We'll keep the Union flag flying here!

Eyebrows were raised in Dundee recently when the support of Lord Provost John Letford allowed the SNP to form their first Dundee council administration, ending years of Labour-led dominance of municipal politics - not only was Mr Letford a long-standing Labour councillor, but he is also a staunch Unionist.

Of course, flags and emblems play an important part in Scottish politics, and it's notable that the Union flag will remain flying over City Chambers, and this was underlined at this week's first full council meeting under the new administration.

This seems inconsistent with Dundee's increasing reputation as a haven of nationalist political purity, but the paradox is easily explained by the SNP's reliance on the lord provost's support to propel them into office. The Courier reports Mr Letford as saying: "There will be no change in the Union flag as long as I am lord provost. If the Union flag goes, then this lord provost goes."

Which raises a couple of interesting questions. First, could the SNP administration dump the Union flag without requiring the support of the lord provost? If not, then Mr Letford's statement is pure bluff and bluster.

If, however, the SNP could dispense with the Union flag then assuming Mr Letford was true to his word his resignation would trigger a by-election in Dundee's Lochee ward, and it's likely that the nationalists would walk it - the late-2007 Lochee contest brought about by Nigel Don's resignation as a councillor and controversial flit to Aberdeen to concentrate on his regional MSP role was won comfortably by the SNP candidate, and there's little to suggest that the result would be any different in any future vote.

Thus could the SNP administration get rid of the Union flag and the lord provost in one fell swoop, and consequently control the city without having to rely on the ex-Labour doyen? That would certainly be popular in many quarters, given that Mr Letford alienated the previous Labour/Lib Dem/Tory alliance by jumping ship in favour of the nationalists, and his perceived lack of principle on this has also made him an unpopular figure with many members of the public. And, of course, the SNP and its supporters would no doubt revel in such a scenario.

Meanwhile, an awkward issue of protocol was also resolved at this week's council meeting - the SNP while in opposition had refused to follow other councillors and stand when the lord provost and civic mace entered chambers, claiming that this was an "outmoded piece of ceremony with no place in a modern system".

So would SNP councillors now stand, and would the lord provost's erstwhile colleagues perhaps remain seated when Mr Letford and the mace entered chambers?

A major political incident was averted, however, by the simple expedient of having the lord provost and mace in place before proceedings began. Spoilsports!

But the opposition parties complained that the change in protocol prevented them showing, ahem, "proper respect" for the office of lord provost.

Aye, right!

We're all doomed?

Well if the possible swine flu pandemic doesn't get us then of course we're already at the mercy of the worse economic conditions since the inappropriately named Great Depression of the 1930s. And the recent Budget underlined that we're in danger of drowning in a sea of debt which could take a generation to get under control.

Thus amidst all the economic doom and gloom in the press it's perhaps appropriate to look for some evidence of a more positive scenario for our country.

I've already argued in favour of reflating the economy by way of a fiscal stimulus of tax cuts and increased public spending, and Times economic guru Anatole Kaletsky recently posited why the county couldn't be left to the Austrian school of economics' so-called "market solution" of recessions as a "painful but necessary process by which the market liquidates unsound investments and re-establishes the investment and production structure that best satisfies consumer preferences and demands", or the similar libertarian market fundamentalism thesis - in simple terms, allowing the economy to go 'cold turkey'. Mr Kaletsky outlines two primary arguments against this approach, one based in economics, while the other is premised on politics:

The first is fiscal accounting. A collapse in economic activity devastates public finances, as we are seeing in Britain today. And once a nation gets into deep deficit, the only way to reduce deficits is to restore economic growth.

Even the most dogmatic theoretical proponents of Austrian economics, once they are put in the practical position of managing public finances, realise that cutting public spending or raising taxes during a recession will dig the public finances into an even deeper hole.

The second and much more important reason why austerity economics has never been tried in practice — at least since the 1930s — is politics.

In democracies, preserving living standards and jobs, protecting savings and keeping people in their houses, take a much higher priority than abstract Austrian arguments against preserving the Austrians’ “unsound production structures” or the burdens of debt on future generations.

Politically, therefore, Ayn Rand’s idea of a capitalist economy run on strict free-market principles, with painful recessions allowed to run their course in order to liquidate the excesses of the borrowing booms, is pure self-delusion. Capitalism and private property would be swept away politically long before “liquidationist” economic theories could ever be put into practice.

Of course, right-leaning commentators have been concentrating on the levels of public borrowing which will be entailed by the Keynesian approach (while ignoring what would happen to the level of national indebtedness that could result if a more laissez faire approach was adopted and the length and depth of the recession thus exacerbated), and the debt figures unveiled in the Budget have afforded greater credence to this approach. However, Mr Kaletsky more recently pointed out that:

All the dire-sounding predictions of national bankruptcy seemed irrelevant to the point of absurdity for several reasons.

First, it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to borrow 10 or 12 per cent of GDP if private businesses and households are paying back their debts at a similar rate.

Second, there is no reason to believe that a rise in national debt to 80 per cent or even 100 per cent of GDP would create any serious economic problems or would, in itself, lead to high interest rates or a collapsing pound — Japan has had the world’s lowest interest rates and strongest currency with double that level of public debt.

Third, and most important, the horrendous fiscal predictions produced by the Treasury last week are all based on completely meaningless economic forecasts that are certain to be overturned by events in the years ahead. If the economy recovers fairly rapidly, as the Treasury is expecting, experience suggests that the fiscal numbers will end up being far better than any forecaster now dares to imagine.

Of course, Mr Kaletsky points out that if the economy stays paralysed by recession then savage cuts in welfare spending - benefits, pensions and health - would be required to bring public borrowing under control, in effect killing the welfare state, and it remains to be seen how indeed this economic doomsday scenario might be facilitated by the pessimism propagated by anti-Labour politicians and commentators in what could arguably be viewed as a scorched earth approach that could see the demise of progressive and redistributionist governments for perhaps a generation.

In that vein it's perhaps worth recalling that it's unlikely a Conservative government could have avoided the burst of the asset price bubble, subsequent credit crunch and consequent recession - remember that David Cameron apologised for the Tories' part in the "cosy economic consensus" which created the conditions for the banking crisis - thus it's a bit rich of shadow chancellor George Osborne to now say that his party's plans for public spending restraint would represent Labour rather than Tory cuts and "it is the Labour Government that has left the country in this situation".

But for the country as a whole - as opposed to comfortably-off ideologues - and ignoring the party politics and future austerity, we can only hope that the slightly more optimistic outlook on display in a pre-Budget Times leader presents a more realistic picture than the post-Budget doom mongers:

The global economy is far from reaching the sunlit uplands, but the Depression-era dustbowl is receding from view. This week we have seen the first signs that, regarding the financial crisis at least, the worst is over. There are many long months of rising unemployment, depressed consumer demand and crimped business confidence ahead. But it is clear that Britain is not heading for a repeat of the 1930s. [...]

...the economic prospect is no longer bleak. Market economies are resilient and policymakers have tools to stabilise them. The recession is a tremendous dislocation, and is causing much hardship. But the spring will come.

Steady as she goes...while sinking in a sea of debt

So nothing particularly exciting in the Budget then. As usual, lots of tinkering; a tax rise here, more spending there, and vice versa. But nothing too dramatic. Indeed, this was pretty predictable - with the economy still teetering on the brink the chancellor was unlikely to risk contractionary substantial tax rises or spending cuts which could deepen the recession and delay the recovery, while the jittery gilts market and the governor of the Bank of England's recent warning about debt levels meant that a further significant fiscal stimulus was equally implausible.

Of course, the one caveat to the above is the significant tax rise for those earning over £150,000 per annum. On the other hand, in terms of the Government's fiscal position the revenue this will raise is not particularly significant, thus leading to accusations that the move is largely politically motivated, and that it heralds the end of new Labour being unconcerned about people getting "filthy rich" and a return to a socialist "squeeze the rich until their pips squeak" ethos.

Equally predictable was the political nature of the opposition to the Budget, with the Daily Telegraph's Simon Heffer characterising Alastair Darling's speech as demonstrating "idiocy, bigotry, tribalism and sheer class hatred". Of course, there are legitimate questions to be asked about matters like the rather optimistic looking nature of the chancellor's economic growth forecasts, the estimates of consequent public borrowing levels and the possible anti-entrepreneurial effects of the tax squeeze on the wealthy, but to describe the Budget as a "savage and pointless attack on Middle England" - presumably based on a measure which will affect only the one or two per cent of the country's highest earners - seems rather hysterical and overdone.

Of more concern is the huge magnitude of pubic debt which will be accumulated over the next few years, even assuming the most optimistic forecasts for economic growth. The austerity of the public spending restraint and tax rises that will be required to get this debt under control is underlined in this morning's Independent, which reports on Institute for Fiscal Studies figures claiming the hole in the nation's coffers will take a generation to fill.

Compared to the people who have lost jobs, businesses and homes as a consequence of the recession, not to mention the pain that all of us will experience for decades to get public borrowing under control, it's difficult to feel sympathy for those currently earning more than £150,000 a year and being asked to contribute more in tax.

Oh to have that problem!

Pointless municipal politics

It was noticeable that despite the dozens of articles and letters in the Dundee press recently regarding who should run Dundee City Council there was barely a mention of specific proposals and policies. Instead, the debate was essentially about which councillor should have which particular position of authority, which party tribe should control the council, and also disputes over who said what and when in relation to the horse trading regarding who should be in power.

This was hardly surprising, however, given how easily the supposedly disparate ideologies of Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems managed to gel together to run the city over the past half dozen years. The paucity of opposition from the SNP over that period also calls into question the purpose of political parties in local government.

Even when disputes have arisen the opposition has generally amounted to little more than vacuous posturing, ably demonstrated by the reaction to the recent critical report by the Scottish Housing Regulator - a few days huffing and puffing was quickly dissipated with some predictable government-speak from officialdom.

Likewise, the new SNP administration's statements regarding its future plans contains little more than some vague aspirations that no party could really disagree with, together with ultimately meaningless pledges about doing things better. Indeed, the nearest thing to anything concrete seems to be hopes that more taxpayers’ money will be thrown at Dundee from Holyrood because of the SNP’s increasing political dominance in the city, but this is often characterised as ‘bribing voters’ or ‘pork barrel politics’ in other contexts.

Of course, the SNP will make some changes - and indeed may do things better than the previous administration - but this new broom seems unlikely to change the fabric of Dundee.

Which begs the question, what’s the point of party politics in local government?

(An abridged version of this was published as a letter in the Evening Telegraph)

Charter for law breakers?

A bizarre story on the BBC News website recently:

A police force has denied its officers hid behind trees during an operation to catch drug dealers in cars.

The denial comes after photographs of officers from Central Scotland Police emerged during an operation on the A91 in Clackmannanshire last weekend.

One of the pictures shows an officer partially concealed by a tree at the roadside as drivers pass.

Under current guidelines officers are required to alert drivers to their position during operations against drug dealers.
.
The pictures, taken by a local photographer, detail an operation in the village of Dollar last Saturday.

In some of the images officers can be seen standing near passing vehicles.

However, other pictures show them partly obscured by trees and one appears to show an officer who is completely hidden from view.

Enforcement tactics
Insp Graeme Allan, of the force's drugs unit, insisted the photographs did not give a driver's perspective of the officers immediately before and after enforcement measures were carried out.

He said officers would have been visible to drivers and that the local community had urged police action after complaints about drug dealing in the area.

He added: "At no time would I support any police officer hiding behind a tree or concealed area but in this instance, the officers were visible to drivers."

Peter Rodger, chief executive of the Scottish Civil Liberties Association, said the issue of whether drug squad officers were visible or not had led to mistrust of some enforcement tactics.

He said: "It's good to see police officers on the streets dealing with offenders - but if they are not visible, they are not being as effective at preventing the drug dealing in the first place.

"Enforcement should be about preventing people dealing drugs.

"While I can understand the frustration of officers trying to enforce it, hiding in order to catch them leads many people to mistrust the enforcement process."



Actually, the story was about speeding motorists, but references to this have been changed to drug dealers.

So that's OK then!

Who's "silly" and "stupid"?

During a discussion about enhancing Scotland's financial powers on the BBC's weekend coverage of the SNP's spring conference, MEP Alyn Smith said the economic problems being suffered by 'arc of prosperity' member Iceland were due to its banks being "allowed to make a number of silly decision, like they were under the UK management" and that such small countries could "take decisions faster and reorientate their economy quickly". Another interviewee stated that the SNP wouldn't have been so stupid to allow the domestic banks to take the ultimately reckless business decisions that they did.

Leaving aside the fact that these statements seem a tad uncomplimentary regarding the abilities of both the UK and Icelandic nations (unwittingly, presumably, in the case of Iceland) and thus the latter's ability to "quickly reorientate" bringing to mind headless chickens and bulls in china shops, it's worth recalling a couple of statements made by Alex Salmond in the last year or two regarding Scotland's financial sector:

We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in ‘gold-plated’ regulation. (April 2007)

Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term. (March 2008)

Well it's maybe not very nice to call people "silly" and "stupid", but if that's a plausible characterisation of the Labour Government's contribution to the financial mis-regulation and consequent banking collapses, then in view of the quotes above what does this say about Alex Salmond?

"We've got what it takes"? Perhaps an independent Scotland could have weathered the global financial storm better than other countries and indeed in a superior manner to the UK, but surely "we" can't be referring to Alex Salmond and the SNP, irrespective of the former's reputation for self-regard.

Forced consensus, at best!

While it's difficult to think of how devolution has fundamentally changed Scotland - apart, of course, from providing us with the dubious benefit of an extravagantly-priced and bureaucratically-bloated parliament, not to mention another layer of self-serving politicians - on the other hand it's hardly unusual to read a tartan-tinted appraisal of the project.

So reads Iain Macwhirter's column in this morning's Herald, but more surprising is his rather optimistic take on an apparently new found consensus in Scottish politics:

I had to pinch myself when Alex Salmond, addressing his party conference at the weekend, called for all parties in Scotland to "pull together". He insisted that "the SNP is not the anti-Labour party" and that he was "proud to lead a government that was open to the ideas of other parties". Forget Damascus: the road to Holyrood has brought about a transformation in Scottish political attitudes which is miraculous. No longer is independence the panacea, the solution to all ills. [...]

It is to Alex Salmond's great credit that he realised, before the rest of us, that minority government could not only be as stable as a formal coalition, but could also allow greater flexibility and reduce political sectarianism. [...]

Scotland has been transformed from a country of frustration and resentment and almost tribal political rivalries into a nation that knows what it is and knows where it is going - and doesn't just girn impotently at England when things go wrong.

It's certainly the case that Mr Salmond's weekend remarks seem uncharacteristically touchy-feely regarding his political foes, but it seems bizarre to recast Scottish politics on the basis of a few words in a set piece conference speech which seemed as plausible as David Cameron's pledge to end "Punch and Judy politics" or Gordon Brown's promise of a new direction on taking office as prime minister.

The reality is that there is surely little in the way of a political consensus in Scottish politics. If the parties agree on anything then it's surely born of the necessity of minority government at Holyrood rather than anything more fundamental. And, as the budget debacle earlier this year demonstrated, none of the parties would relish an early visit to the polls, primarily for their own reasons rather than anything more public-spirited.

Indeed, perhaps Mr Salmond's olive branch is part of a strategy merely to ensure that some kind of meaningful legislation is passed before the next election.

But what seems more likely than a bout of bonhomie and backslapping at the next FMQs is that normal service will be resumed.

Meanwhile, Mr Macwhirter ejac...er...blogs that the SNP shouldn't expect Scotland to be treated more favourably as compared to the rest of the UK in relation to the spending cuts required to pay back the public borrowing built up during the recession.

However, Mr Macwhirter also advocates Scotland having control of its own finances, including borrowing powers. But if the UK requires an "austerity programme" to reduce public debt - which is projected to take many years - could an independent Scotland meaningfully utilise borrowing powers in the foreseeable future? Presumably we would assume a pro rata share of UK debt with fiscal autonomy and thus be required to reduce rather than increase public borrowing.

Trial by numpties

With recent high-brow debate in The Herald about the efficacy of jury trials, and a typically learned response from Lallands Peat Worrier, today's Courier perhaps provides some insight into the reality - as opposed to the idealism - of jury trials. A sheriff abandoned a serious assault trial in Dundee due to the "apparently flippant attitude" of some members of the jury:

The sheriff came on the bench, while the jury were still in their room, and told depute fiscal Vicky Bell and defence solicitor John Hall that, before they said anything about the matter, he would like to point out he had not been happy with the attitude of the jury from the outset.

For example he said one member who had received a parking ticket on Thursday had been overheard to say to other members that he had put a ticket on his car yesterday which lasted until 1pm, explaining that “he would not be here long today anyway.”

“I am now told that some of the jury had left their room to go outside to smoke, despite being told specifically not to. [...]

At this point, a door was heard to slam at the rear of the courtroom. A police officer investigated and told the sheriff that another four members of the jury were back outside smoking. [...]

The sheriff ordered the jury to be brought back into court, and as they did so some jurors were giggling.

In view of the recent case of an alleged rape victim who was locked up after breaking down in the witness box, aren't the errant Dundee jury members lucky not to have been subject to contempt of court proceedings?

Ill-informed MSM

In view of a recent claim about how ill-informed us bloggers are, there follows a recent example of an ostensibly ill-informed item in the MSM, which won't bring down the creaking edifice of the dead-tree press, but which perhaps provides a minor example of why bloggers blog.

In a recent Scotsman column (Platform, 10 April) Lori Anderson's, er, ejaculated solution to the problem of women's safety in relation to late-night taxis - more female drivers and women-only cab firms, which are "proving popular" in England - seemed slightly wide of the mark.

Indeed, taxi firms of this type have been tried occasionally all over the UK, but have usually turned out to be commercial flops. The most prominent of these - a franchise called Pink Ladies - has similarly proved unviable in many locations, and where it has survived this has to a large extent depended on the vehicle and drivers exploiting a legal loophole to operate without being officially licensed, which seems ironic given that the business and women's safety charity The Suzy Lamplugh Trust justified the concept on the basis of the dangers of unlicensed minicabs. The Department for Transport has since moved to close this loophole.

The Pink Ladies have also been widely associated with that sometime alcoholic and drug addict Kerry Katona, who seems an unlikely role model for the Girl Guides who initiated the current debate.

Also, it would be interesting to know under what circumstances the under-18s highlighted by Girl Guiding Scotland come into contact with "rowdy, drunken males while making their way home".

For example, I understand that in Dundee the under-18 slots provided by nightclubs close before the premises are given over to adults, thus before the real rowdiness and drunkenness begins and when there's a surfeit of taxis available.

(An abridged version of this - they missed out the bit about Ms Katona - was published as a letter in yesterday's Scotsman. Note also that the word 'ejaculated' wasn't in the draft sent to the newspaper!)

The disease of empty words

With all newspapers available online these days there's a surfeit of reading available, and, of course, no one can wade through them all. One advantage of the blogosphere is that contributors often comment on press articles, sometimes accompanied by a brief (or not so brief!) quote, thus readers can use the relevant link to view the whole article if the extract and commentary has whetted their appetite, or they might consider the extract and commentary an adequate summary and thus do not need to waste time reading the original source in its entirety.

A good recent example of an article I read and considered that others might be interested in was about Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust - the one responsible for the "shocking and appalling" care of patients and which may have been responsible for 400 deaths as a result of poor care, according to The Healthcare Commission, the NHS standards watchdog - and its use of jargon and gobbledegook. Columnist Melanie Reid wrote:

If managers had spent less time on “a programme of agreed audit activity which facilitates a review of existing controls and recommends appropriate remedial action or systems redesign”, patients might not have had to drink out of flower vases.

In September 2007, Mid Staffordshire sighed: “Turning the theory of patient and public partnership into reality where users of the service become integral to its development is a real challenge.” You bet it is, because the public don't speak gobbledegook. And they see that the job of a hospital trust is not to produce impenetrable words, but - radical idea, this - a bed, clean sheets and treatment.

A short article - if not quite a mere "ejaculation" - but worth a read nevertheless.

Blogging and the communications Reformation

Despite posting several follow ups to his diatribe against bloggers, it's still not entirely clear what Iain Macwhirter hoped to achieve with his article in The Herald; indeed, no more clear than precisely what rational benefit Damian McBride and Derek Draper had hoped to achieve if their intended smear-blog had come to fruition.

Mr Macwhirter characterised the political blogosphere as "scum", "nasty" and populated by "sociopathic egos with extreme views". Yet ironically he now castigates the medium because "the most effective way to get noticed is to go ad hominem". Of course, it seems that his own ad hominem attack on the collective blogosphere was intended as a ruse to prove his point about its personal and confrontational nature. If so then why not try to tease out specific bloggers rather than excoriate the whole blogosphere? And in fact the reaction to his article arguably disproves Mr Macwhirter's thesis, because the responses have generally been a lot more measured and less ad hominem than his own article.

This episode also demonstrates one of the advantages of the internet - the ability to comment on and even interact with members of the established commentariat like Mr Macwhirter, rather than (very probably) wasting time composing a letter to the relevant newspaper. Indeed, the unwillingness of people like Mr Macwhirter to meaningfully engage in any post-publication dialogue with respondees probably partly explains the rise of the blogosphere - you can usually conduct some kind of discussion with a blogger subsequent to their post rather than just be ignored.

Of course, Mr Macwhirter is right that such dialogue is often spoilt by the nastier members of the blogosphere, but there are numerous levels of moderation available if necessary. And it's ironic that while he lauds the standards of The Herald compared to the "scum" of the blogosphere, it should be recalled that that newspaper indulged the internet's nasty sociopaths for years on its website.

Anyway, for a slightly more discriminating and indeed compelling (if overdone) view on the dangers of the seedier site of the blogosphere see this article in the Daily Mail by Stephen Glover, while at ConservativeHome Tim Montgomerie outlines some of the medium's advantages, as does Stephen Glenn in a (slightly sugary!) Scottish context.

Instrumental to the success of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation was the advent of the printing press. The Bible and other religious writings had hitherto been in Latin Vulgate and this meant that the Word of God was effectively the preserve of the clergy and the educated, thus the uneducated masses were dependent on the hierarchy of the Catholic Church for their religion. The printing press facilitated the mass publication of religious writings in vernacular languages, thus providing more 'direct access' to God and demystifying the Bible, which in turn partly obviated the need for the Catholic clergy, for the new Protestants at least.

By the same token, the internet provides the masses with a cheap and accessible communications tool which helps promote democracy and free speech, and makes the public less dependent on politicians and the mainstream commentariat. Perhaps that's why people like Hazel Blears and Iain Macwhirter feel threatened by the blogosphere.

Local government by officialdom?

(Recently published as a letter in The Courier)

Following the sentencing of Robert Cunningham for the killing of Brandon Muir, reports in the media stated that both the toddler’s father and grandparents think Dundee City Council’s social work department should take some of the blame for the tragedy.

Of course, it is right that people more detached from the case should be charged with apportioning blame.

So this perhaps underlines the naivety of comments by Dundee Councillor Jim Barrie, who, immediately after Cunningham was found guilty, said that he had always been “impressed” and “more than happy” with the performance of Dundee’s social work team, who he said do a “really good job”.

Kathleen Marshall, Scotland’s Children’s Commissioner, was right to say that it is “too easy to heap blame on social workers” over Brandon’s death.

But it is another matter entirely to rush to judgment and effectively absolve them of any blame prior to a proper examination of what took place.

Mr Barrie made his remarks while in opposition, but with Dundee City Council’s change of administration the councillor has since been elevated to the position of social work convener.

Thus, it is presumably safe to assume that he will now be even less likely to proffer any criticism of the department that he oversees, perhaps underlining the impression of municipal administration by unelected officials, with notions of democratic accountability absent, at least as regards the input of elected politicians.

The irony of Iain MacWhirter

There seems little point in adding much to McDrapergate (OK, I made it up!), but what were they thinking? Even if the planned website had come to fruition, would its proposed content have impressed other than a few poisonous Labourite jeerers and sneerers? No. Would the website have been exposed for the scurrilous and juvenile organ that it would have been? Yes.

Yet Damian McBride was at the heart of government, and Derek Draper was also an influential Labour figure. They weren't a couple of disaffected and vindictive schoolkids trying to get back at their teacher via the internet. Yet they may as well have been.

Anyway, rather than examine the substance and tittle-tattle of the affair, the purpose of this post was to point out that the blogosphere will now be best known as the purveyor of this political muckraking, however unfair that might be on the medium generally.

However, particularly unfair in this regard is an article by Iain MacWhirter which appeared in Monday's Herald. MacWhirter makes some interesting comments about political gossip mongering, but the rationale for his article seems to be a critique of the blogosphere, which ironically is probably better characterised as denigration and smearing. He says:

But why has all this scum risen to the surface now? Well, because political journalism is entering a new age, the age of the blog - an ugly word for an ugly trade.

The internet is littered with badly written and ill-informed home-made publications by opinionated nerds, whose skill with digital technology has suddenly given them the edge over the old media - like, er, me.

This new frontier of hackery is not subject to the same standards of accuracy, taste, style and legality that newspapers like The Herald are subject to. It is fashionable to condemn the "dead tree press" for being unreliable and sensationalist, but we are like academic research journals compared to the stuff on the web.[...]

Why is the new journalism of the web so nasty? I really don't know. Blogging should have been the opportunity for all sorts of interesting people from all walks of life to start provoking debate with original ideas. Whistle-blowers had a new noticeboard on which to post information the authorities didn't want us to know about.

Instead the blogosphere has been hijacked by sociopathic egos with extreme views, who spend most of their time attacking each other. There is no quality control on the web and no editorial discretion.

And since nothing on the web can be longer than a couple of hundred words, argument and insight has been replaced by bark and bite.

He's fundamentally right, of course - the poison and juvenility of McDrapergate has predictably generated a deluge of blogosphere poison and juvenility, and two wrongs don't make a right.

But Mr MacWhirter is also fundamentally wrong to misrepresent the fundamentally heterogeneous political blogosphere as a fundamentally homogenous mass of sociopathy; or, to put it in terms even a hack journalist would understand, he's wrong to tar us all with the same brush.

Will and Yousuf have already given Mr MacWhirter's diatribe a damn good Fisking, but here's my tuppenceworth. The most obvious irony is perhaps that Damian McBride was more MSM than blogosphere, and Derek Draper is something of an entryist. Thus the poison didn't emanate from the blogosphere per se - it was to be used as more of a conduit, but the established blogosphere sniffed this out and dished the dirt, ironically reverting to the MSM to facilitate this. But, either way, the blogosphere was merely the messenger, so please don't shoot it.

Another fundamental irony is that Mr MacWhirter compares the gutter blogosphere to the standards of The Herald, and portrays both as representative of their respective mediums. Of course, this is as ludicrous as comparing Richard Thomson's blog to the Daily Sport.

Equally ludicrous is his claim that the internet is littered with "badly-written and ill-informed" publications. Granted, standards certainly vary in this regard, but that's because human beings vary in such matters, and the blogosphere is a great leveller. Just because the ignorant, bigoted pub bore uses his mouth as a verbal sewer, this doesn't condemn the oratory of Barack Obama.

Indeed, many MSM journalists maintain blogs (Brian Taylor, Magnus Gardham), and conversely some bloggers write for the MSM (Iain Dale, Tim Worstall, Chris Dillow). Politicians blog, councillors do it, party strategists and spin doctors chip in, graduates, academics and professionals are in abundance, as are those with life and business experience that a career journalist like Iain McWhirter will never possess. Of course, there is the blogosphere dross, but, to repeat the point made earlier, no one judges The Herald by the standards of Nuts or Zoo.

Of course, we can't all write as well as the cream, and we can't all be as well-informed from an armchair after we've finished work as political journalists doing their job, but that hardly makes us "nasty" and "sociopathic egos".

Indeed, from a personal perspective I've had numerous letters published in the quality press, including The Herald, thus they presumably meet the requisite standards of "accuracy, taste, style and legality" that the newspaper is subject to, and I like to think that anything posted on this blog maintains similar standards.

(In fact, in the next couple of days I'll post an example of ill-informed MSM journalism; not that it's about a matter of great import or that people like Iain MacWhirter will be remotely interested, but merely to demonstrate the point.)

But, of course, the biggest irony in Iain MacWhirter's piece is how he uses a crude and reductionist misrepresentation of the blogosphere to denigrate its standards, which would be bad enough from someone who's been introduced to the medium merely by virtue of McDrapergate, but is in fact the work of someone who should know better, and it's difficult to discern much in the way of deliberate irony and humour either. However, perhaps Mr MacWhirter's closing remarks are intended as a compliment:

Bloggers don't write, they ejaculate.

And while it might perhaps lend some weight to Iain MacWhirter's thesis to now compare his own writings to another bodily function, a safer bet to end might be to suggest that the undercurrent to his article reminds me of a letter MSP George Foulkes sent to The Herald, which seemed a tad elitist and anti-democratic. Ironically the newspaper published this blogger's reply! (A further irony is that George Foulkes's letter criticised Iain MacWhirter's approach to journalism and his "sniping from the sidelines"!!)

All is not lost, however. An article in this morning's Times by MSM journalist cum blogger Stephen Pollard provides a more balanced view of the blogosphere, and also outlines a realistic appraisal of its influence on mainstream politics.

PS In the unlikely event of Iain MacWhirter reading this, I was only joking about the "hack journalist"!

Indigenous culture versus multiculturalism

A recent extended comment section on this blog discussed the vexed issue of cultural values, religion and discrimination. In essence one contributor argued that the Muslim veil should be banned as incompatible with our indigenous culture. In response it was argued that because this was targetting a particular religion then such action would amount to discrimination. In turn I questioned the limits of tolerance and said that just because a particular behaviour which tested those limits was primarily associated with a particular religion shouldn't mean that questioning it was discriminatory - it was the behaviour being questioned rather than the religion per se.

Some timeous support for the latter view is perhaps provided in a couple of articles in this weekend's press. In The Times Muslim moderate Dr Taj Hargey rails against his persecution by "Muslim McCarthyites" and claims "Islam in Britain has been taken over by followers of a warped manifestation of the faith":

The rampant oppression of women in Muslim society does not stem from the Koran but is chiefly the product of misogynistic hadith. For example, a famous “authentic” hadith declares that there will be a preponderance of women in Hell. But the facts here on earth suggest otherwise - male criminality far exceeds that of females. [...]

Although Muslims have their own specific territorial cultural traditions, there is no such thing as an Islamic culture. Therefore the modern trend among British Muslims blindly to emulate Arab ethnic dress or grow beards or for women to wear the Wahhabi-sanctioned niqab or face masks has nothing to do with the Koran but everything to do with the primitive tribal mores and sexist practices of Arabia.

A more dispassionate perspective is provided by Scottish nationalist Jim Sillars in Scotland on Sunday, but from the secular, non-Muslim perspective the essential point is arguably the same:

Multiculturalism has proved a disaster for social cohesion in England. It is not too late in Scotland to learn that lesson. Thanks to leaders of the Asian community such as Bashir Mann, who retained his Muslim integrity and dignity yet gelled with the rest of Scotland, young Scottish Muslims are more open to wiser counsel than the alienated young of Muslim England. But that could change, unless we roll back from nonsense. Remember the Scottish Executive slogan "One Country Many Cultures"? It promoted the idea that there is no difference between immigrant and indigenous cultures and values. One need only look at the position of women to know that is manifestly untrue when comparing Asian with British/Scottish cultures.

There is nothing inherently anti-cohesion in immigrant communities maintaining character and language, provided they have bought into the indigenous over-arching culture. There are Italian, Caribbean, Spanish, Polish and Jewish immigrant communities in all parts of Britain who have maintained their character, yet are indistinguishable from the indigenous in political outlook and social values. It has to be said, however, that, especially in England and less noticeably in Scotland, significant numbers of Asian immigrants do not buy into British culture and values. They are the product of multiculturalism, which in effect tells them they need not do so, and, logically, can reject them.

Sillars attributes the retreat of indigenous values in the face of militant Islam to:

...political correctness, an invention of the liberal political class. Free speech, the foundation of a truly liberal society, is seriously curtailed. People in public life, in factories and offices, will turn verbal somersaults, and newspapers will avoid, if at all possible, any serious criticism of Islam in a way that they would not hesitate to apply to Christianity or atheists.

Indeed, my original post referred to above suggested a paradox between Scottish nationalism and Alex Salmond's previous stated support for women wearing the Muslim veil, and it's worth comparing Mr Sillars' comments this weekend to what Mr Salmond said on the subject a couple of years ago:

Diversity is not a threat to identity. We should cherish diversity - not just assert an individual's right to have diversity, to have their own views, but to recognise that it adds to identity, it doesn't subtract from it.

Thus there is clearly a fundamental difference between Mr Salmond and Mr Sillars as regards how far non-indigenous cultures should be tolerated, and this perhaps underlines a tension between a Scottish national identity and political correctness/multiculturalism.

It seems likely that all those mentioned above - from those afforded a platform in the national press to humble bloggers like myself - agree that Scotland is and should be a generally tolerant nation. However, the quotes above - first from a self-proclaimed "progressive Muslim" and then from someone who states, "With nearly 30 years of activity in the Arab world, I'm pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, and have reason to respect Islam's strengths" - surely underline that tolerance has its limits, and that questioning where these limits should lie shouldn't engender knee-jerk accusations of discrimination.

The chairman doth protest too much, methought

With the stoor beginning to settle over the collapse and subsequent takeover of the Dunfermline Building Society, it's interesting that the ill-judged executive decisions precipitating the mutual's collapse did not quite attract the same opprobrium that 'fat cats' in the mainstream banking sector have been subject to.

This may be attributable to the fact that the DBS was a significantly smaller player in the financial sector than the likes of RBS and HBOS, and the executives responsible for its collapse in profitability were unlikely to be in the uber-fat cat league.

But perhaps the reason that the DBS felines got off relatively unscathed was due to the politics of the situation, neatly exemplified by chairman Jim Faulds' fulminating performance on The Politics Show a week and a half ago. Of course, at that time the Nationwide's rescue deal had not quite been finalised, and Mr Faulds did a good job of scapegoating the Labour Government and London-based regulators, which predictably struck a chord with the anti-Brownites in general and with Scottish nationalists in particular.

Thus the political dimension succeeded in taking the heat off the DBS's business decisions and shifting the blame onto London Labour. To that extent Mr Faulds' performance was effective, if cynical, but unfortunately he perhaps overreached himself and undermined this with the following overtly political statement:

The only people who have been supportive to us are the Scottish Government and Alex Salmond, who, I have to say, has been absolutely magnificent. Without looking for any political gain, he has been foursquare behind the Society, its members and its staff, and I think the people of Dunfermline, the people of Fife, and the people of Scotland will remember that.

Of course, it's ludicrous enough to suggest that Alex Salmond and the SNP Government wouldn't have at least had one eye on prospective political gain, but the "people of Scotland" rhetoric looked like PMQ phraseology and straight from the spin doctors' handbook.

The tone of Mr Faulds' performance thus made it look like opportunistic politicking, and indeed next day's Scotsman suggested the chairman's views did not reflect that of other DBS directors and senior management, with one "industry insider" describing his performance as "utterly shameless", and indeed there's little evidence since to suggest that the unattributed quotes in the newspaper were other than materially correct. In the same edition Hamish MacDonell proffered his views on the politicking, while in The Herald Iain MacWhirter put the boot into the society's executives and their disastrous business strategy of ill-judged sub-prime mortgage acquisitions, reckless moves into commercial property and expensive IT systems flops reminiscent of the public sector.

Of course, that's not to defend the Labour Government or financial regulators - the credit crunch, bank collapses, regulatory failures and consequent economic disaster area tell their own tale - but the thinly-veiled politicking makes it difficult to know who to believe.

Without the relevant financial services and regulatory expertise, not to mention an intimate knowledge of the DBS's balance sheet, it's difficult for us laypeople to even begin to evaluate the financial efficacy of how this particular political and economic imbroglio met its denouement in the form of the Nationwide rescue. Much comment on the issue has been grounded in base partisanship, which both prevents the more dispassionate of us getting to the truth of the matter and fuels the cynicism of all things politics.

Back to the PPP Future?

This week's news that the Scottish Government has appointed a Private Finance Initiative expert as chief executive of the Scottish Futures Trust has underlined the view that the SNP's election promise was over-optimistic and that the model will eventually surface as essentially a tightened-up imitation of the much reviled PFI/PPP concepts.

SFT will therefore be little more than what all the parties would have striven for rather than the low-cost Holy Grail of infrastructure finance initially posited by the SNP, which should hardly come as a big surprise in view of the fact that capital for large scale public projects was unlikely to be available for the next-to-nothing cost suggested by the party in a classic triumph of idealism over realism.

The political reaction was eminently predictable, and can be read in a Times article here. This was reflected in the blogosphere, with Labourite Yousuf sticking the knife in and SNP Tactical Voting spinning a more positive slant on the development.

The latter's Jeff says that it's "truly a shame" that Labour and the Lib Dems "have trotted out some tired old lines" in response to the appointment, and he's right to say this.

However, this is the inevitable response to the same tired old SNP over-egging of the SFT pudding and their failure to acknowledge that it has suffered both conceptual and implementation difficulties.

Of course, it's difficult for any one individual or party to break out of the perpetual cycle of political hype and hyperbole and the automatic response of derision and cynicism, and the promised new broom of Scottish devolution hasn't been and very probably won't be delivered.

Two sides to every fishy story

It's a familiar narrative - the doughty family making a living in a tough environment, they bend the rules a bit, along comes the overbearing state and they're hung, drawn and quartered for being a bit naughty.

Thus was the tale of woe outlined by Christopher Booker in the Daily Telegraph at the weekend, in a piece entitled 'Now we treat our fishermen like drug dealers'. A father and son team described as "respected fishermen" pled guilty to breaching the rules on fishing quotas. But instead of imposing a simple fine the Marine Fisheries Agency called in the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which can recover money from "major criminals" under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Soca can deem anyone who has benefited from the proceeds of crime for more than six months as living a criminal lifestyle and thus their assets derived from criminal activity.

The fishermen's assets were valued at £1 million and accordingly a fine of £385,000 was levied. They secured second mortgages on their homes to pay the fine, but their assets had been frozen and thus they were sent to Walton Prison, Liverpool - a "notoriously tough jail" - for contempt of court.

Sounds Draconian, particularly when the article points out that the fine was "infinitely" more than the value of the fish wrongly declared and that the men's major assets had been bought long before the quota offences occurred.

However, the Maritime and Fisheries Agency website paints a slightly different picture. According to MFA the defendants had pled guilty to specimen charges relating to the falsification of landing declarations. Subsequent to this the authorities investigated whether the defendants had benefited from underdeclaring catches - so-called 'black fish'.

A judge held that the father and son, together with another individual and two fish-selling firms, had benefited to the tune of £15 million over six years from the criminal conduct. A MFA case officer said:

This was a serious case of cheating the system which is designed to safeguard fish stocks and thus protect the livelihood of fishermen. This type of prosecution is necessary to prevent the unlawful landing of species that are subject to quota limits.

The comments section accompanying the article is predictably full of stuff about Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwell, comparisons with Guantanamo Bay, comparisons with other EU countries and the "treachery" of the politicians who signed the Common Fisheries Policy which introduced the quota system.

Indeed, the EU Referendum blog comments:

There does become a point in the history of any nation where those who govern no longer have the consent of those who are governed. That point passed some time ago, but it is the treatment of the likes of the McBrides which brings it home to us how far down that road we have travelled.

At the end of that road is civil disorder, anarchy and then war, as the people rise up and slaughter their oppressors. It may not happen in my lifetime. But, if it does I rather suspect that, if I am not actually part of the throng, I will be standing in the streets applauding as we rid ourselves of the incubus that has become our government and our ruling élite.

Clearly there's at the very least a difference of emphasis between these sources, but are the individuals in question respected fisherman oppressed by a Draconian state for minor rule breaches or systematic cheats who were enriched by long-term criminal activity to the detriment of the law-abiding?

Something or nothing?

In today's Sunday Herald James Cusick takes Gordon Brown to task for his characterisation of the Conservative opposition as the "do-nothing" party and claims this is a "simplistic, meaningless assault" that's as relevant as accusing David Cameron of not running a Government.

But surely the Prime Minister's claim is actually alluding to Tory policy regarding an economic stimulus to kickstart the economy and thus mitigate the length and breadth of the recession rather than simply accusing the opposition of in effect not being in office and thus incapable of doing anything, which would clearly be totally meaningless. Crude as it might be, the "do-nothing party" soundbite is essentially comparing government intervention with a view to reflating the economy to the more tinkering approach advocated by the Tories.

Indeed, in today's Scotland on Sunday Conservative MP Michael Gove outlines the downside of 'doing something' - "a massive bill incurred by the irresponsible adults who've been in charge this last 10 years which our children are going to be left to pay off for many a long year to come" - although he predictably says nothing about the downside of 'doing nothing'.

Coup in Dundee?

As expected, earlier this week the SNP group took control of Dundee City Council for the first time, but the comments section on the Scotsman's website contains some discussion on the newspaper's use of the language "seize" and "wrest" control to describe what took place. Similarly, Malc in the Burgh says that the language has negative connotations, and seems to think it more appropriate to describe some sort of coup d'etat rather than the result of a legitimate and democratic electoral process. Malc further claims that the Scotsman's stance on this results from bias, and suggests this might explain the declining readership of Scottish newspapers.

It's certainly the case that the Scottish media doesn't evidence a pro-nationalist bias, but in this case use of the words 'seize' and 'wrest' could merely suggest a bit of journalistic licence to spice the reporting up a bit. One definition of the word 'seize' from the Oxford Dictionary of English is:

take (an opportunity or initiative) eagerly and decisively

Similarly, the primary definition of 'wrest' is to "forcibly pull (something) from a person's grasp", while the only secondary definition is:

take (something, especially power or control) from someone or something else after considerable effort or difficulty

Thus as regards 'wrest' in particular the only applicable definition doesn't really seem to connote any illegitimacy, and indeed it could be construed positively insofar as in the Dundee context it alluded to the fact that control of the council came only after a Herculean effort by the SNP in the face of those scheming Unionist traitors. OK, I'm exaggerating in the other direction now, but the point is perhaps that the accusation of bias may itself derive from a prejudicial stance.

But in essence it seems probable that the language used by the Scotsman was merely (mildly) sensationalist in nature rather than demonstrating bias and suggesting some kind of coup d'etat on the banks of the silvery Tay.

Foolish Foulkes?

A great many political watchers would answer the above question in the affirmative without further ado. But even the few who support the more offbeat statements made by Lord Foulkes must be cringing at the MSP's latest outburst - his claim that Alex Salmond was "playing politics" with the North Sea helicopter tragedy by suggesting that the business of the Scottish Parliament be suspended as a mark of respect. Lord Foulkes has also accused the first minister of behaving as a "quasi-head of state" and The Times quotes him as saying:

Alex Salmond is trying to carve out a role for himself as father of the nation and is trying to use this for political purposes. It is unbelievable and outrageous.

As a political cynic I do think that sometimes these occasions are exploited by self-righteous politicians for their own ends, and of course those who take a slightly different view on the scheduling of political business are effectively browbeaten into compliance on grounds of sensitivity.

But surely any criticisms should be confined to changes in process and procedure - as Kezia Dugdale has done - rather than in effect using the deaths of 16 oil workers as a political football, which is what George Foulkes seems to have achieved.

Of course, he would no doubt retort that it is Mr Salmond who attempted to exploit the situation and that it's the good Lord who's merely pointing out this cynicism.

Cynics might agree, but it seems highly likely that the consensus will be that Mr Salmond caught the mood of the nation - as did the vast majority of politicians of all parties - and that George Foulkes has committed a major gaffe which will further undermine his credibility as a serious politician; that is, assuming anyone takes much notice of what he's said at all.

As it was, Mr Salmond's request was not acceded to by parliamentary managers - instead of a suspension of business a modified FMQs took place, which seemed to strike a balance between a lack of respect and an overreaction.

RBS irony

At the time of writing the comment section of The Times website links to a 2007 article entitled 'Anxieties pervade business as Scottish elections approach', which as the title suggests is about the uncertainty caused by the likelihood that the SNP would win the then forthcoming battle for control of the Scottish Parliament. While it's not clear why this article is highlighted today, its description of the success and importance of the financial services industry to the Scottish economy - and, indeed, some of the sector's hubris and self-indulgence - provides a salutary comparison with the subsequent effective collapse of some of the industry's major players, the latest of which being, of course, the Dunfermline Building Society. Describing the grandeur of RBS's then new headquarters, the article said:

Set in 40 hectares of landscaped woodland, the £350 million sandstone-and-glass complex boasts 93,000 sq metres of office space for 3,250 staff, accessed through a vast atrium where columns stand more than 15 metres high. A tree-lined “street” includes a super-market, florist and hairdresser, while other facilities include a 500-seat terrace restaurant, five-a-side football pitches, dance and aerobic studios and even running and cycling tracks. As a statement of intent, the Gogarburn complex speaks volumes about the health of Scotland’s financial services market.

Three centuries after the stereotype of the thrifty Scot was set in stone, the industry has never been in better shape. Scotland boasts the headquarters of two of the world’s top ten banks, making Edinburgh the UK’s second financial centre after the City of London.

Ironic also that the link to the old article is juxtaposed with a graphic (above) asking, "What would you do at the G20?", and the current lead story on the same website describes G20 protesters "storming" an RBS branch in London:

Anti-capitalist protesters stormed a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland today as police struggled to keep a lid on increasingly violent G20 demonstrations in the City of London.

Of course, in a way the protestors are being as self-indulgent as RBS was a couple of years ago - and replace financial hubris with aggression and violence - but as is so often the case those who push society's values to the limit provoke a similarly radical and extreme reaction.

On a political note, it would be easy to make a cheap point about the old article being prescient about the impact an SNP Government in Edinburgh would have on the Scottish economy, but to suggest a causal link between the advance of the nationalist cause and the problems of RBS, HBOS, DBS and others would, of course, be nonsense.

However, it should be recalled that earlier this year Alex Salmond ignored HBOS's fundamentally weak balance sheet and blamed the collapse of its share price on 'spivs and speculators', and a mere year ago said:

Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.

That's not to condemn the first minister, but merely to underline that people like Mr Salmond, Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling don't know their own limitations and seem unaware that the collective forces which cause society's problems very often defy the competence of individual human beings like politicians.

Indeed, Mr Salmond's response to the collapse of the Dunfermline Building Society has perhaps been a bit more balanced and less bombastic than might have been expected - perhaps his renowned tendency for self-regard has been slightly dampened by events?