Sleazy SNP?

While SNP donor Crawford Beveridge was not appointed chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, contrary to media speculation, it's not clear whether accusations of cronyism may have played a part in instead selecting another Crawford - Mr Gillies - to the post, or perhaps the unusual first name led to some kind of mix up! On the other hand, if Crawford Beveridge was not involved in the process then it was surely incumbent on officials to quell the media speculation, since it may have been personally damaging to Mr Beveridge, and ruling him out would not have compromised the procedure in any way.

Of course, the SNP Government had already appointed one of the party's councillors to head the Scottish Qualifications Authority - an ostensibly politically neutral body - thus the party is clearly not averse to the kind of cronyism that it chided Labour for while in opposition, therefore underlining the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude afflicting politics.

While finding evidence in relation to this kind of hypocrisy isn't, of course, difficult, it would be remiss of this blog not to include a few pertinent quotes from the SNP while in opposition:

• "These appointments show we are still living in a Labour Mafia-ridden society. What makes this even more disgraceful than the usual partisan appointments we have grown accustomed to under New Labour is that the purpose of this team is to scrutinise those very appointments - cronies to preside over cronyism." (Alex Neil MSP, on Labour's appointment of independent (sic!) assessors to oversee ministerial appointments to quangos);
• "This Bill is a golden opportunity for Parliament to begin to bring to an end the culture of cronyism. We must show in the clearest of terms that the appointments procedure to public bodies in Scotland is as transparent as it can be and is seen to be operating fairly." (Fiona McLeod MSP, on the Water Industry Bill);
• "We used to have Team McLeish. Now we have Faction Jack - it's a cabinet of cronies." (John Swinney MSP, on Jack McConnell appointing Labour MSPs (sic!) to his cabinet).

However, last weekend the focus shifted onto SNP MSP Nigel Don, who is an aide to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. A Sunday Herald story revealed that the taxpayer is funding mortgage payments to Mr Don after his house move from Dundee to Aberdeen meant that he then qualified for a controversial allowance to buy a flat in Edinburgh.

Both Dundee and Aberdeen lie in the constituency to which Mr Don was elected, but the MSP told the newspaper that the SNP wanted to raise its profile in marginal seats within the sprawling north east regional constituency, hence his move northwards and consequently further from Holyrood, thus qualifying him for allowances on accommodation in Edinburgh

Of course, it's not clear whether Mr Don's primary motivation was the allowances or was indeed political. However, the MSP had hedged his bets by standing for both Holyrood (on the regional list) and Dundee City Council in May 2007, and even a couple of months later he claimed to be able to fulfil both his MSP and councillor duties. By the end of the year Mr Don had resigned as a Dundee councillor, but at that time there was no mention of the Aberdeen rationale. However, Steve Bargeton, the Courier's political editor, had raised the issue of Mr Don, his 'flit' north and the allowances in his Political Diary column months before last weekend's story, and if I remember correctly there was no mention of any political motivation at that time.

But it's not only Mr Don who's an ex-SNP councillor in Dundee that has been accused of financial cynicism. However, MSP Joe Fitzpatrick differed from Mr Don in that he didn't stand for re-election to Dundee City Council, but was instead selected as the SNP candidate for the Dundee West seat, which he duly won. But Mr Fitzpatrick's retiral from the council made him eligible for one of the Scottish Executive's 'golden goodbyes' paid to those who pledged not to stand in local elections in the future (in effect a sop to Labour councillors who would lose their seats under the proportional representation system introduced as the price of the Liberal Democrats joining Labour in a Holyrood coalition).

Mr Fitzpatrick commendably pledged to give his £10,000 payoff to charities and good causes. Problem was that this was conditional on him being elected to Holyrood, thus in effect a small price to pay for the salary and allowances - totalling the thick end of quarter of a million pounds - he would receive if elevated to the Scottish Parliament. This resulted in 'electoral bribe' allegations, and indeed an unsuccessful complaint to the Electoral Commission by Mr Fitzpatrick's prospective Labour opponent in Dundee West, Jill Shimi. (Mrs Shimi was likewise a Dundee Councillor standing for Holyrood rather than the local elections, but who had also hedged her bets by waiving her potential £15,000 payoff and thus leaving the council option open for future elections.) Some time after Mr Fitzpatrick's election to Holyrood the MSP said he was "quietly" giving the money away and he "did not request publicity when giving money to good causes", which clearly contradicted how he went about his initial pledge, perhaps indicating that he had been badly stung by the controversy.

Of course, this was largely a local issue, and no doubt many other cases exist which never make it onto the national political radar screen, but there seems little point in wasting time compiling a definitive dossier of these local storms in tea cups.

But coming back to the national picture, some of the attempts to defend the SNP against the impropriety accusations verge on the excruciating. For example, with regard to the cronyism, from an SNP blogger: "It's about doing what's best for Scotland, no matter what the political affiliation." In relation to Mr Don's little imbroglio, blogger Will Patterson made a valiant, intelligent but ultimately contrived and fruitless attempt to rationalise the MSP's contortions on a political basis - this will impress SNP partisans, but the general public will make up their minds on a more superficial basis, rightly or wrongly.

So does all this add up to SNP standing for the Sleazy National Party? In all honesty, not really. Granted, there's the usual political machinations, hypocrisy and lack of candour - not to mention other questionable actions, such as the Brian Souter affair - but no worse than that exhibited by politicians of all hues, and certainly little evidence of the outright sleaze demonstrated by other major parties. Of course, the SNP's lack of experience in government is probably a factor in this, since according to Lord Acton's oft-quoted dictum:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Something, of course, that should always be borne in mind, particularly in view of new Labour's terms at Westminster, not to mention the experience of the Tories before them.

A week's a long time in politics

If proof were ever needed regarding that oft-quoted maxim, then the last few days in Scottish politics surely provides ample evidence

At last week's FMQs Annabel Goldie suggested that Alex Salmond's fizzog was largely indistinguishable from a haggis. This week the Tory leader offered the first minister a question so easy and pat (something to do with Iain Gray supposedly manoeuvring himself to become first minister and thus the possibility of Labour forming two administrations in the UK) that it brought to mind the period early in the current parliament when Annabel addressed the SNP leader as Alex, and vice versa, and the presiding officer had to instruct them to desist, lest any rumours started circulating regarding goings on behind the Holyrood bike sheds. But at least Ms Goldie's question managed to assuage Mr Salmond's rage at the Labour leader and stopped the steam coming out of his ears.

And after Wednesday's Tory/SNP alliance just failed to get sufficient votes to ensure passage of the latter's Budget, a day later and the Tories were at railway stations distributing hymn sheets (like a sort of blue rinse Socialist Workers' Party, presumably) which looked suspiciously like the same ones being sung from in the Church of SNP. And, of course, SNP pandering to Margo MacDonald's shameless pork-barrelling had already secured the vote of the independent MSP.

But the Lib Dems steely determination had ensured no wavering from their demand for a two pence cut in the rate of income tax (the irrelevant in pursuit of the impossible?), after last year's abstention ignominy Labour were likely to oppose the budget come what may, and the Greens needed a sop to insulate them from such environmental excesses as the M74 extension and the new Forth crossing. Thus the votes were tied and convention dictated that the proposed budget was defeated.

But what a difference a day makes, never mind a week! Today the Scotsman reports that to support the budget the Lib Dems merely require the SNP to underline their desire for Scottish borrowing powers (thus about as onerous for the nationalists as asking turkeys to request a postponement of Christmas), Labour has halved the number of new apprenticeships it had demanded to effectively meet the SNP's offer, and the Greens are seeking mere "clarity".

Of course, even assuming the Scotsman's take on the situation is materially correct, the collective cave in will be portrayed as anything but. Voters, meanwhile, will view the ease with which the SNP has secured this volte-face as confirming that the initial opposition to the budget and consequent playground politics was born of party posturing, grandstanding and brinksmanship rather than some grand ideological battle.

Therefore another unedifying episode in the Scottish Parliament's short history, but at least it looks like the politicians will all live happily ever after.

Until the next time, that is...

Tempering temperance

Despite claims that justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is trying to impose a twenty-first century Temperance Movement by way of legislative fiat, today it's reported that the SNP administration's first year spend on alcohol at hospitality events was almost double that of the previous Labour/Lib Dem Executive for the same period.

Meanwhile, it's also revealed that Jack McConnell's Executive - which also devoted significant time and resources to largely pointless liquor licensing reform - spent over £2,000 on booze at a hepatitis C conference - let's address one liver problem while setting a good example on cirrhosis, not!

Wake up and smell the Kofi

A fair bit of 'liar, liar, pants on fire'-style stuff in the media and blogosphere over who said what over the Kofi Annan affair. Predictably, both sides are trying to make political capital out of the issue.

However, it's now transpired that the Scottish Government have admitted to "crossed wires" over the episode, which is perhaps as near as politicians and officialdom ever come to candour.

Of course, this will no doubt strengthen the argument that Alex Salmond blatantly lied about Mr Annan "requesting" that he visit Scotland to deliver a lecture on Robert Burns, while nationalists will see it as merely deepening their suspicions of a Unionist conspiracy.

But what does an objective analysis of the facts reveal? That Kofi Annan was due to visit Scotland to make as speech on Adam Smith seems to be undisputed.

Late last year Alex Salmond wrote to Mr Annan, inviting him to come to Scotland to deliver a lecture on Burns as part of the Homecoming celebrations. Mr Annan replied:

I would like to travel to Scotland to deliver a speech later in the year.

Despite not mentioning either the Homecoming or Burns, Mr Salmond's aides claim that Mr Annan's response has to be seen in the context of the initial invitation, and to that extent the First Minister said, at a Burns supper last weekend:

I have a letter from Kofi Annan in which he requests, if it would be appropriate, that he could come and deliver a lecture during the Year of Homecoming in tribute to Robert.

Thus - and despite the fact that Mr Annan's reply was presumably referring to his visit for the Adam Smith lecture - is it unreasonable to take at face value that Mr Salmond honestly thought Mr Annan was referring to a speech on Burns? Or that Mr Annan's response amounted to a 'request', particularly if his reply was misconstrued in the context of Mr Salmond's original request?

Assuming that the conspiracy theorists are incorrect in their claim that Mr Annan was complicit in setting some kind of Unionist Salmond-trap, the problem seems to lie in the lack of clarity in his reply to Mr Salmond's letter, which perhaps reflected diplomatic language used lest a blunter refusal to the invitation be regarded as a snub to Scotland/Mr Salmond, and a specific mention of the Adam Smith lecture be seen as an endorsement of Gordon Brown - "I would like to travel to Scotland...", seems rather deferential phraseology for referring to the previously arranged speech in Kirkcaldy, and if this was a reference to a later but currently unfinalised Burns lecture then Mr Salmond was materially correct.

Thankfully, it seems that Mr Annan will indeed come to Scotland later in the year to deliver a lecture on the bard. Which in turn perhaps confirms the most surprising thing about this whole affair; not the cock-up, not the consequent conspiracy theories and political machinations, but that Kofi Annan is a Burns aficionado!

Mr Annan's office said: "This has all been blown out of proportion." A storm in a Koficup indeed.

Stating the blindingly obvious?

A couple of recent items in the local press relating to business failures in north east Fife caught the eye. The first was about the closure last year of a paper mill in the village of Guardbridge, which was a major employer in the area. A "commercial property advisor" was appointed to consider alternative uses for the site, and it has now produced an "initial planning framework", which has been submitted to Fife Council. The Evening Telegraph reports that the document proposed the former mill and other land be used for:

...employment, housing, commerce, leisure, and shopping as well as education and community facilities. It is also suggested it could be used as additional open space, such as a waterfront park, and to boost tourism.

The second item concerns a call from local MP Sir Menzies Cambell for a 'retail impact study' to be conducted on Cupar town centre following the closure of Woolworths and other retail businesses, and a suggestion put forward by a councillor for a study into the economic circumstances facing the town and for an 'action plan' to be put in place.

While there will, of course, be circumstances peculiar to a particular location that such studies could address, surely it's equally obvious that a lot of such material will consist of little more than stating the obvious and replicating proposals made in numerous similar studies and which would be equally applicable anywhere in the country?

The Guardbridge paper mill report proposes just about the whole gamut of possible uses, and to that extent in effect proposes nothing. Couldn't council officials have come up with a similar wishlist?

Of course, there's a whole private sector consultancy industry and layers of government bureaucracy which depend on this sort of vacuity to justify their existence, and this also feeds off the political imperative to impress voters by the use grandiose language to befuddle them into thinking something concrete is being done, and involving third parties has the added advantage of shifting the responsibility for whatever action - spending public money, most obviously - is (eventually) taken.

That's not to say that all this won't lead to some kind of investment and jobs, but surely action could be taken with a lot more haste and in a less convoluted manner.

It's as if the jobs and businesses of those who have a vested interest in all of this is more important than the jobs and businesses of those in whose best interests they purport to act.

Planet BBC

The BBC's decision not to screen the Disasters Emergency Committee's appeal for aid to Gaza has very likely attracted it significantly more negative publicity than if it had actually shown the broadcast in the first place. An apologist for the corporation wittered on about "news values", and in a statement at the weekend director general Mark Thompson said:

Inevitably an appeal would use pictures which are the same or similar to those we would be using in our news programmes but would do so with the objective of encouraging public donations. The danger for the BBC is that this could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story. [The corporation would] continue to cover the human side of the conflict in Gaza extensively across our news services where we can place all of the issues in context in an objective and balanced way.

In fact the context would be that of an appeal for humanitarian aid; anyone with the common sense to understand concepts like impartiality, objectivity and 'news values' would surely understand this context and that the broadcast had nothing to do with news or politics. Only the politically motivated would think that, thus the BBC is pandering to politics rather than rising above it.

Cynicism begets cynicism

A comment left over at A Leaky Chanter accuses the new blog of an "obsessive hatred" of SNP/Alex Salmond. This seems a bit unfair, particularly with regard to the word 'hatred'; the blog could certainly be fairly characterised as anti-SNP, but in a satirical sort of way. There are certainly plenty other blogs which are significantly more poisonous than the Chanter.

Indeed, it seems self-evident that the comment was made from a partisan perspective, particularly when it's equally clear that the worst of the hatred and vitriol on the internet is directed towards Gordon Brown/new Labour. In fact a generation ago the political tables were turned in this regard when Margaret Thatcher was subject to similar opprobrium.

But sadly that's arguably just a reflection of our political process. Things like cynicism and tribalism from the political class merely begets cynicism and tribalism elsewhere, and it's hardly surprising that this very often boils over into thinly-disguised hatred, this downward spiral in turn alienating those outside party politics.

However, the difference between now and the Thatcher era is that the internet didn't exist in those days, thus the enmity didn't manifest itself in quite the same way and wasn't quite so accessible. To that extent one 'benefit' of the internet is that it lets us see people in their true colours and exposes the seamier side of political discourse. The downside is that this probably further fuels anomosity and exacerbates division.

Of course, this blog takes an avowedly critical and cynical stance, but it's hoped that this is done in a constructive manner, and that appropriate restraint is demonstrated!

Great chieftain o' the euro-race

At yesterday's Address to a Haggis...er...FMQs Annabelle Goldie had Alex Salmond on the table and under a knife. Asked by the Tory leader whether he supported an MP's private members' bill which would force shops in England to accept Scottish banknotes, the First Minister unsurprisingly concurred.

While haggis traps are apparently as difficult to find in the wild as the beast itself, Ms Goldie had managed to set one for Mr Salmond, and her riposte was that since SNP policy was to take an independent Scotland into the euro then "we could spend Scottish notes in Brighton but not Banff and Buchan". Mr Salmond responded that he had discussed the issue with the European Monetary Institute, which had agreed that 'Scottish euro' notes would be perfectly feasible. Ms Goldie retorted that he would be happy to ditch the pound and Scottish notes in favour of "centralised euro notes with a bit of regional branding".

But looking past the political knockabout and the issue of a single currency, the acceptability of banknotes is essentially a problem of trust, and is it really any wonder that businesses south of the border will not accept notes they're unfamiliar with? How many Scottish people look askance at Irish sterling notes, assuming they've ever even been offered one?

The essential point in all of this is not merely ignorance as regards the acceptability of Scottish notes, but wariness with notes people aren't familiar with and thus suspicious that they may be counterfeit. By the same token, is it really surprising that so many forged one pound coins are in circulation given the myriad designs available? This may appeal to coin collectors and the Royal Mint, but equally so to fraudsters.

Thus the contrarian argument is for fewer banknote designs, and the rationale for this is pragmatic rather than political - if the euro was adopted, wouldn't the new banknotes and coins cause enough worry and confusion for people without having 'Scottish euro' notes as well?

Of course, some people will consider this argument unpatriotic. I recall posting a broadly similar argument on a newspaper website's comment section relating to a story about Scottish pound notes. Cue an accusation about 'Unionism' or suchlike, but the point wasn't political. It was that Scottish pound notes had become a pain in the bahookie; that is, when you're unlucky enough to come across one.

Incidentally, Ms Goldie's quip about the "regional branding" on Mr Salmond's Scottish euros - "probably his own face or perhaps a haggis but perhaps some people wouldn't even know the difference" - seemed distinctly over-personal. Mr Salmond showed admirable restraint, but Ms Goldie's remarks may well come back to haunt her!

Disorderly policing?

In The Times this week columnist Libby Purves provides an account of her night spent with police dealing with "weekend drunks and disorder in Ipswich".

Among the matters she saw police attend to included:

• a very drunk girl ("implacably escorted back indoors")


• a fight over a bike ("sorted out")


• al fresco urinators ("forestalled")


• a doorman working without backup ("warned")


• a bail hostel inmate defecating in public ("made to pick it up")


• a cyclist without proper lights (told to get some)


• a domestic row ("defused")

Most interesting of all is the "Extreme Drunk", who ends up with the paramedics. However, Libby Purves says:

I question PC Rafferty about his interpretation of “drunk and disorderly”, since one in five of those around us is now, in my view, disorderly. If there were any peace they would be breaching it. He laughs: “Drunk and hopeless.” There aren't enough cells, or time for the paperwork. The police merely contain the bingers, keep them friendly. By and large it works.

The final point is debatable, surely? What's interesting is that during the shift there's little evidence of any formal sanctions being applied (apart from in relation to a fight near the end, which results in arrests and processing, but it's not clear if anything further happened; no doubt there's a good chance that those detained would be back on the streets after a few hours, having sobered up); instead it's all slapped wrists and blind eyes turned. And, of course, pub and club licensees are just left to get on with it.

However, that's not to say that formal sanctions are always appropriate, but perhaps if the policing regime had been more robust a generation ago then the staged wouldn't have been reached whereby the manpower available can only manage or contain disorder rather than provide a more comprehensive solution.

Of course, the Labour Government south of the border deluded itself into thinking that its reforms of a few years ago would sort this kind of thing out, and no doubt it will tell you it has. Until the next 'crackdown' is required, naturally.

Brit v Paki

The debate over Prince Harry's use of the word 'Paki' rumbles on in the letters column of the Dundee Courier. A correspondent writes:

While undergoing flying training in the USA, I often addressed colleagues as ‘Yank’, ‘Tex’ and so on, and in return, was called ‘Mac’ or ‘Scotty’ and the overall effect created group cohesion and comradeship. Returning to UK, I was frequently called ‘Jock’ with others addressed as ‘Yorky’, ‘Taffy’, ‘Geordie’ and ‘Paddy’, all without irate fathers protesting these names were insulting to national roots, or some other immature trivial protest.

Centuries of British tradition would rule that Prince Harry has little to apologise for, as he was only following a procedure that makes one feel ‘accepted’ and fosters the feeling of ‘esprit de corps’ required in the Armed Services.

Similarly, many have defended the use of the word on the basis that the British are called 'Brits' and the Australians 'Aussies' without causing offence.

While this blog will probably not be coming to the defence of political correctness on a regular basis, on the other hand it's difficult to see the validity of a comparison between words like 'Brit' and 'Paki', except for the fact that they are abbreviated versions of a nationality.

Of course, the precise meaning and thus acceptability of words depends on things like context and intention; for example a word may become more or less taboo over time (those connoting race and swearwords provide interesting contrasts in contemporary society) while different social settings demonstrate different values in this respect also.

It's also a question of degree rather than black and white(!), and in Scotland a generation ago the following terms might have been listed thus, from the inoffensive to the most offensive: Aussie, Brit, Chinky, Paki, nigger. Chinky was perhaps usually used without malice, while Paki was more borderline offensive, and nigger more obviously taboo.

But, as per the analysis above, society has deemed both Chinky and Paki more unacceptable since then, although there's little doubt that some people could still use both these words without malicious or racist intent.

Thus it seems likely that Prince Harry's usage of the word was with good intentions and perhaps reflects both his naivety of contemporary mores and the armed forces context.

However, those who equate current usage of Brit with Paki are surely either similarly unworldy or are merely being deliberately offensive - surely you don't have to be a PC zealot or especially worldly-wise to be aware that the word Paki is likely to cause widespread offence in contemporary Britain?

Politics and speeding policemen

My recent blog post comparing the disputed exchange at PMQs between Tavish Scott and Alex Salmond - which gave rise to the 'truthgate' inquiry - and the 'dodgy donations' which culminated in Wendy Alexander's resignation as Scottish Labour leader essentially concluded that both disputes were trivial in nature; perhaps nitpicking over semantics and a disproportionate response to a technical transgression respectively.

However, a subsequent blog comment claimed that in Ms Alexander's case the law had been broken and that there should be clear limits and strong enforcement. But we know that people in public positions can commit minor offences with relative impunity, as in society generally. Good recent examples concern two senior police officers caught speeding. Both the chief constables of Tayside Police and Northern Constabulary offended, ironically on the same road and clocked at the same speed.

However, the convenor of the Tayside Police Joint Board, told the Courier:

My opinion is nobody wants to get caught [sic!] but the chief constable is human like everyone else. He has been caught on camera, his licence endorsed, fined the same as everyone else, end of story. I don’t think it is going to affect his ability to be the top police officer in Tayside. I would be far more concerned if this had happened and had not been picked up because he is the chief constable.

He is the chief constable. He is like everyone else around. He has now been caught. He has got three points on his licence and got a fine. At the end of the day, it will not make one bit of difference to being the chief constable of Tayside.

Given that this concerns a chief constable breaking the law this provides a useful contrast with Wendy Alexander, who was arguably hounded from her job over a technical offence that apparently involved no knowledge on her part.

Similarly, if Ms Alexander was expected to be squeaky clean on donations, what about the possibility that the SNP Government could appoint a party donor to head an important public body, or that a party councillor has ended up in a similar role. Of course, the obvious defence regarding these appointments is that there is no law-breaking involved, but there are clearly ethical considerations which are relevant.

However, the point is not to judge the merits of these individual cases, but to suggest that these issues and arguments are not necessarily based on legal and ethical considerations, but instead on politics and partisanship - "cronyism" in opposition becomes "strong leadership abilities" in office. Of course, the political dynamic as regards the policemen is arguably based on a cross-party realisation that police board members' reputations depends on that of the chief constable, but it's political nonetheless.

Of course, for most people the above may seem little more than stating the obvious, but sadly not to the blindly partisan.

The speeding policeman

While motorists caught speeding at over 100mph are routinely banned from driving by Scottish sheriffs, an off-duty policeman clocked at 5mph over the 'ton' kept his licence last week after doctors' letters said he was suffering from depression.

However, it was also stated in court that the officer was "upset and in an enraged mood" following an argument with his ex-wife. Shouldn't this be an aggravating factor rather than depression used in mitigation? Unfortunately we see 'enraged' drivers all the time, often taking out their anger by tailgating and performing other dangerous manoeuvres intended to harass and intimidate other road users. Some of this is no doubt caused by external factors, while in other cases it seems to be merely a symptom of an aggressive personality. But, either way, should this in effect be used as some sort of excuse?

Meanwhile, today it's reported that a driver who sped at almost twice the limit on the notorious A9 was similarly spared a driving ban because he would lose his job and find it difficult to secure alternative employment in the current financial climate.

Whatever next? As road safety campaigner Margaret Dekker put it, "I did not know the law was subject to the credit crunch. If the financial climate is an excuse for this kind of offence then I am sure many people will start using it."

Building bridges

Let's hope that an appropriate solution can be found to the Forth replacement impasse. But a recent blog debate underlined SNP chutzpah in deftly ignoring the fact that the Scottish Futures Trust was regarded as a serious option as a funding mechanism, at least until it became obvious that this particular dog wouldn't bark and the Scottish Government would have to go cap in hand to the UK Treasury to bridge the funding black hole. That it duly did, and now some are trying to portray this ignominy as Westminster intransigence and that asking the Treasury to accelerate future capital allocations was the preferred funding method all along.

So does this argument stack up? Not really - even a cursory bit of research turns up little to support the thesis.

Almost two years ago the SNP's manifesto for the May 2007 elections to the Scottish Parliament underlined the importance of the Forth crossing issue, and said, in a section headed 'Capital':

We also propose a new system of infrastructure funding as an alternative to the costly and flawed PFI/PPP. Over the first term of an SNP government we will introduce a not-for-profit Scottish Futures Trust, which will provide lower cost borrowing opportunities. We expect the Scottish Futures Trust to emerge as a more attractive source of funding for both national and local projects which will effectively crowd out PFI/PPP over time. (emphasis added)

Thus no mention of a Treasury loan there. A year later and the BBC reported:

Projects such as the new Forth Road Bridge could stall under the Scottish Futures Trust, Labour has claimed. Finance Secretary John Swinney was questioned by MSPs on the operation of the new flagship policy. Mr Swinney refused to confirm to Holyrood's Finance Committee the trust would build the new Forth crossing.

However, a few days earlier a Times article had said:

While the precise funding plans for a new Forth bridge are still being formulated, John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, said in a television interview on Tuesday that the crossing was “the type of project that could be taken forward under the auspices of this [SFT] model”.

He added; “There's every possibility that could be done on the Forth replacement crossing ...”

Fast forward and little more than a month ago the Scotsman said:

The new bridge has been billed as the ultimate test for the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT), which the SNP has introduced to replace private finance initiatives and public private partnerships as the Government's method of building schools and hospitals.

But ministers have yet to announce whether the crossing will be financed by the SFT, which has been subjected to a barrage of criticism since it was established in September with merchant banker Sir Angus Grossart as chairman. It had been envisaged that the SFT would be funded by local government-issued bonds, but critics have said it has been downgraded to a body to lobby Government for resources.

Therefore still no mention of direct Treasury funding, and it was only shortly after it was confirmed - as part of the Strategic Transport Project Review statement in December - that the Scottish Government had at the eleventh hour asked the Treasury to bring forward future transport funding to pay for the new bridge.

Moreover, the Times subsequently revealed that Mr Swinney had only written to Treasury ministers regarding the proposed funding arrangement a fortnight before the STPR announcement.

Of course, Mr Swinney was always shrewd enough not to claim that the bridge would definitely be funded by the Scottish Futures Trust, but he did acknowledge that it was an option, and it was certainly not totally ruled out until around a month ago. Likewise, the UK Treasury alternative was never mentioned until it became explicitly clear that the SFT was a non-starter.

The pot and the kettle

So the Scottish Parliament's presiding officer has ordered an enquiry to help ensure the "highest standards of probity, scrutiny and accountability". Thus another member of the political bubble with a fine sense of irony, or perhaps he just doesn't 'get' politics.

On the evidence available, Alex Salmond's answers at FMQs regarding the funding of the Inter Faith Council may not have been wholly accurate, but this is surely of little consequence in the context of the political milieu of bluff and bluster, spin and soundbite. Nicola Sturgeon, appearing on STV's Politics Noo programme, said the debate was about "dancing on the head of a pin", and this is surely how the public - used to taking what politicians of all parties say with a deluge of salt - will view this current stushie.

On the other hand, it's difficult to sympathise with the SNP after another "dancing on the head of a pin" issue orchestrated by the party - Wendy Alexander's dodgy donations - demonstrated both political frailty on the ex-Labour leader's part and the ability of opponents to go to disproportionate lengths to make political capital out of it - a sort of Wendy Alexander's Hamas to the SNP's Israel Defense Forces.

It should be recalled that in her resignation speech Ms Alexander said:

I hope the events of recent days will lead to reflection by all MSPs and parliamentary officials on the appropriateness, the objectivity and the effectiveness of our current procedures.

Ultimately it is of course for Parliament to pass judgment on the Committee's conclusions. But in the meantime I judge that this issue has become too much of a distraction from the real issues that should dominate our public life: the challenges, the cares and the concerns of communities across Scotland.

The process of successive SNP inspired complaints and investigations has been unrelenting and will continue well into the autumn, almost a year after the initial complaint.

My pursuers have sought the prize of political victory with little thought to the standing of the Parliament. Some may feel they have achieved a political victory but wiser heads will ask at what price.

It is clear that the vexatious complaints will continue and dominate the headlines as long as I remain Labour's Scottish Parliamentary leader.

Regarding the current issue, SNP blogger Calum Cashley says:

That isn’t politics, it’s the seeking of headlines; there is no thought given to whether or not it enhances politics and thereby the people, the country, etc; no grace comes with it to allow the exchange of differing opinion with good manners; and no alternate solution is advanced. It is little other than name-calling and finger-pointing. Another example would be the full-scale inquiry into the First Minister’s conduct over the proposed development at Balmedie (Trump) which dragged on, took evidence, lifted every stone, dragged every pond, snooped in every corner, and drove a case as hard as it possibly could before concluding that sometimes Alex Salmond can be a bit cavalier. The point of the would-be Witchfinder Pursuivant was not the uncovering of truth and the restoration of public faith in the offices of Government in Scotland – they knew what the result would be before they started – the object of the hunt was the broadcasting of news that the hunt was on, the attempt to lower the esteem of the First Minister in the eyes of the public.

Not for any noble purpose, an attempt to score party political points at the expense of politics.

Where is the nobility of their politics? Where is the in-depth, detailed examination of what the SNP Scottish Government is actually doing? Where are their alternatives? When will we hear what they think is right and what they think should be changed? Surely this can’t be as good as it gets?

The parallels between these two statements should be obvious, and indeed both have merit. But, equally, it should also be self-evident that both these disputes are based as much on political tribalism and gaining party advantage than on any higher principle, and juxtaposing the two ably demonstrates the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course, Alex Salmond is unlikely to lose his job - a la Wendy Alexander - over the current issue. But, irrespective of the investigation's conclusions, the public perception regarding the integrity of politicians and the political process is unlikely to change one iota.

Fag end on the pavement

It should hardly come as a surprise that this morning's Scotsman reports that most local authorities have barely used their powers to fine litter louts, or indeed not used them at all. In view of the scale of the problem the odd fine handed out to a no doubt easy target has always seemed more gesture politics than a serious attempt to tackle the issue. As is so often the case the authorities did nothing for years while the problem escalated, then portrayed themselves as riding to the rescue, when in fact the tokenism demonstrated often achieves little more than causing resentment and leading to accusations of persecution.

And, of course, the issue has been underlined since the smoking ban resulted in millions of new littering offences every year.

Even Glasgow City Council's efforts in handing out a dozen or so fines a day is merely a drop in the ocean; or, to coin a phrase, a fag end on the pavement.

Everyday politicking

The Herald has launched "a major debate on the future of our local authorities, including a radical blueprint for streamlining the current 32 separate councils to just 10". The impetus for this is growing pressure on municipal budgets and the self-evident duplication and bureaucracy that is a major factor in that regard.

While the Scottish Government is currently committed to the status quo in relation to the basic local government structure, a sense of irony was clearly not lost on its spokesman, who responded to the Herald's debate thus:

...now is not the time for a costly, bureaucratic exercise like reorganisation...

Of course, this commitment is at least partly due to Finance Secretary John Swinney's agreement with councils to freeze council tax levels and suchlike, and to that extent the spokesman's response to the Herald's debate is doubly ironic because this arrangement has looked increasingly like it will totally unravel.

Indeed, it's looking less like a grandiosely-titled 'historic concordat' and more and more like everyday politicking.

Justice done?

Middle England is rightly fulminating about the case of a driving instructor who was the victim of a violent crime but whose evidence in court was discounted because the trial judge considered that she was a "particularly impressive witness" and thus could sway the jury unfairly - Judge Jamie Tabor concluded that the victim's honesty and credibility might mean jurors would give greater weight to her evidence regarding identifying the accused than her fleeting glimpse of her attacker might allow.

While the judge's grounds for acquitting the accused are slightly more nuanced than some reports suggest - in essence that the victim's evidence would be unfair on the accused because she was too honest - the case does raise some interesting questions about the efficacy of jury trials and the judge's power to stop them if a conviction would be considered unsafe.

Surely as with any other facts of the case it's for the jury to decide whether a witness's evidence is credible in view of factors such as their plausibility and the nature of the evidence that they proffer. If the victim in this case only caught a fleeting glimpse of her attacker then should not jurors have been allowed to consider this before deciding whether she had identified him beyond all reasonable doubt instead of having the judge decide for them?

Criminally irresponsible?

Writing in The Times this week Melanie Reid suggests:

The age at which criminal responsibility begins is a symbol of how a
country regards its young people and, by extension, a symbol of its humanity.

The point is made in the context of the likelihood that the Scottish Government will increase the age at which children can be deemed criminally competent from eight to twelve or fourteen.

Ms Reid may have a point, because as she herself says the move is largely symbolic since young offenders are generally dealt with under the welfare-based Children's Hearing process rather than the adult criminal justice system. And, of course, it seems unlikely that anyone would ever suggest that young children should be treated similarly to adults even if they are dealt with as criminals; by being slammed up in Barlinnie, for example.

On the other hand, Ms Reid's analysis seems symptomatic of a culture which excuses misbehaviour because of factors like age, and which she characterises as a system where children "cannot be regarded as criminals who must be punished but rather as minors who have not received adequate protection".

But irrespective of the debate about the age of criminal responsibility, surely the point is that children from a very young age should be aware of the difference between right and wrong, and the welfare-based approach often blurs this distinction by excusing errant behaviour.

Indeed, Ms Reid herself makes the point that children brought up "without boundaries, love or protection will be damaged and will break the rules of normal society" (emphasis added), yet at the same time seems to laud an approach that to an extent dispenses with boundaries.

She is right that the change in the law may be largely symbolic, but rather than this indicating an extension of humanity it is perhaps symptomatic of an ethos that blurs boundaries and morality and to that extent ruins lives and thus arguably makes it less humane.

A head for figures

Yesterday's Scotland on Sunday reported that the number of "public urination" offences recorded by Strathclyde Police had nearly doubled in the last five years, and that recently most of these had been dealt with by way of fixed penalty fines.

The report presents this as meaning that a growing number of people are..ahem..doing their business in public, but this interpretation of the figures could be misleading. Fixed penalty fines are often portrayed primarily as freeing up police and the criminal justice system, but another facet of the process is likely to be that offences which would previously have been dealt with by way of a blind eye or a slapped wrist are more likely to be subject to a formal sanction and thus recorded as an offence.

Therefore the statistics for such low level crimes are likely to be as meaningful as the number of speeding offences recorded in recent years; the increase has more to do with enforcement measures (so-called 'safety cameras' in the case of speeding) than any fundamental increase in wrongdoing.

The report also questions the "curiously specific" targets set for police in Strathclyde by councillors on the force's joint police board - for example, an objective to increase numbers of illegal street drinkings detected by 41.4 per cent.

This echoes similarly spurious statistics reported by Tayside Police recently and highlighted on this blog. Not mere "targets for excellence"; reading the section on ethnic recruitment quotas left the impression that they might eventually require specific body parts instead of whole officers if it meant that the target was being met!

A head for figures, perhaps?

Model behaviour

Former glamour model and Emmerdale star Linda Lusardi has been criticised for calling 999 to ask police for permission to drive down the hard shoulder of the M25 because a traffic jam meant she would be late for a pantomime appearance. "Oh no, you can't," was the press interpretation of the police response, and the Daily Mail reported a police source as saying, "she may be a star but she is not beyond the law."

But a few years ago a similar request from TV presenters Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan resulted in a police escort to avoid them arriving late to present their This Morning programme.

Thus Richard and Judy are presumably considered more than mere 'stars', or perhaps some police forces do indeed consider some celebrities to be above the law.

But this minor example is perhaps symptomatic of a wider problem regarding double standards in law enforcement, and this is hardly conducive to respect for the law.

Thatcher's legacy

Labour blogger Yousuf Hamid has written a surprisingly upbeat post regarding Margaret Thatcher's economic impact on Scotland, and despite a decade or so of Labour government at both Westminster and in a devolved Holyrood administration, there's little doubt about the lasting legacy of her policies.

Of course, it's axiomatic that the old socialist Labour party had to modernise itself to persuade the electorate to vote it back into office; Clause IV was dumped, the Militant tendency shown the door and the trade unions marginalised. A fresh-faced new leader - Tony Blair - completed the reinvention of the party started by Neil Kinnock, the Tories imploded under John Major and 'new Labour' won a landslide victory in 1997.

However, despite some left-leaning policies under Labour - such as the National Minimum Wage and other 'workers' rights' measures - Thatcher's legacy remained. The unions stayed emasculated, council house sales continued and the privatisation programme remained (albeit on a much smaller scale, because the 'family silver' can only be sold off once, and would be all but depleted eventually!).

And while many politicians may be reluctant to say so explicitly, they recognise the economic benefits of Thatcherism by way of wealth creation and in terms of a couple of the totems of the 'property-owning democracy', namely share and house ownership. Indeed, they knew that in terms of electability they had no choice but to embrace elements of the Thatcher legacy, because they were aware that much of the electorate had benefited from her reforms as well.

There is, of course, no need to rehash the downside of free markets generally and of Thatcherism in particular; Yousuf eloquently performs that task. On the other hand, his uncritical tone regarding council house and share ownership should not go unchallenged. Thatcher's privatisation programmes were in some regards little more than electoral bribes, and many of the 'Sids' who bought the shares did so merely to make a quick profit on the under-priced public offerings, thus penalising taxpayers in general and leaving in their wake those at the bottom of the ladder who couldn't/didn't get involved. Likewise, many ex-council house tenants sold their heavily-discounted properties for substantial profits, which of course in effect came out of the pockets of purchasers who were not in such a fortunate position, and one legacy of this is now a shortage of affordable social housing to rent.

Of course, the country's shift leftwards has continued under the premiership of Gordon Brown, albeit that a major plank of this - the current Keynesian economic stimulus package - was necessitated by impending economic catastrophe rather than designed. But even with this morning's Times forecasting a second bank bail out, a full scale renationalisation of the "commanding heights of the economy" scented by left-wingers seems about as likely as the fantasists' hopes that Barack Obama will fundamentally change Israel's stance in the Middle East.

In the Scottish context, however, it's usually assumed that there's a degree of asymmetry between the moral and political outlook north of the border and that of the UK as a whole (and England in particular). While there's no real reason to take issue with that, the analysis above should apply equally to Scotland, albeit slightly watered down.

Indeed, in an unguarded moment Alex Salmond did of course speak for the whole of Scotland when he said of Thatcherism: "We didn't mind the economic side so much." And while he qualified this by saying, "But we didn't like the social side at all", since the SNP's 2007 election campaign was bankrolled by a well-known social conservative, perhaps Mr Salmond was being a tad disingenuous in that regard!