Directora del Gabinete, Asesores, Titular de la Secretaría Particular y Jefe de la Oficina del Portavoz del Gobierno. Y lo mismo respecto al personal eventual de los Departamentos de Obras Públicas, Urbanismo y Transportes y de Ciencia, Tecnología y Universidad.
Ya que nunca se ha respetado la obligación legal de publicación durante el mandato del Gobierno de Aragón, sería de agradecer que la Administración supiese ajustarse a la Ley en este momento, haciendo públicos los ceses de todo el personal eventual del Gobierno saliente. Confiamos, a su vez, en que el próximo Gobierno de Aragón, como primer signo de transparencia pública y respeto de la legalidad, haga públicos los nombramientos del personal eventual que incorpore, y lo haga mediante la publicación de las órdenes de nombramiento y no a través de meros anuncios de publicidad como ha venido haciendo, de forma improcedente, el Gobierno ahora saliente.
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:
Cierto...
Publicar un comentario