McNeill forecasts extended recession?

In yesterday's Scotsman Hamish Macdonell described Labour's shift to support borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament as the party's "biggest policy change in a decade". He also quoted Pauline McNeill, Labour's spokeswoman with responsibility for the Calman Commission, as saying:

I am also convinced that Holyrood should have prudential borrowing powers, which would allow us to develop a more coherent strategy for fighting the recession.

Which seems to assume the recession will still be in progress by the time the Calman Commission reports and that Westminster subsequently extends borrowing powers to Holyrood, which is presumably several years down the line at the earliest. Perhaps she meant a recession rather than the recession?

On the substantive issue, I had intended to write an in-depth analysis and critique of the political, constitutional and economic implications of greater fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament, but the impressively irreverent Mr H arguably gets to the crux of the matter in a mere eleven words:

It's like putting a meth head in charge of the chemists.

The language of learning

The debate over the teaching of the Scots language in schools rumbles on, with a letter in today's Scotsman calling for its inclusion in the curriculum because of its importance as an "indigenous language" which should be restored. It's further claimed that this would "re-establish the esteem" of Scots, would increase the confidence of those who use it and also "improve attainment".

Sounds great on paper, but what about the real world rather than that of idealistic kailyard self-indulgence? Schoolkids generally don't seem to have any problem with speaking the Scots language, but would teaching them to read and write it proficiently represent an appropriate use of scarce resources?

More to the point is this regard are the real difficulties many schoolkids have with both spoken and written English, not to mention other problems such as basic numeracy. Of course, this has implications for obtaining an appropriate education and qualifications, not to mention later success careers-wise and with life generally.

Moreover, the ongoing difficulties over free school meals and lowering class sizes underline that diverting scare resources into teaching the Scots language would represent a triumph of idealism over realism.

Shock as politician tells the truth

Mike Russell, the SNP's newly appointed 'minister for independence', has caused a bit of a political and media storm with some independent thinking on aspects of Scotland. Dredged up by opponents from a decade-old book written by Mr Russell, among his more lurid quotes is this unflattering portrayal of Glasgow:

Pull over the car (if you dare) and walk into the closes smelling of urine and rubbish, cluttered with dirt. The walls are decorated with graffiti and it is not uncommon to have to step over a comatose body.

Cue the usual formulaic response from political opponents. Labour's Jackie Baillie did the 'aye, we've got some problems but we're putting them behind us' bit, while Tory Murdo Fraser managed the 'doing Scotland down' one.

Of course, this kind of thing is always a bit puzzling, because a significant part of the politicians' raison d'etre seems to be talking things down, and not just their opponents either. However, it seems to be that when a particular location is criticised then opponents latch on to this and portray it as an almost personal slur on the residents of the area and thus use the criticism as a stick to beat the critic, in turn making political capital for themselves.

Mr Russell's comments have clearly brought about a classic example of this scenario, and equally ludicrous is the SNP response - it claims that the locations attacked have been improved by the nationalist government. Regarding Glasgow, for example, it says the Scottish Government:

...threw its full weight behind the city's bid for the Commonwealth Games, helping it win the event for Scotland. The government is working to make sure the city capitalises on the Games by securing a lasting legacy of benefits.

Fine, but what precisely has this got to do with closes smelling of urine and rubbish? Even in the unlikely event that the Commonwealth Games will fundamentally help address such problems, it seems even more unlikely that this has already happened.

Indeed, perhaps the reason the kind of problems outlined by Mike Russell seem so intractable is the very politicking and spin resulting from his welcome candour. However unpalatable a picture he paints, the fact is that very often this is the reality. Ignoring this in favour of spin, political knockabout and electoral advantage seems more for the benefit of the politicians than those suffering real life problems.

'Care workers' or bureaucratic overkill?

A recent Times article on the work of a compliance officer with a housing association in Kent starts with a description of a meeting of an anti-social tenant's "care workers". As well as the compliance officer, seated round the table are:

...a care manager, support worker, housing support officer, antisocial behaviour officer, probation officer, community support officer, learning disability nurse, a member of the substance misuse team and a note-taker.

Granted, the tenant (Michael) is an alcoholic with mild learning disabilities, and the meeting has been called to discuss his possible eviction, but this kind of thing leaves the impression that the process is more for the benefit of the bureaucracy than the person supposedly being 'cared' for, and also that all this convolution unnecessarily complicates and perhaps exacerbates the problems supposedly being addressed rather than helps solve them; indeed, the text of the article arguably indicates that the sheer amount of people involved prevents the meeting coming to a decisive and meaningful conclusion on Michael's future.

Indeed, the housing officer herself perhaps gets to the simple root of the problem later in the article when she says:

Kids are not set any boundaries any more. The pendulum's swung a bit too far.

Perhaps this gets to the nub of the problem more effectively than Michael's myriad 'care workers' ever will.

The rule of law or the mob?

A Dundee internet discussion forum has hit the local headlines following its decision to launch a "Wall of Shame", which will feature local criminals and is intended to act as an information point that the public and employers can "utilise to identify criminals in their midst".

Apparently prompted by a mere probation order handed down to a Forfar man who placed a live kitten in a microwave, ultimately resulting in its death, forum administrator Jeff Duncan rails against the "wholly inadequate" sentences imposed by Tayside sheriffs, and asks: "Why should someone who has got off almost scot-free be allowed to walk around undetected and perhaps unknown to neighbours and employers?"

Unfortunately the authorities have not responded positively to Mr Duncan's initiative. The Scottish Government suggested that his move could undermine the rule of law, while Tayside Police said the "concept devised by the Dundee Forum is not something we would support" and warned that "anyone engaged in retaliation could find themselves in trouble with the law".

Thus there are clearly official concerns that the "Wall of Shame" is either intended to enourage vigilantism, or could at least have that inadvertent effect. But it seems difficult to reconcile this with the information actually disclosed on the site, which at this stage seems along the lines of that reported in the press. And any comment seems little different from the kind of stuff that might be published in the readers' letters pages of the newspapers.

Given reports of the confrontational atmosphere surrounding the case it's arguably unsurprising that the authorities are being rather sensitive on the issue. However, reading between the lines of the official response perhaps indicates an element of defensiveness, and maybe a suggestion that these matters should be none of the public's business. Indeed, the reaction of the authorities brings to mind another recent local controversy relating to convicted criminals - the ludicrous official edict that the names of prisoners who had absconded from open prisons in Tayside should not be disclosed because it would breach their right to privacy.

Ironically, part of the Scottish Government's response to the Dundee Forum's "Wall of Shame" said:

Greater clarity and openness [in sentencing] will help improve public confidence in our criminal justice system so that victims' interests are properly taken into account.

It seems unlikely that the interests of "greater clarity and openness" will be served by attempting to discourage legitimate debate and disclosure, and it also seems probable that the official response will undermine rather than improve public confidence.

Indeed, contrast the above with the police response to a court order banning the press from disclosing the name of a young boy who terrorised residents of an English town:

The courts placed a banning order on the 12-year-old boy's name when he was handed a three year anti social behaviour order (ASBO) last week.

But, on Friday the police decided to reveal the child's identity to the public by placing posters around Dorsten Square where he has been terrorising residents for two years.

Sergeant Darren Taylor, from Crawley Police, said: "After the court case we went and spoke to members of the public and victims. The majority of people felt disgusted and let down that we couldn't name and shame him.

"We decided to put up posters in the shops the individual is barred from and the feedback has been very positive."

The liberty paradox

(Submitted to the Carnival on Modern Liberty, the fifth edition of which is due to be hosted by Matt Wardman this weekend)

While the concept of liberty is multi-faceted and means different things to different people, one aspect to the debate relates to the tools of the state utilised against minor criminal offences and what is now often termed 'low level' wrongdoing and anti-social behaviour. Two of the tools in question are CCTV and speed cameras.

However, contrary to the notion that such measures are symptomatic of an increasingly authoritarian 'surveillance state', the argument to be presented here is that in fact the British state has taken an increasingly liberal approach to human behaviour over the past several decades, and that to a large extent counter-measures like CCTV represent little more than a tokenistic and largely ineffectual attempt to reverse the negative consequences of this liberalism.

One perhaps prosaic example of this relates to littering, which is arguably useful because we can all see the consequences of this and indeed look in the right places and it's easy to witness people doing it. Growing up in a small Scottish town in the 1970s it was unusual to see litter on the streets. Of course, no two locations are the same but, put simply, it's now everywhere. And if there doesn't seem too much of it in city centre shopping areas (say) then that's because a small army of council operatives scurry round after the litter louts, in effect sweeping the problem under the carpet (almost literally!). Meanwhile, other areas end up almost permanently litter strewn, simply because local authorities can't afford to keep everywhere clean on a 24/7 basis.

More to the point, how did this situation arise from a law enforcement perspective? Well it's not as if there was a network of litter wardens handing out fines in the 1970s, or even policemen, come to that. Instead, police would very probably take a litterer to task, but this was generally unnecessary, because less formal methods of enforcement - parents and teachers, most obviously - would ensure that children didn't drop litter, and this ethos would be carried into adulthood.

But gradually those methods of social control were loosened, and a generation or two later and a significant proportion of the population considers it as natural to drop litter as others consider it a moral imperative to put it in a bin.

Of course, this didn't happen overnight, and the precise dynamic behind this process is irrelevant for present purposes, but in essence the situation has moved from one of control to liberty, with parents, teachers and police significantly less likely to exert any kind of authority over littering.

On the other hand, and in recent years in particular, the powers that be have seen the adverse consequences of this retreat, and have tried to reverse the situation, for example by using CCTV to catch litters and taking them to task. But this is often heavy-handed in nature, and instead of informal methods of control a fine is often levied, which in turn very often leads to accusations of authoritarianism, and suchlike. For example, a couple of years ago a sudden flurry of fines handed out to litterers in Dundee led to claims in the press about civil liberties being breached etc.

Of course, part of the problem here is not enforcement per se, but enforcement in relation to rules which have largely been unenforced for a significant period of time and thus the misbehaviour targeted has become normalised for a significant section of society.

Another important factor is that the reality is that only a miniscule level of enforcement of this type is carried out, thus in effect these exercises are merely of the box-ticking/gesture politics variety rather than any serious attempt to induce behavioural change (although the authorities may well be deluded enough to think otherwise). Also, those selected for enforcement measures are usually of the 'easy target' variety, leading to "Primary school kid fined for dropping sweet wrapper" sort of headlines, whereas the late-night drunk contemptuously dropping a twelve inch pizza box is ignored.

But the perception created is one of authoritarianism, whereas the reality is that most littering is done with impunity, and there's little evidence to suggest that this liberal stance will be significantly reversed. Thus a creeping abandonment of control created the problem, then when the state tries to reverse the situation it creates the impression of authoritarianism, whereas the reality is nearer zero enforcement than zero tolerance, therefore the misbehaviour is still the norm for many people and the occasional 'crackdown' reinforces the perception of heavy-handedness, but in reality nothing much changes, and the whole scenario is perpetuated.

The analysis above started with the specific example of littering, but is similarly applicable to all kinds of low-level wrongdoing; for example, drunk and disorderly behaviour, noise nuisance and motoring offences. Of course, the latter category is pertinent to the speed camera debate, but the same analysis holds true - despite the near-hysteria over speeding fines, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of speeding offences are committed with impunity.

(An interesting contrast in relation to enforcement of littering and speeding offences is perhaps that the former is more likely to appeal to the libertarian right, while the latter might be more palatable to the liberal left? If so then this demonstrates one aspect to the debate on different philosophies on liberty.)

In summary, however, the 'surveillance state' and authoritarianism objections in relation to these issues are merely the result of different approaches to these hardly original problems; the cameras use technological advances to perform the function of formal and informal controls which have long since lost their efficacy. But the reality is that the problems being addressed have attained sufficient scale and have become sufficiently ingrained that they are not conducive to easy reversal. Meanwhile, the 'police state' and similar accusations regarding low level offending and anti-social behaviour are in reality founded on limited but exaggerated evidence, and 'surveillance state' criticisms in this respect also are based on notions more abstract than real.

A Rod for their own backs

So it seems that rocker Rod Stewart is deemed further up the policing pecking order than actress and model Linda Lusardi, and instead seems to be considered a VIP in the Richard and Judy league. It's reported that Strathclyde Police considered him sexy enough to let his limo drive down a road sealed off to other traffic while it was packed with fans leaving Celtic Park after yesterday's Old Firm match. Earlier this year Ms Lusardi was refused permission to use a motorway hard shoulder to escape a traffic jam, while a few years previously TV hosts Richard and Judy were provided with a police escort under similar circumstances.

Of course, the more normal scenario is for police to turn a blind eye to minor offences, but exceptionally someone somewhere will be brought to book for such a transgression, perhaps in the course of some box-ticking exercise. But, either way, these double standards breed resentment and thus the police provide a rod for their own backs.

Dave and Dek's double whammy?

The Conservative Party has been somewhat out on a limb politically in opposing the Labour Government's fiscal stimulus - and consequently increased pubic borrowing - intended to kickstart the economy. Indeed, in yesterday's Sunday Post David Cameron pointed out that all of Scotland was "suffering at the hands of Labour's debt crisis".

Yet Campbell Gunn's column in last weekend's Post quoted Derek Brownlee, the Tory finance spokesman at Holyrood, as saying Scottish Government borrowing powers should be "considered seriously" by the Calman Commission in its review of devolution.

So UK public borrowing is "horrific", yet the Tories think that the debt burden borne by taxpayers in future should be added to north of the border?

What was that phrase the Tories used to ridicule Labour's tax plans during the 1992 general election? Ah, yes - a "double whammy"!

Bureaucratic and statistical vandalism

A recent Courier report, which revealed that a child age three was "identified by police as being responsible* for an act of vandalism in Dundee", quoted a police spokesman as saying:

Hotspots for vandalism are identified by our crime managers and analysts and discussed on a daily and fortnightly basis at tactical and co-ordination group meetings where resources are allocated accordingly to tackle the problem.

Do these things really have to be so convoluted, or is this just another case of self-serving bureaucracy and nonsense-speak being more important than straightforward policing?

The report also states:

In comparing the period April-December 2007 and April-December 2008 the reported number of vandalisms in Dundee have dropped by 13%. [...]

It also emerged that the detection rate had dropped slightly, from 25.6% in 2007 to 24.5% in the last year.

I wonder why the figures for the whole of 2007 and 2008 weren't compared rather than (selectively?) using the numbers for the last nine months.

As regards the detection rate, surely the level of accuracy reported is largely spurious? For a start, it's highly probable that the vast majority of instances of vandalism aren't ever reported as crimes, thus police can't detect what hasn't been recorded.

But here's the best bit:

The spokesman added, “A correlation has been established between young people drinking, anti-social behaviour and vandalism."

It might be appropriate here to use a phrase associated with a fictional detective and human faeces which alludes to the fact that a statement of the obvious is being made, but that in turn would be similarly trite, so it's probably best left to the imagination.

But if the implications of making such a statement is that the authorities have only just worked this out then this perhaps explains a lot!

Not to worry, though. Although it's perhaps unsurprising that a Dundee councillor is "surprised" that part of his ward is identified in the article as one of the city's vandalism "hotspots", he says he'll be "looking closely at the matter" and speaking to the "community planning partnership and others to see what action can be taken".

That's reassuring.

* The authorities will presumably be unimpressed by the Courier saying that the three-year-old was responsible for vandalism, since the official view is presumably that a child of such age can't be responsible for anything? Likewise, the newspaper's report describes the three-year-old as a "tearaway", which presumably 'demonises' the child, or suchlike?

At a loss...

Puzzling is this weekend's furore over the reported losses at the HBOS division recently acquired by Lloyds Banking Group. Apparently HBOS's "black hole" for the 2008 financial year has increased by a further £1.6 billion to £10 billion from the figures disclosed in December. This led to the group's share price falling by up to 40 per cent, not to mention a little media and political brouhaha, with plenty of renewed speculation and denial about the prospect of nationalisation.

This seems a bit overdone though. Losses have increased from over £8 billion to £10 billion, thus from disastrous to slightly more disastrous, and the former figure didn't even cover the whole year, while also relevant is the "more conservative provisioning methodology" now being used - in other words, losses are being reported now rather than at a later date.

I'm therefore at a loss regarding this. Could it perhaps be anything to do with stock market self-interest, political opportunism or media sensationalism?

Surely not - these things would never happen!

What's the truth on LIT?

Today's FMQs reflected the predictably exaggerated reaction of the opposition parties to the SNP's decision to dump its plans for a local income tax (LIT) to replace the council tax - Labour's Iain Gray talked of "conning the voters" and alluded to the SNP government as "spivs and speculators".

Of course, we can't take Finance Secretary John Swinney's reasoning for the U-turn at face value either. If the council tax is so unfair and onerous then surely forthcoming budget constraints should be a reason to hasten its replacement with LIT, not a justification to put it on hold. Likewise, if there's self-evidently a lack of parliamentary support for the policy then why did Alex Salmond this week reiterate the SNP's commitment to an independence referendum next year?

Perhaps the real issue with LIT is that it's fundamentally flawed. For a start, local income tax is a misnomer because the rate was to be determined nationally and thereafter all local government income from taxation revenue would be determined by central government ministers. There has also been widespread opposition to the proposed tax in terms of the practicality and legality of implementation, not to mention the usual complaints that the new tax would merely replace some elements of unfairness with others. And also that the revenue from the tax would be insufficient to replace the lost council tax, leaving a black hole in public finances of up to £1 billion.

Thus perhaps the real reason for the U-turn is essentially that ministers have decided the proposal is ill-thought out and unworkable. Of course, John Swinney said LIT would still be an integral part of the SNP's election campaign in 2011, but is this a genuine commitment or a mere face-saving device? Mr Swinney may figure that the SNP could lose the next election, thus his current stance saves his (damaged) credibility, but costs him nothing. Or that the next parliament will be hung and his party will form another minority government, thus to that extent the same excuse - lack of support from MSPs - can be resurrected next time round, and his credibility similarly remains intact. However, it's more likely that Mr Swinney is confident of victory in a couple of year's time than the defeat/hung parliament scenario, thus in terms of the analysis above he's in trouble, but of course prolonging the inevitable can also be used to political and personal advantage - a slow and deliberate three-point-turn is perhaps a better face-saver than a swift reversal.

It may, of course, be the case that Mr Swinney still genuinely believes in the LIT case, and to that extent his stance is more noble than self-serving. Either way, if Mr Swinney was to acknowledge that the LIT policy is a bit less of a magic bullet for municipal financing than originally claimed then he perhaps wouldn't look at least slightly delusional.

Indygal's ignominy?

No experienced political blogger needs reminding of the dangers of posting what they actually want to say rather than what they feel is expected by their intended audience, particularly if they hold elected office or they aspire to such a position.

A case in point is prominent nationalist blogger Indygal - parliamentary researcher Anne McLaughlin - who will shortly become an MSP following the death of her SNP colleague Bashir Ahmad. Ms McLauglin has attracted some adverse press for secretly taking photos at Holyrood and publishing them on her blog.

The reports have described her accompanying captions as "mocking", and Labour's Margaret Curran deemed Ms McLaughlin's actions "childish", "unfair and devious" and "showing a lack of respect".

Come again? Perhaps taking the photos was a bit naughty, but they hardly seem over-intrusive - for example, a photo of a politician in front of a TV camera can't really be describe as an invasion of privacy. Likewise, the captions seem about as innocuous as they could be, a smidgen of partisan licence granted.

However, the completely over the top reaction to the photos provides a useful lesson during Indygal's transition from blogger to MSP - the press and opponents are unforgiving and will make a meal of any foible or indiscretion, irrespective of what a more objective analysis of the facts might suggest. And perhaps Ms McLaughlin's only shame is that by the bear pit standards of modern politics her photos and comments were just a bit too anodyne.

Of course, the tragic circumstances surrounding Ms McLaughlin's elevation to MSP status will take the shine off her success at a personal level, and this subsequent baptism of fire will further dampen her elation. But this blogger wishes her every success, and with her party's U-turn on their flagship local income tax policy being perhaps the most embarrassing of a litany of abandoned promises, she and they will certainly need it!!

They're all at it?

It was interesting to note that at today's PMQs the issue of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's difficulty with her expenses wasn't raised. On the BBC's Daily Politics programme the corporation's political editor Nick Robinson speculated that the reason for this not being featured in the Commons might be that similarly dubious claims on the public purse are commonplace in political life and thus not the kind of thing that MPs of any party would want highlighted - in essence, they're all at it.

However, Mr Robinson largely dismissed this on the basis that Jacqui Smith had in fact not broken any rules, thus to that extent it wasn't worthy of raising at PMQs.

But surely that shouldn't be the last word on the issue. Parliament exists to evaluate and change the law - and indeed this is to a large extent the essence of politics - thus why shouldn't rules be worthy of debate and criticism? A case in point is the current furore over bankers and their contribution to the near-collapse of the UK banking system and the ramifications of this for the global financial crisis - the fact that the individuals being chastised over this haven't necessarily broken any rules has, rightly, not precluded extensive and excoriating debate and criticism over the issue.

Thus Nick Robinson would have been right to conclude that the silence on the Jacqui Smith issue has more to do with the extent of ethically dubious expenses claims rather than the fact that there's no illegality involved. That's not to say that all MPs are 'at it', but merely that due to it being an issue across the House MPs tend not to want to 'shop' their colleagues. Of course, it's certainly not the case that there's been a total silence from politicians on the story, but to an extent there's a cross-party cover up on such things.

Mr Robinson is right to draw attention to the grossly over the top reaction of some in the media - for example, the Daily Mail's Peter Oborne claims that a civil servant doing what Jacqui Smith is doing would be sent to jail (but paradoxically says she's doing nothing illegal) - but is wrong to effectively conclude that it's not an issue worth debating because no rules have been broken.

Politicking and the financial crisis

While not trying to absolve new Labour from blame with regard to the economic crisis or excuse Gordon Brown's less than candid or even delusional stance on this, on the other hand in broad terms I've been supportive in respect of the Government's interventionist fiscal policies and also defended the somewhat crude criticisms of the particular issue of the VAT cut. And, of course, while there are varying opinions on the nuances and efficacy of individual policies, the 'fiscal stimulus' approach has widespread support between parties and indeed throughout the world.

However, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is the latest to criticise the UK Government's VAT reduction, saying that cutting taxes has "absolutely not worked" and that "consumption continues to decrease". Of course, one problem with an analysis like this is that the official figures for such indicators aren't known until some time after the event. On the other hand, though, Mr Sarkozy is hardly sticking his neck out in this regard, and it would be very surprising indeed if consumer spending hasn't in fact continued its downward trend.

As for the specific claim about the cut in VAT not working, how precisely does he know? Was he really expecting that measure and other action to overnight take us from the edge of the economic abyss to a land of milk and honey where the past year or so would be quickly forgotten? Of course not; the recession was always going to be long and difficult, and evaluating action taken to reverse the downturn similarly demanding, particularly since to a large extent it's uncharted territory and the normal economic forecasting tools and assumptions simply can't be relied upon.

And when the upturn finally arrives, how will we know to what extent the measures taken have hastened its arrival or mitigated the depth of the recession? Or to what extent the doom-mongers have exacerbated the situation by further deterring consumer spending, thus affecting profits and ultimately costing jobs and businesses in a vicious circle of human gloom and economic depression? Well, even the economists won't agree on those questions, never mind the politicians.

(For a couple of recent articles on the limitations of economic theory and forecasting, see Anatole Kaletsky in The Times, and Sir Alan Peacock in The Scotsman.)

But on the point about doom-mongering, to what extent are the positions of politicians on these issues based on true conviction and principle, as opposed to politicking and political expediency; for example, opposition for the sake of it?

The Conservatives at the UK level have lambasted Labour's proposals on the basis they would result in a massive future overhang of public debt which would hamper the country and its taxpayers for years to come. But, writing in yesterday's Scotland on Sunday, Tory leader David Cameron waxed lyrical about the "interests of the Scottish people" and getting them the "best deal":

...town centres the length and breadth of the country will benefit from £60m worth of regeneration. 150,000 small businesses will have their local taxes cut or abolished. The elderly will get the care money they deserve. There will be more police on the streets, and bus fares will be lower.

Which basically sounds like a watered down tartan version of the kind of fiscal stimulus excoriated by Mr Cameron and the Tories nationally. Of course, the difference is presumably that at a national level the criticism is used as a stick to beat the Labour Government with, whereas at Holyrood the concessions from the SNP government were a "massive achievement" resulting from Conservative "hard work" and "shrewd and tough" negotiations.

But why didn't the Tories use their skills to make Alex Salmond's government forgo this extra spending and thus reduce the national debt - every little helps! Of course, the obvious answer to this is that the SNP would have merely spent the money on something else, but at least the Conservatives' principles would have been intact.

Which leads on nicely to more politicking, namely the last fortnight's Scottish Budget crisis, where the usual juggling of principle with political opportunism and expediency was very much on display. Thus Finance Secretary John Swinney had the Tories in the bag with a bit of mini-Keynesianism, while Labour and the Lib Dems indulged in a bit of opposition for the sake of it, presumably on the assumption that the Greens would vote with the Government and, with principles intact, it would all be quickly forgotten about and normal service resumed. Of course, the apparently shambolic nature of the engagement between the Government and the Greens meant that the latter didn't play ball when it came to the first vote, resulting in the Budget proposals being defeated.

Panic thus ensued, and Labour and the Lib Dems knew that their mix of principle and posturing had dug them into a hole of public opprobrium, thus Mr Swinney had to concede little to extricate them from it. And the Greens could thence be punished for their audacity.

Therefore the Budget mess was born of politicking and was resolved by way of political expediency, with the substantive financial position almost wholly unaffected; the disputed spending only made up something like a trifling 0.3% of the total. Thus once again a process unlikely to endear politicians to the public.

"It's the economy, stupid" - this slogan, used in Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, alluded to how important voters consider economic issues. "It's the party, stupid", is probably closer to what the politicians think.

Marketing man

Staying with the themes of David Cameron and politicking, the main thrust of his Scotland on Sunday article relates to ending what the paper calls the "cross-border war" between the SNP Government and the Labour administration in London. Mr Cameron writes:

If we win the next election at Westminster, we would govern with a maturity and a respect for the Scottish people. I would be a prime minister that would work constructively with any administration at Holyrood for the good of Scotland.

Of course, as leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party Mr Cameron will be more than aware that the SNP are committed to blow the union asunder with self-government for Scotland. Thus if Alex Salmond's administration reciprocates then this would ultimately be with a view to furthering the independence cause, therefore Mr Cameron's enthusiasm for cosying up to the SNP seems rather odd and presumably opportunist. Indeed, any nationalist welcome for a Tory government at Westminster is more likely to be predicated on the basis that it would help presage independence for Scotland rather than any great desire for an entente cordial.

Thus Mr Cameron's words seem about as plausible as his aim to end "Punch and Judy" politics and as genuine as his commitment to environmentalism, as demonstrated by cycling to work with his chauffeur following behind in a car! Of course, elsewhere in his article he restates his "vigorous opposition" to the SNP, and underlines that he would do "everything in his power" to preserve the Union, suggesting that his overtures to Mr Salmond's party are in reality likely to be rebuffed.

But, as usual, political opportunism isn't confined to Mr Cameron; in the same issue of Scotland on Sunday another story relates to a group of Labour MPs demanding the repatriation of some devolved powers from Holyrood to Westminster - would they be demanding this if Labour were in power north of the border, however unpalatable the MPs found their policies?

Who's out of touch?

It's hardly novel to hear accusations that politicians are out of touch with the real world, and this is perhaps particularly so regarding the business sector. Thus the lead story in today's Scotsman is about concerns that three of the SNP's major donors from the world of commerce have about the Scottish Government's handling of the economy and public sector. The three prominent businessmen - including Tom Farmer and Brian Souter - will apparently meet First Minister Alex Salmond to discuss these issues.

Hardly new, either, are their concerns about the planning system and its sclerotic effect on economic activity, but that they reportedly think many politicians and local authorities don't appreciate the profundity of the current economic slowdown is clearly of a different nature.

More interesting, however, is their claim that the SNP government is failing to curtail the increasing reliance of Scotland on the public sector, and particularly damaging is likely to be the accusation that Mr Salmond's administration is like Labour in "SNP clothing".

While the "Salmond three" apparently acknowledge the Scottish Government's limitations with respect to minority administration and the devolution settlement, perhaps their disappointment with regard to the lack of substantive political change demonstrates how out of touch business is with politics.

In relation to business and the economy, should the SNP really have been expected to be fundamentally different to Labour? Since the party's raison d'etre is an independent Scotland, to that extent there's nothing to prevent the SNP being a broad church in other respects. Of course, it has its socialists and "Tartan Tories", but if it's possible to categorise the party from an armchair in Dundee then it looks distinctly left-leaning on social issues (indeed, politically correct), economically redistributionist but with a business-friendly face and largely embracing the market - no one can forget Alex Salmond's slip regarding the fact that us Scots "didn't mind" the economics of Thatcherism.

Thus the party looks distinctly "third way" and to that extent perhaps nationalist social democrats, and to some degree a 'tartan new Labour', at least regarding social and economic issues. Therefore - and notwithstanding idealistic but unrealistic manifesto commitments such as the Scottish Futures Trust - should business really be too surprised about the SNP's failure to rein in the public sector? Which government doesn't promise efficiency savings and suchlike, but then fails to deliver any substantive progress? And why should business have perceived the SNP to be any different in this regard - the "bonfire of the quangos", for example, was quickly doused to a few glowing embers, with the limited progress thus far to a large extent merely window dressing by shifting staff onto the central government payroll. Plus ca change, as Bill Jamieson says in the Scotsman, and he sums up the current situation and future prospects in the following terms:

As for Holyrood, its concerns remain bleakly those of a parliament for the public sector, not for the nation. Outside of this world, there is a widespread sense that government in Scotland is far too big. Indeed, it seems the only growth industry we have left. But relying on an ever-expanding public sector for recovery as the enterprise sector buckles and tax revenues plunge is to place Scotland on an utterly unsustainable path.

Corruption and cronyism are also an integral part of politics and the public sector and this, of course, is well documented. However, in this regard and with respect to business being out of touch with politics, a couple of recent newspaper pieces brought these two issues into focus. First, news that a Holyrood employee would receive £270,000 as part of a redundancy plan that the official herself was involved in drawing up.

At the same time an article by Next chief executive Simon Wolfson rightly lamented the "arcane working practices", stifling bureaucracy and waste in the public services, and called for more "latitude for managers". However, to illustrate the point he said:

Let me give you one small example of the sort of change that could easily be made. Currently all public sector vacancies must be advertised externally and candidates interviewed even if the post can be filled successfully internally - often by someone who has been doing the job well while the post has been empty. This is money poured down the drain. Not only is the cost of advertising high, the process of phoney interviews along with all the paperwork wastes hours of time. We should leave it to managers to decide whether to advertise a vacancy rather than making it an article of management dogma.

Of course, there is some merit in his suggestion, but on the other hand this looks like a licence for cronyism - perhaps the "phoney interviews" are unnecessary if someone has effectively been selected for the post on merit, but what if the job is going to a friend, relative or party political associate?

Yes, in some respects more 'management latitude' is desirable, but not too much! A few days ago I repeated Lord Acton's famous dictum: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In a more contemporary and prosaic manner the constant need to keep politicians and officialdom in check was ably demonstrated by Stephen Glenn's recent compendium of (George Dubbya) Bushisms, one of which is:

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

Eh?

Vocabulary irrelevant

Regarding the Carol Thatcher 'golliwog' row, the Scotsman quotes PR guru Mark Borkowski as condemning her use of the word as "unacceptable" and saying:

Anyone that has the word golliwog in their vocabulary doesn't need to be on the BBC.

Eh? The word is clearly in Mr Borkowski's vocabulary, but that per se doesn't tell us much.


Inflated incredulity

Prominent Labour blogger Tom Harris, referring to shadow chancellor George Osborne's proposals to control house prices, asks what Margaret Thatcher would think of this kind of market interference.

Eh? One of the totems of Thatcherism was control of inflation, which is currently addressed mainly be monetary policy/interest rates. A major criticism of current targeting is that the Bank of England's remit only covers retail/consumer price inflation, and not broader measures such as asset price inflation, particularly house prices. Indeed, the consequent house price bubble and subsequent bursting has been an integral part of the environment leading to the current recession. Thus is it really so far-fetched and un-Thatcherite to propose controlling house price inflation?


MI5 stole Glenrothes electoral register?

A Welsh nationalist blogger - under the headline "Progress towards a totalitarian state - files proved that MI5 spied on SNP" juxtaposes an old story about the secret services spying on the SNP in the 1950s with remarks about the current stushie regarding the missing electoral register used in the Glenrothes by-election.

Eh? A casual reader might be forgiven for thinking that MI5 and Special Branch have been involved in appropriating the by-election records - for example, there's no indication on the blog that the spying story relates to around half a century ago!

Littered with excuses

A recent letter in the Scotsman suggests that significantly more litter bins are required before effective action is taken against litterers. But it's probable that most people still manage to dispose of their litter responsibly despite a bin not being immediately to hand - indeed, that was probably the norm a generation ago - therefore it's surely pandering to litterers to use a lack of receptacles as any kind of excuse.

In any case, much litter is deposited in areas where bins are readily to hand, thus to that extent there is no excuse for the authorities not to take effective enforcement action.

The problem is merely another manifestation of the lack of rules and boundaries in society, and the belated and tokenistic response of the authorities is typically ineffectual - handing out tickets to a handful of easy targets once in a blue moon accompanied by a self-congratulatory press release about a 'crackdown' only adequately addresses the issue from the perspective of the delusional or dishonest.

(The letter referred to above was in response to my own correspondence in the Scotsman. A version of the above was sent to the newspaper but was not published.)

Obama administration corrupt?

Emm...not really. But given some of the comments posted on the internet over the lost Glenrothes by-election register, this blog headline is probably something like the equivalent which might be expected on the news that two of President Obama's appointees to his administration have had to withdraw because of unpaid tax.

Of course, there are question marks over things like the significantly increased postal vote in Glenrothes. But apart from the fact that the electoral register - used to mark who has voted - has gone astray (which in itself tells us nothing) the only other evidence of wrongdoing that the conspiracy theorists have adduced seems to be little more than the fact that the by-election result was a surprise, but that elections can produce surprises should hardly be..er..surprising.

Indeed, the equivalent contrary argument might be that Peter Grant's Fife Council and Kenny MacAskill's justice department managed to conspire between them to lose the register in order to cast doubt over the result and imply that Labour won because of corrupt practices. Of course, all that is nonsense, but the strategy of some people seems to be to throw enough mud in the hope that some of it sticks. At least the official response from the SNP seems more measured.

Thus until the investigation into the lost register is complete then surely more circumspection and less baseless speculation is in order.

Oh, and Barack Obama has responded to his difficulties by saying, "I screwed up", that it was "an embarrassment for us", and he was "frustrated" with himself.

If our Labour and SNP governments could similarly admit that they're fallible - and that they could learn from their mistakes - then they might garner more public respect.

Nemesis, Glenrothes-style

The Fife town of Glenrothes was recently awarded the "Plook on the Plinth" in Scotland's annual 'carbuncle' awards, with architectural judges slamming its "depressing and investment-starved town centre". Cue the predictable responses from local politicians: "Doing Glenrothes down", etc. However, a letter in yesterday's Courier took a different tack:

Pardon me for not feeling a shred of sympathy if the place is becoming run down and lacking investment. A few short months ago the people of the town had the chance, in a democratic way, to at least indicate their dissatisfaction at the result of 12 years of new or was it hard Labour. As the majority voted instead for the status quo it seems to me they have the town centre they deserve.

The writer, of course, alludes to last year's Glenrothes by-election, which Labour snatched from the jaws of a widely-predicted SNP victory.

Vindictiveness is an unattractive but hardly exceptional human trait, and it's thus unsurprising that it features in the arena of politics. However, whatever people may think in private, saying it in public seems altogether different - the letter-writer's message seems to be, "You didn't vote SNP, so you get what you deserve."

Of course, it's ironic that Peter Grant, the SNP's defeated by-election candidate, is leader of Fife Council and thus surely has not a little clout as regards Glenrothes and its future. Indeed, responding to the award Cllr Grant said:

Almost everywhere you go in the town you have green open spaces within a few yards. This is due to the vision of those who created Glenrothes more than 60 years ago. Glenrothes is a great place to live and work.

Mr Grant's wife and fellow councillor Fiona Grant said:

We have a great community spirit in Glenrothes - perhaps those who give out such awards should look beyond the façade. Carbuncle? We are in fact a shining light to show how good new towns should be!

Thus the disappointment of the by-election result has clearly not resulted in Mr Grant blaming previous administrations for the town's perceived shortcomings, and nor has he demonstrated the Schadenfreude of the Courier's correspondent.

Meanwhile, today the newspaper reports that the electoral register used in the by-election has gone astray, thwarting SNP attempts to inspect the official record of those who voted.

I smell a conspiracy. Or accusations, at least!

Theory meets reality meets bureaucracy

Last month this blog highlighted an article by Times columnist Libby Purves about late night policing in Ipswich and pointed out the lack of formal sanctions she saw being used while spending a shift with officers dealing mainly with pub and club goers. In particular, the following passage demonstrated the light touch policing method employed:

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.

I then asked whether this did in fact 'work', and questioned if merely managing or containing drunken and disorderly behaviour was preferable to a more comprehensive solution.

Another Times article a few days later by Anjana Ahuja outlined evidence from experiments which help confirm the 'broken windows' theory - that tolerating minor wrongdoing results in more serious crime and disorder. One of the experiments conducted was outlined thus:

Dr Keizer's team left an envelope hanging out of a postbox; the stamped and addressed envelope had a window through which could clearly be seen a five-euro note. How would passers-by, or those posting a letter, react when they saw it? The vast majority (87 per cent) either left it alone, or pushed it into the postbox. Only 13 per cent took it away (this was regarded as stealing).

But roughing up the environment had a dramatic effect. When the postbox was tagged with graffiti, 27 per cent of people stole the letter. When the postbox was surrounded by rubbish (but not graffitied), 25 per cent pocketed the cash.

The academics, who reported their startling results last month in Science, suggest that disorder does indeed beget disorder; when one social or legal norm is obviously violated, we are tempted to loosen our grip on others.

The broken windows theory forms the basis for zero tolerance policing. But, as the experience of policing in Ipswich demonstrates, the reality on the ground is arguably nearer to zero enforcement than the more robust approach required by the science, which in turn perhaps provides some insight into why the UK has such a self-evident law and order problem.

Another important facet of this debate is how out of touch the powers that be - desk-bound senior police officers, politicians, councillors and public servants - can be with what happens at the sharp end of policing, and the implications this has for policy-making. Yet another recent Times article provides some evidence relating to this. In a piece about drugs legislation and enforcement, Andy Hayman, an ex-assistant commissioner at Scotland Yard, argues that the reclassification of cannabis and ecstasy will make little difference to policing on the ground. In relation to the bureaucracy he says:

I used to serve on the [Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs] in my capacity as the leading police officer on drugs policy. By the end of my stint I felt that its detachment from grassroots reality had eroded its credibility. Its purpose seemed to be to generate endless rounds of meetings and glossy reports to send to ministers.

Up to 70 members - made up of representatives from all sorts of government and voluntary bodies - attended the unwieldy full meetings, which were supported by a plethora of smaller working groups and sub-committees. I was always struck by how the experience of those living in the thick of the drugs problem got lost among the grey suits having highbrow technical and medical discussions.

As regards enforcement and prosecution:

The council would be horrified to learn that its recommendations on drugs classification are not taken seriously. But that is the case. The public either don't understand the process or are not interested in it. For the police, the advisory council is a sideshow; officers prefer to apply their professional discretion on whether to caution or arrest suspects.

Put bluntly, how a drug is classified doesn't help police officers in their day-to-day duties. The first thought of an officer confronted by a user of an illegal drug is to weigh up whether the possession warrants anything more than a caution. To make an arrest and charge doesn't guarantee a prosecution so it may be simpler to deal with it on the street. That decision is made regardless of the classification of the drug involved.

For the courts, categorising a drug does help to provide a tariff for punishment. But even that idea has become dated as the Crown Prosecution Service now tends to apply its own prosecution guidelines. In practice, the classification of a drug does not significantly change how the courts or police deal with drug offenders.

Of course, these examples are a mere microcosm of the bigger problem, but extrapolate them to policing and crime generally - not to mention the even bigger picture of government and the public services - and the implications are surely self-evident.

Whither the promised land?

In his final speech Martin Luther King famously said: "I've been to the mountaintop...and I've seen the promised land." Alex Salmond uses similar topographical imagery to describe the road to independence for Scotland; the SNP must "keep its eyes on the summit"...lest it risk sliding down the hill. Mr Salmond's words are quoted today by Scotland on Sunday columnist Kenny Farquharson, who ponders whether the SNP will abandon its opposition to the Calman Commission in an attempt to secure Lib Dem support for its stalled Budget.

Last week the Lib Dems, demanding a two pence cut in the rate of income tax, joined with the Labour and Green parties to defeat the SNP's £33 billion Budget, a move that a Sunday Times poll suggests the public view as political self-indulgence. Of course, the parties had moved quickly to negotiate some kind of compromise, clearly aware that voters would be unimpressed by partisan posturing, and particularly so at a time of great economic uncertainty.

The Lib Dems' olive branch was an ostensibly straightforward requirement for the SNP to campaign for Scottish Government borrowing powers, which seemed about as difficult as asking a child to write a letter to Santa. However, the fly in the ointment for the SNP seems to be that the Lib Dems want this engagement to be via the Calman Commission, which the opposition parties set up to consider reform of the current devolution settlement. But the nationalists have viewed the commission with contempt, deeming it a unionist ploy to block the road to Scottish independence, particularly since its remit did not include consideration of the SNP's raison d'etre.

Thus the SNP's dilemma, but Mr Farquharson points to the party's often contradictory position on its road to independence - it enthusiastically endorsed devolution, for example, while prior to that its failure to engage with the Scottish Constitutional Convention split the party and perhaps cost it leverage regarding the country's future path - but he welcomes the prospect of engagement with Calman, "if the SNP is genuinely interested in advancing Scotland's cause, and not simply in advancing party advantage".

Of course, such a move is likely to alienate nationalist fundamentalists, who adhere to Mr Salmond's concentration on the 'summit' of independence. On the other hand, the gradualist perspective might view Scottish borrowing powers as paving the way to full autonomy and the 'promised land'.

However, the problem with all this is that the Calman Commission - and to that extent Westminster - seems unlikely to agree to Scottish borrowing powers anyway, having already set its store against full fiscal autonomy; the unionist view is that this would similarly represent another increment in independence 'creep'.

Thus to that extent any SNP shift on Calman would be largely symbolic, and therefore merely another facet in the perpetual cycle of political posturing. The Lib Dems' two pence tax cut proposal was always a non-starter, and needing to extricate themselves from a hole the party wants the SNP to jettison the anti-Calman totem, which was in turn born of symbolism - a couple of weeks ago, for example, Finance Secretary John Swinney used a Scotsman article to call for Scottish Government borrowing powers (although this apparent conflict with the lack of engagement with Calman was perhaps necessitated by the need to detract attention from the failure of the Scottish Futures Trust to fund the new Forth crossing).

Of course, since the Lib Dems will be keen to dig themselves out of their hole it's entirely possible that they will settle for something short of SNP engagement with the Calman bete noire. On the other hand, if the Lib Dems dig their heels in political chutzpah and a relatively united and adulatory SNP means that Mr Salmond could no doubt easily sell a second-hand Calman to his party, and spin this move to the electorate as an exercise in cross-border/party diplomacy.

Either way, the result would be more symbolic than substance, but it would at least secure passage of the Budget bill, and to that extent placate public opinion. But it is unlikely to influence the path to the promised land a great deal, and will do little to bring forward the day when nationalists can say: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank Alex Almighty, we are free at last!".

More pertinent in this regard is probably the Sunday Times poll, which reveals that support for independence has eased to less than 30 per cent. An independence referendum next year? The flip-flopping required to get out of that one will make the current political fix seem like a stroll in the park.