Double your money!

Interesting article in last weekend's Sunday Herald about councillors on Glasgow City Council receiving top-up payments for appointments to arms-length bodies set up by the local authority to provide services previously provided in-house, for example managing the council's fruit and flower market and maintaining car parks.

This, together with other payments for extra responsibilities such as convenorships or work on the joint police board, means that councillors can easily double their basic salary of just over £16,000, and according to the newspaper 52 of Glasgow's 79 councillors receive more than the basic salary.

The rationale for these organisations is that they provide better services to the public and are more cost-efficient, and the extra payments for councillors are justified on the basis of the scrutiny that these arms-length bodies require.

So if councillors require additional remuneration for holding these organisations to account then does that mean that the functions they perform weren't being properly scrutinised while performed in house by local authorities? Perhaps that's why the services they provided were inadequate and inefficient. But it's certainly an interesting way to boost councillors' pay packets - hive off an activity from the council into an arms-length body and then pay councillors for overseeing it!

Of course, in the grand scheme of things this story isn't exactly of earth-shattering importance, but there didn't seem to be any mention of it on the blogosphere last week, despite the chance to make some party political capital out of it - every little helps, as Tesco tells us! Ah, but the MSM and blogs were abuzz with debate about the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

Or could it be that the silence was due to the fact that both Labour AND SNP councillors are doing very nicely out of these sca...ahem...schemes?

The Green Party, privacy and violence

Regarding the subject of violent attacks on taxi drivers, here follows some extracts from the UK press during the month or so leading up to a recent article in the Herald:

This is Lancashire
A Bury taxi driver has been left permanently disfigured after he was slashed across the face by a knife-wielding thug in his vehicle. Mohammed Ishtiaq (pictured above) required 28 stitches for his wound after the horror attack which happened after he refused to hand over his takings.

Weston & Somerset Mercury
Two drunks slammed a taxi driver's head in his car door and kicked it like a rugby ball in a sickening assault in Weston. Paul Flint was also punched in the head repeatedly when he requested payment for waiting outside The Regency in Lower Church Road.

Lancashire Telegraph
A 65-year-old taxi driver has told how he was bottled then slashed with the broken shards of glass by a group of passengers who refused to pay. Grandfather Victor Shuttleworth’s injuries mean he must take at least three months off work to recuperate.

Brighton Argus
A taxi driver was punched in the face after he asked a woman who had been sick in his cab to pay extra. Her boyfriend Trevor Cheesman lashed out when the driver said he wanted more money to clean up the mess.

Manchester Evening News
A drug-crazed teenager who stabbed a taxi driver over an £8 fare was branded ’scum’ after he was jailed for 10 years. High on a cocktail of drink and cocaine, Axon MacPhee, 19, knifed David Ferrer, 57, in his stomach, the blade penetrating his intestines causing massive blood loss, after the driver asked for the fare he was due. MacPhee then walked round to the other side of the car and attempted to plunge the knife into the neck of Mr Ferrer, a father of three.

Wigan Today
Two men have been jailed for a vicious race attack on a Wigan cab driver. Drunken Ashley Haslam and his friend Ryan Crispin each received a six month long sentence after launching a brutal assault on 31-year-old Shazed Ahmed, who works for Arista Cars.

Huddersfield Examiner
Cabbie Stephen Wilson’s life was wrecked when he was attacked with a shoe by an angry woman reveller. The assault led to a serious brain injury after he collapsed and hit his head outside a nightclub. He was left unable to speak, read or write and had to give up his driver’s licence because he could no longer control a car.

Lichfield Mercury
A taxi driver has described his horror at being subjected to a racist attack and having his cab battered with bricks by a group of youths who refused to pay their fare. Neshad Hussain was left shaken when missiles rained down on his £40,000 Hackney cab early on Saturday morning in Handsacre.

Birmingham Mail
Police are investigating a second violent attack on a private hire driver in the same area and only days after Mohammed Arshad was brutally murdered. Father-of-four Ansar Naeem was repeatedly punched in the face and head in the assault in Shannon Road, in Kings Norton.

Lancashire Evening Post
Two dangerous robbers who attacked a Preston cabbie with an iron bar – and told another they had a gun – are today behind bars. The pair targeted two Preston taxi drivers in separate incidents in November last year, which came in the middle of a spate of other attacks and robberies that terrified many of the city's cabbies.

Lincolnshire Echo
Three drunks who carried out a frightening attack on a Lincolnshire taxi driver during a 60mph journey have been put behind bars by a judge. Taxi driver Simon Coulson had blows rained on him from behind by his passengers and one of them tried to strangle him after he decided to turn his cab round because of their behaviour.

Daily Express
A taxi driver whose wife is expecting their fourth child died in a savage attack after he went to pick up a fare. Colleagues said the 36-year-old cabbie, who has three ­children under the age of 10, had been beaten to an “unrecognisable pulp”.

The article in the Herald concerns the use of CCTV in taxis, which Glasgow City Council is launching a consultation on. Drivers are currently not allowed to use surveillance equipment, and the council's investigation will encompass such issues as civil liberties, human rights and data protection.

However, according to the Herald's article the city's Green councillors and MSP Patrick Harvie have already made up their minds, saying that the party remains "completely opposed to creeping video surveillance of this sort". Mr Harvie also said that people have an expectation that they have "some degree of privacy" in a taxi, and that the proposal would "reinforce the perception that local authorities are snooping on citizens".

Privacy in an enclosed space close to a driver who the passenger has probably never met previously? That doesn't seem a very private situation; perhaps a passenger should expect confidentiality as regards their journey, but privacy hardly seems an issue. Indeed, many local authorities won't allow heavily tinted windows on taxis for security reasons - what's happening in the vehicle should be visible from the outside.

Mr Harvie also claims that the Glasgow City Council paper contains no "real justification of any kind", but perhaps that is because the need is so self-evident that it does not need explicitly stating. Except, it would seem, in the rarefied world of Green politicians - would a corner shop owner using CCTV really need to state a rationale, for example?

But hopefully the extracts from the press quoted above help underline the obvious, and it should be emphasised that the articles quoted cover only a period of a fortnight or so.

As for the benefits, taxi drivers in Mansfield said CCTV had an "almost miraculous" effect on drunk and violent passengers, in Sheffield incidents of abuse and attacks reduced from around 14 per cent of fares to one per cent, while in Stoke a taxi firm owner said his drivers were getting "zero hassle".

Brandon's politics a microcosm of Megrahi's

Echoes of the politics of the Lockerbie bomber affair evident in Dundee this week regarding the recent report into the death of toddler Brandon Muir.

The ruling SNP administration has accepted the report, but opposition councillors voted against the council at a committee meeting earlier this week. Unsurprisingly, the main concern relates to the report's headline conclusion that Brandon's killing could not have been predicted. Indeed, perhaps a more pertinent question would have been whether the death could have been prevented, and the answer is surely that it could have been, but the inquiry's actual conclusion conveniently allowed the council to be absolved of blame while paradoxically finding a raft of shortcomings in systems and procedures.

However, accusations of politicisation are now being made, with independent councillor Ian Borthwick saying that the SNP administration was politically motivated in voting en masse to accept the report, while council leader Ken Guild counter-claimed that the voting split was "deliberately engineered" to embarrass his administration. He further stated that the social work failings identified with Brandon Muir's death related to the tenure of the previous Labour-led alliance with the Lib Dems and Tories.

While there does seem to be an element of hypocrisy from the opposition parties in this regard - Labour group leader Kevin Keenan in particular has been making a lot of noise in the Dundee press over the issue - on the other hand it's worth recalling that current SNP social work convenor Jim Barrie had to an extent pre-empted the report when he said, immediately after Brandon's killer was found guilty and while Mr Barrie was still an opposition councillor, 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". Likewise, at around the same time SNP first minister Alex Salmond had told MSPs: "One thing I would say is this: the culpability and guilt lie with the person who perpetrated the crime, and not with the social work department or the police."

Thus to an extent the SNP had dug themselves into a bit of a hole and therefore the report's finding that Brandon's death could not have been predicted meant that they did not have to extricate themselves from it.

But substantive dissent of the kind shown this week by opposition councillors in Dundee seems unusual, and perhaps that's what's thrown Mr Guild, but it's refreshing to see it nonetheless. Comments last week by independent councillor Ian Borthwick perhaps demonstrate the past lack of real scrutiny and accountability in relation to council officials:

I am particularly anxious to find out who made the decision to prioritise cases and whether this was a consequence of staff limitations or financial constraints. If there was a significant issue in that respect, why weren’t committee members not fully appraised of any changes to social work policy? We need to know whether the concordat between the Government and the council is working effectively or if it’s having an adverse impact on child protection services.

For a considerable period of time, elected members, including myself, have asked the question of the social work directorate and the administration whether child services were up to scratch. We repeatedly received assurances that it was. I am now beginning to question whether a more positive picture was being painted than was justified. We know there is very serious pressure on resources and it may be that, because of this, some people won’t readily wish to identify deficiencies. Is accurate information being passed to the most senior managers and councillors to enable them to make a proper assessment and reach the right decisions? I think some people might have been keeping their heads down rather than raise problems.

If there’s a shortage of resources or manpower, we ought to be told the likely impact that will have on services. We need the fullest information and I don’t think we have been receiving that.

Thus some welcome candour and an element of contrition from Mr Borthwick, but this was spoilt slightly by his concluding comment that "that isn’t a criticism of anyone because they are doing their best in very difficult circumstances", therefore it's back to no one ever being responsible for anything!

It may have come as a surprise to SNP councillors that their party political opponents could be, ahem, politically motivated, but this hardly seems like nitpicking or opposition for the sake of it; there is more at stake here than simple party advantage.

Yer tea's ready!

The Scottish Parliament was reconvened yesterday for an emergency session on the subject of the release of the Lockerbie bomber, but an abiding impression from the proceedings was the sense of urgency in getting the whole thing out of the way as quickly as possible: it was as if Holyrood felt it had to be seen to be taking the issue seriously enough to recall parliament, but at the same time was annoyed at this impingement on the lengthy summer holiday and that everyone had something better to do yesterday afternoon, like retire to the pub or get hame for their tea.

To be fair to MSPs, however, it was perhaps presiding officer Alex Fergusson's constant pleas for brevity in questioning that conveyed this tone; maye it was Mr Fergusson who had more pressing business elsewhere, but it wasn't as if the proceedings went on for several hours. Perhaps a longer period should have been allotted such that the session looked less of an inconvenience and more a substantive contribution to the debate.

Indeed, that Kenny MacAskill's regurgitation of his statement from the previous week constituted a significant part of the whole thing set the tone for a session that generated more heat than light. In fact, perhaps even this cliché is inappropriate since the presiding officer had reminded MSPs at the outset that they had to be on their best behaviour because the eyes of the world were on Holyrood; that he felt it necessary to make such a plea - like teacher having to tell the kids to mind their Ps and Qs on the visit of some dignitary - possibly told us more about Holyrood than the actual debate. But, whether Mr Fergusson's beseechment influenced the questioning or not, the proceedings were certainly anodyne in tone and lacking in passion.

The somewhat pointless nature of the proceedings was alluded to above - Mr MacAskill largely repeated what he had said already, and stonewalled any searching questions in typically parliamentary style. For example, he diverted attention from compassionate alternatives to the Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya as a free man by highlighting the disruption that would be caused to any Scottish hospice that could have housed al-Megrahi during his dying days - surely there were numerous other options that could have been examined?

The bigger picture still was the usual division of MSPs along party lines - it was almost wholly SNP v the opposition parties - relating to what was supposedly a quasi-judicial matter. Of course, we all know that this is to a great or lesser extent a sham, and yesterday's proceedings ably demonstrated the political nature of these things. The SNP point to the homogeneity of the opposition parties as demonstrative of politicisation, but the unanimity among nationalist MSPs was also indicative of party politics setting the tenor of the debate. Or at least, if the nationalist politicians are not thus motivated then they are clearly not representative of the breadth of Scottish opinion on the matter.

Geopolitical grandstanding

Alex Salmond said that his justice secretary's ruling on the release of the Lockerbie bomber was not about international power politics, but it's clear that Kenny MacAskill's decision to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was taken with at least one eye on the geopolitical implications, as demonstrated by his 'wha's like us' sermonising and ill-disguised chides at the UK Government, not to mention the subtext of standing up to the global superpowers.

But as regards the finding per se I find it hard to substantially disagree with Mr MacAskill - indeed, I consider his domestic law and order and liquor licensing standpoints more reprehensible than his reasoning vis-à-vis al-Megrahi - and to that extent this morning's Scotland on Sunday headline claiming that his job is on the line seems wide of the mark.

But, of course, it's not merely about whether it was right or wrong to free al-Megrahi. The idealism of opposition is usually severely compromised by the realpolitik of power; for example, the release of convicted terrorists in pursuit of the peace process in Northern Ireland. If Mr MacAskill's sense of principle has triumphed over pragmatism then clearly there's merit in that, but what of the longer term? Events both domestically and internationally since Thursday's announcement must certainly provide little encouragement for the justice secretary, and there's surely not much in this morning's newspapers that he can view as positive.

And while he may, of course, take solace in the hope that he will be viewed as a man of conviction, the sense of ensuing maelstrom for Mr MacAskill may eventually overcome even that. However, this all depends on whether the domestic opposition, the international opprobrium and the threats of boycotts are little more than a storm in a teacup and unrepresentative of broader opinion, or whether the episode will have fundamental implications for Scotland far beyond the in many ways symbolic decision regarding whether to release a terminally-ill convicted terrorist on compassionate grounds, or that perhaps issues of wider significance come to the fore and provide Mr MacAskill with an escape route.

As for the papers themselves, an eloquent and compelling Scotland on Sunday editorial is worth reading, and Michael Gove admires Scottish reluctance to bow the knee, while at the same time disagreeing with the notion of a national moral exceptionalism. In the Sunday Herald Muriel Gray agrees with the latter sentiment but argues in a slightly more colourful fashion, using the example of an Orange March and her description: "The ugly, disgusting, stupid, drunk people you see here to support the parade are hoping for a person of the religion they hate to show up so that they can assault them."

Of course, they would say that, wouldn't they? But Jim Sillars calls the affair a "mockery of justice" and looks at the geopolitical downside, while in the Independent on Sunday Christine Grahame protests al-Megrahi's innocence.

Thus despite Mr MacAskill's attempt to avoid the realpolitik, might it yet overwhelm him, or instead perhaps come to his rescue?

Poisoned chalice or political opportunity?

The release of the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds is one of those issues where I find it difficult to come to a conclusion; on the one hand (and ignoring the doubts over his conviction) he's a terrorist who killed 270 people in cold blood, while on the other hand there's always room for compassion for a terminally-ill man. Thus maybe a release nearer to the moment of death would have represented an appropriate balance between humanity and punishment/deterrence, although media coverage of Megrahi's return to Libyan soil perhaps underlines the difficulty of evaluating the immediacy of his death, not to mention the diplomatic/political conundrum relating to how he would be greeted on his return, a question examined here yesterday in relation to contrasting media perspectives.

But all this merely underlines the difficulty that faced Kenny MacAskill, and of course the media is full of contrasting - but perhaps generally hostile - reaction to his decision.

Thus was the decision in effect a poisoned chalice that Mr MacAskill would have preferred not to have to "clear his desk" to deal with, or was it a political opportunity to thumb the nationalist nose at American/British illiberalism, propel the notion of a Scottish government onto the international stage and more generally attempt to add to the creeping agenda towards an independent Scotland?

Of course, we'll probably never know the truth of the matter, but attempts to deconstruct the issue generally and Mr MacAskill's statement in particular will no doubt continue for some time, despite their arguable futility.

However, a couple of points are possibly worth making. First, the decision perhaps demonstrates the SNP's liberal approach to law and order, and is thus symptomatic of a wider question which represents a major political faultline, albeit that the Megrahi issue has little direct relevance to the more mundane issues - such as the drunkenness and anti-social behaviour - that Mr MacAskill is more used to dealing with.

Second, the case underlines the unsuitability of politicians making these so-called quasi-judicial decisions, with a political animal like Mr MacAskill no more suited to the task than councillors elected on a party political platform are in relation to their powers to take away the livelihoods of naughty publicans and taxi drivers.

Of course, the theory is that the justice secretary acted in the interests of justice and due process rather than with regard to wider political issues, but it's preposterous to suggest that Mr MacAskill could have totally ignored the latter, however much he may have acted in good faith - politicians are simply not in the position to act with the independence and impartiality required to act in a quasi-judicial manner.

Unfortunately we can only speculate as to Mr MacAskill's thought processes, but as a proxy it's perhaps instructive to look at the views of the (deservedly) reanointed doyen of the nationalist blogosphere, who claims that yesterday was a "great day for Scottish devolution" (not justice and due process per se?) and who maybe provides some indication as to the difficulty Mr MacAskill faced in reaching his decision:

Total Politics thinks the result shows the Scottish Government has 'teeth' though the suggestion that the decision was taken for Scotland to "flex its muscles on the international stage" betrays a serious misunderstanding of the due process.

But who in an earlier post had said:

...I reckon Hillary Clinton's interventions will, if anything, make it more likely rather than less likely that MacAskill will order Megrahi's release back to Libya. With Iraq and more recently Gary MacKinnon showing we are in the thrall of America's global might, I think a bit of a poke in the eye for the Americans might go a long way in showing we can take decisions for our own without guidance from the West.

Perhaps Jeff is merely saying what Mr MacAskill was thinking?

(Jeff's latter quote also seems to suggest that he doesn't consider Scotland part of 'the West' - clearly his desire is for a very independent Scotland indeed!)

Top 50 Scottish blogs

I wasn't sure whether to ignore Iain Dale's/Total Politics' political blogging poll completely - if only because Planet Politics was never likely to be a top contender! - or to provide a lengthy and in-depth analysis of the methodology and results, but perhaps something between the two is more appropriate.

Anyway, I really need to post something to proffer a big thanks to all those who voted for me and thus just managed to scrape Planet Politics into the Top 30 in the Scottish blogs category. Your readership and support is much appreciated, particularly given the no doubt partisan nature of much of the voting; anyone with the fortitude to visit here on a regular basis will hopefully be aware that the blog is genuinely non-aligned. I try not to suck up to people merely to curry favour and offer robust criticism and critique when required, while at the same time trying to maintain a fair, moderate and civilised approach.

In the future I hope to perhaps concentrate more on the "real world perspective" promised in the blog's title, which has only really been touched on hitherto, while trying to avoid mundanity - my own personal hobby horses aren't of the import of Afghanistan, Magrahi, the independence question etc - and the ever-present fear of reprisals that might accompany diversion into more sensitive matters. Indeed, there's so much I want to write about that it's partly the thought of 'where to start' that precludes me from being a bit more productive than I have been, together of course with the ever-constraining pressures of time.

But congratulations to those who've made the top 50, and commiserations to those who haven't or who are disappointed with their placement. And particular sympathy to the many fine blogs - some of which I read regularly - that don't feature in the list, but which I won't name lest they perhaps opted out of the process.

In this context a special thanks is also due to Subrosa, since if she hadn't opted out then I undoubtedly wouldn't have made the top 30! An ironic thanks, perhaps, since I apparently have the dubious distinction of being the author of the only non-spam comment she's ever had to delete from her blog!!

Diplomacy or triumphalism?

With the release of the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds seemingly cut and dried, two of this morning's newspapers have conflicting takes on how the Libyan authorities will handle the return home of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

The Herald takes an optimistic view, saying that an understanding has been reached that Libya will not exploit the situation:

Despite concerns that Megrahi will be paraded through the streets to a hero's welcome, The Herald understands that Libyan delegates have told ministers that there would be no such triumphalism.

There is also a tacit agreement that the Libyan government will make no comment until after his return and that, even then, it will not use Megrahi as a big part of Colonel Gaddafi's September celebrations for 40 years in power.

However, the Times portrays a contrasting scenario, headlining with "Lockerbie bomber's private jet to freedom courtesy of Gadaffi":

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi will send his private jet to collect the Lockerbie bomber and take him home to Libya if, as expected, he is released from jail today on compassionate grounds.

A luxury aircraft was scheduled to collect the bomber at Glasgow airport yesterday for his triumphant return to Tripoli...

While the Times makes no mention of the diplomatic assurances claimed by the Herald, as regards the former's claim about the method of travel the latter merely states that Megrahi will travel to Tripoli on a "private jet owned by the Libyan government", which isn't inconsistent with the plane being Gaddafi's personal jet.

Thus a good example of similar facts resulting in two fundamentally contrasting perspectives from different newspapers, with no doubt lots more to come in the next few weeks and months.

Cop-out?

With an ex-senior police officer - former Fife Chief Constable Peter Wilson - presiding over an inquiry into processes involving serving officers, it might be expected that the conclusions wouldn't be overly critical, and so it's transpired with the report into the death of Dundee toddler Brandon Muir, who was killed by the violent drug-abusing boyfriend of his drug addict, prostitute mother.

In essence the inquiry's findings were perhaps eminently predictable: the headline conclusion largely absolves officialdom from immediate blame in relation to the death - "there was little opportunity to prevent the fatal assault on Brandon" - but, on the other hand, "the inquiry revealed gaps and inaccuracies, some caused by pre-existing systems, others by a lack of available resource."

Thus, and without reading the full report, a salient omission discernible from press articles is the lack of any blame attributable to individuals - it's the systems and procedures that are to blame, not any individual person or people.

This follows the pattern of other such inquiries - fundamentally, officials have done nothing wrong, but balance is maintained by including some lesser criticism and thus officialdom and politicians are largely absolved from blame and can seize on the shortcomings to portray themselves as riding to the rescue in relation to implementing improvements.

But this equally predictably leaves many questions unanswered. For example, the Evening Telegraph reports that at a press conference:

Asked if [Mr Wilson] thought the three-week period between “an urgent meeting of child protection partners” on February 28, 2008 and “an urgent case conference” set for March 18, was appropriate given the use of the word urgent, Mr Wilson replied that, “Again I would say they looked at the information and there was ‘nothing at that stage’ to set any alarm bells ringing.

So if there were no alarm bells ringing then why were the meetings deemed "urgent"? Ah, perhaps this contradiction was due to the lack of available resources, or whatever.

Signs of hypocrisy

Given Cllr Ken Guild's road safety concerns regarding driver-distracting flyposting (reported in the Courier recently), it would be interesting to know what he, as leader of Dundee City Council, intends to do about the lamppost and roadside advertising used to line municipal coffers, since I can't recall the SNP opposing this when the Labour-led administration introduced it.

Many of these adverts are mounted near the likes of pedestrian crossings and accident blackspots, one such site being along the middle of a short stretch of dual carriageway on the North Marketgait.

This small piece of road has been the site of numerous accidents in recent years, and indeed joining the carriageway from Constitution Road can be difficult in view of the poor sightlines together with the speed and volume of traffic, never mind that presumably the intention of the advertising is to distract the attention of drivers approaching the junction.

Ironically, just north of this junction lies the premises of the firm of solicitors implicated in the illegal flyposting. I walk past here often, and I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a car illegally parked outside, and it is often still there when I wander back from the city centre. The vehicle also sports illegal number plates.

Also ironic, then, that the rear of the Tayside Police headquarters is situated not far away on the other side of the dual carriageway.

Indeed, an obviously reconstructed wall can be seen here, which I believe was partially demolished by an errant driver. I suspect that at least one of the lampposts carrying the advertising has also been hit by a vehicle!

This early morning photo demonstrates the poor sightlines for drivers joining the dual carriageway from Constitution Road.

The advertising can be seen on the lamppost towards the middle of the photgraph, and there are also hoardings on the two lampposts to the right, and these can just be made out.


This is the view for drivers approaching the junction on the dual carriageway, with two of the distracting advertising hoardings clearly visible.

These photgraphs were taken a couple of years ago, and only one of the hoardings here now remains. At least one of the other two may have fallen victim to a vehicle hitting the lamppost.

(An abridged version of this was sent as a letter to the Courier at the weekend. On Monday morning I walked past the solicitor's premises referred to, and a short distance up the road a couple of police officers were attending a car accident at the busy junction there. Naturally, the vehicle referred to earlier was parked on the yellow lines about fifty metres away! )

Farewell to the Times?

No, it's not a scoop about the demise of the Thunderer, it's about my own personal newspaper buying habits in this age of Web 2.0 and straitened financial times (that's my own personal circumstances, not a reference to the "Pink 'Un"!).

As a rather unworldly prospective undergraduate I was advised to read a quality daily newspaper in preparation for my law course, so I plumped for the Times, particularly since I was to attend an English university (the latter choice was related to my lack of an 'o' grade language rather than any 'quisling' tendencies, or whatever).

Anyway, apart from a few years with the Independent - which was more in line with my politics - and dabbling with the Guardian, I stuck with the Times for around 20 years, particularly since I spent around half a dozen years in England and thus took more of a UK perspective on current affairs (ironically, I was more of a Scottish nationalist when I lived south of the border). Also, to that extent I've never really bought either the Scotsman or Herald on a regular basis, and even when giving the other papers the occasional test run I've always gravitated back to the Times.

Indeed, the Times was also very competitively priced for some time, and it doesn't seem that long ago (less than ten years?) since it was retailing in Scotland for 10p during a price war, which I think at one point tempted me back after a brief sojourn to a rival newspaper.

But, of course, circumstances change, and earlier this year I decided to give up daily newspapers altogether, not as a particular slight to the Times, but probably more for the reasons that the press generally are facing severe financial problems.

First, the price of the Times seemed to jump significantly in what seemed a relatively short period - from 60/70p to the current 90p. Not that this is particularly expensive in competitive terms, but combined with my own declining income spending almost a pound a day has seemed increasingly like an ill-affordable luxury. Second, the Times and most other newspapers are available online, of course, thus buying a paper copy seemed doubly wasteful, not to mention environmentally unfriendly.

Third, and from a purely personal perspective, I had increasingly come to read the Times only for comment rather than news per se, thus I was progressively reading less of an increasingly bloated newspaper - I don't read much in-depth news at all these days, getting my daily fix from headlines, half-watched and listened to TV and radio broadcasts, reading blogs and the comment pages of online newspapers.

Thus earlier this year I took out a contract for mobile broadband with a 'free' netbook (OK, higher charges!) on the basis that I would use the net for my politics and current affairs reading and have a nice little netbook to boot, and be better off financially because of the money saved buying newspapers.

And, difficult as I thought it would be giving up newspapers, I've managed to wean myself off them and onto their online equivalents.

Of course, there's a bigger debate relevant here rather than my own personal circumstances, and that is simply the fact that the free online versions of the newspapers are economically unsustainable, with advertising revenues nowhere near covering costs, and to that extent will eventually come to an end in their current form. Thus Rupert Murdoch's recent announcement that his News Corp group (which includes the Times and Sun in the UK) will start charging for online content at some time in the future, and in the Scottish context the Scotsman already charges for access to most of its comment section.

This would clearly disrupt my own personal reading habits, but assuming that the other publications don't follow suit immediately then there would still be enough free quality stuff available without having to contemplate paying for it. Thus it would be farewell to the Times for me, at least until such time that charging for online content became the norm.

Of course, I suppose many people - particularly those who still shell out for newspapers - would characterise me as something of a freeloader, but as things stand I just can't eschew what's available for nothing; it's after all ultimately a commercial decision for the publishers.

A bigger issue still is the wider threat to the mainstream media and to the newspapers in particular, with the difficult economic climate combining with Web 2.0 to threaten the very existence of much of the 'dead tree press', and clearly there are differing perspectives on this - in the context of the Scottish blogosphere Jeff takes an almost charitable view and thinks we should dig deep to save the newspapers, while Duncan takes a more dismissive standpoint (perhaps as a younger person more attuned to the web and also as an economics graduate who subscribes to the 'creative destruction' perspective).

Personally, I think the impact of Web 2.0 on politics in particular is overdone, and as a corollary the newspapers are well worth saving - for example, the blogosphere is very parasitic vis-à-vis the mainstream media, and to that extent would die with it. But, of course, this won't happen: the newspapers will no doubt go through a process of rationalisation, their online business model will be reformed and if Web 2.0 is to have as much impact as many anticipate then this may necessitate some kind of hybrid model with the MSM - if bloggers and suchlike are to be breaking the news then this will necessitate full-time professionals rather than an hour or two a day amateurs, thus in effect the blogosphere would become the MSM.

In the meantime, though, the impact of Web 2.0 on politics is likely to be marginal - as I said at the time of the semi-hysteria over the 'viral' Danial Hannan speech to the European Parliament, even after the furore died down he was likely to remain unknown to the vast majority of the electorate, and indeed his recent comments on the NHS that have almost made him a household name largely depended on the MSM for their prominence.

(I'm still buying the Dundee morning and evening papers, if only because they're cheaper than the nationals and their online content is limited. The Courier also has good national news coverage.)

Nonsense Times two

While I wouldn't normally agree with everything written in the comment section of the Times, on the other hand it's probably true to say that the journalism is usually of a pretty high standard.

However, having read a couple of items online this morning, I would have to say that both are bordering on complete nonsense.

First is a leader column on the possible early release of the Lockerbie bomber, which states:

The suspicion must be that two factors are swaying Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Minister. [...] The second is the hope that such a gesture would complete Britain’s reconciliation with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, and lead to substantial political and economic benefits.

Eh? This and the rest of the leader seems to assume that Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Government share some common purpose with the British Government as regards the diplomatic situation relating to Libya and Gaddafi, which is surely well wide of the mark?

Second is an opinion piece by Antonia Senior, who asks if the job of an MP is an attractive proposition these days. In a highly contrived scenario - she buys two properties, pays a fortune in childminding fees and doesn't claim any allowances at all - she concludes that her £64,000 salary would require augmenting to the tune of over £500 per month from her own resources to remain as a Member of Parliament:

The job of being an MP is so awful that we should be begging people to do it; enticing them with golden parachutes; binding them with golden handcuffs. Instead, we are giving them buttons and expecting them to be grateful.

I suspect Ms Senior's analysis tells us more about how well Times journalists are paid rather than anything relevant to the real world!

Political gaming

With the forming of a nationalist administration in Edinburgh following the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, strife between the Scottish Government and its UK equivalent has become meat and drink for political watchers, whether couched in terms of Holyrood v Westminster, Edinburgh v London, Scotland v UK/England or SNP v Labour etc.

A localised version of this conflict has broken out in the realm of the computer games industry, with the battle lines drawn between Dundee and Manchester. Dundee has built up something of a reputation in the sector by way of Abertay University, and this academic foundation has helped create a successful commercial side in the city.

But a recent UK Government report, 'Digital Britain', has suggested setting up a rival centre in Salford, Manchester, and you can guess the rest.

Cue a flurry of articles and letters in the Dundee press, with the politicking and SNP/Dundee/Holyrood/Scotland v Labour/Manchester/Westminster/UK dogfight neatly encapsulated in a letter from an SNP press officer, which is laden with phraseology such as "outrageous", "potentially disastrous" and, of course, that "Dundee's SNP politicians can be relied upon to stand up for the city in the face of this threat from the UK Government".

Of course, as a Dundee resident it would be churlish of me not to support the city's academic and commercial progress, but my cynical side is always on the look out for things like wasted taxpayers' money, special interest groups and base politicking masquerading as something else.

For example, the SNP letter talks of the "excellent work" and "world-leading" Dundee centre, but on the other hand refers to the "fragile Scottish gaming industry". This apparent contradiction can perhaps be deconstructed by reference to the claim that "it is highly concerning that public money might be spent to create a competitor to the world-leading centre which has developed in Dundee", when it's realised that the Scottish Government has already pledged £3 million to develop a computer games education UK (sic!) 'Centre of Excellence'at Abertay.

Thus it's possible that the UK Government is attempting to spike the SNP's computer games guns, and the nationalist reaction is eminently predictable and understandable, but from an objective perspective it's difficult to see past the rhetoric, the usual grandstanding over public spending and the ever-present special interest groups - MSP Joe Fitzpatrick has also called for additional tax breaks following pleas from the commercial side of the sector.

Of course, as residents of Dundee/Scotland it's effectively assumed that we'll automatically support Dundee as opposed to Salford, but the issue is surely as much about politicking, parochialism and pork-barrelling rather than patriotism - as a Sunday Times commentator said recently in relation to the battle for jobs at Diageo:

The SNP-led council in Fife is positively ecstatic over the prospect of new jobs, and an east-west split has emerged as politicians come to blows over rival regions. Any relationship between the workers of Kilmarnock and the wider Scottish public is but a romantic nationalist notion.

But it's difficult for us laypeople to get past the 'standing up for Dundee/Scotland'-type rhetoric and at the real issues in matters like this, and indeed its tempting just to let bickering politicians get on with it.

Unfortunately, real world cash and jobs are at stake, and it's not a mere virtual reality political game, much as it might appear so at times.

Tufty Fluffytail v Willy Weasel

The Tufty Club may be well past its heyday, but in its time it was an extremely popular road safety initiative for children:

Tufty Fluffytail was born in 1953, as a creation of the late Elsie Mills MBE. Original stories for The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents featured the squirrel and his friends to introduce clear and simple safety messages to children.

Tufty was joined in his adventures by Minnie Mole and the naughty Willy Weasel along with Mrs Owl the teacher and Policeman Badger, who always popped up in the nick of time to save the children.

While this may have been an effective road safety campaign in an age of greater innocence, a contrary argument was provided recently by Sunday Herald columnist Susan Flockhart, who claimed:

...the problem is that by placing the emphasis on teaching them how to stay out of harm's way, these campaigns signalled that responsibility for keeping children safe lay with the children themselves, rather than the adults who designed the streets and drove the cars.

Thus the onus has been placed on children rather than trying to control the speed of adult drivers, and Flockhart compares the Willy Weasels "having the cheek to behave like children" with the "juvenile" attitude of the motorists' lobby to speed control.

Indeed, she argues compellingly against points made by the anti-speed camera crusade, but surely part of the road safety problem is that the Tufty Club ethos has all but disappeared, and instead the responsibility for road safety has increasingly been placed on drivers, albeit that many of them self-evidently resent this.

At the root of this is the usual suspect - political correctness - and Susan Flockhart employs the requisite language of this perspective, claiming that the Tufty Club approach has "demonised" children.

But surely the reverse has actually happened and the PC standpoint has deemed that because pedestrians are further down the pecking order than motorists - and child pedestrians are further down still - then this absolves them from responsibility as compared to adult drivers in nasty cars.

Thus when the schools come out there are now more Willy Weasels walking in front of cars or careering along pavements on their bikes, or when they get older they're wandering drunkenly out of the, ahem, "controlled environment" of pubs and clubs into the path of passing cars or have graduated to roaring round in souped-up Subarus because, of course, it wouldn't do to demonise children or young people.

Obviously allowances must be made for the unpredictable behaviour of children, but on the other hand it's folly to excuse their more foolhardy behaviour and push the onus wholly onto adult drivers, particularly when the law doesn't quite reflect this approach, as the number of blameless drivers who hit a child pedestrian or cyclist testifies.

Indeed, the PC approach outlined here is merely one facet of how the moral zeitgeist has used the excuse of things like youth and/or poverty to ignore the errant behaviour of groups characterised in terms such as "vulnerable", but this exculpatory approach and consequent lack of personal responsibility has arguably compounded the problems that were intended to be addressed rather than solved them.

Thus both child pedestrians and drivers should be taught to follow the example of Tufty the squirrel, however goody-goody he may have seemed, because requiring different standards from different groups breeds resentment, conflict and ultimately danger.

Gunning for gays

The SNP's selection of a candidate to fight the Glasgow North East by-election caused a bit of a stir, with the process involving accusations relating to sexuality, homophobia and religion.

Unfortunately for the party these issues have come into focus again in relation to remarks made by an SNP councillor on a radio show. Kenneth Gunn, of Borders Council, said:

We've got so-called gays, who are really very sad people, and we have non-believers and heathens running the country.

For a party supposedly against prejudice and discrimination this kind of thing clearly creates some difficulty, particularly when coupled with matters such as millionaire Brian Souter's 'keep the clause' anti-homosexuality campaign prior to the bus mogul's bankrolling of the SNP's 2007 Holyrood election campaign.

The party has dismissed criticism of Mr Gunn's remarks on the basis that they are a "personal matter", they "do not reflect a party position" and were not made in a political capacity.

This seems disingenuous, however. What would Mr Gunn say on such matters in a party political capacity? Either he would say the same thing or he's a hypocrite.

Interestingly, Mr Gunn's wife Wilma once likened the impact of UK economic policies on Scotland to "ethnic cleansing".

Clearly concepts like modernity, tolerance and inclusiveness don't hold much sway in the Gunn household.

FMQs lowlights

With Holyrood well into its summer break (has anyone outside the political bubble noticed?) it's perhaps an appropriate time to look back at some of the more questionable comments made at FMSs (First Minister's Soundbites) this year, with particular reference to law and order and the Tayside area.

On 14 May 2009 the first minister said:

There is, however, something that Annabel Goldie and I can agree on and celebrate: not only have we had the furthest and largest drop in recorded crime in 25 years, we have the record number of 16,675 police officers on the street, protecting our communities, drug-busting across Scotland and keeping this country safe.

But earlier that week the Scottish Sun had reported:

A TOP police chief last night claimed the war on drugs CAN’T be won. Chief Constable Kevin Mathieson said a shocking one in 35 people in his Tayside force’s city is a heroin addict. [...]

“It’s an enormous problem and we haven’t got enough money being spent on resources or treatment centres. What’s clear is we’re not going to solve this problem. We’ve got to tackle it as best we can.”

On 5 March 2009 the first minister said, regarding the murder of Dundee toddler Brandon Muir:

One thing I would say is this: the culpability and guilt lie with the person who perpetrated the crime, and not with the social work department or the police.

But three months later the Courier reported:

Child protection services in Dundee have been severely criticised in a damning report published today.

The report, prepared in the wake of the Brandon Muir case, was compiled by a team of independent assessors led by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education and has raised major concerns over the effectiveness of services to protect vulnerable children in the city and meet their needs. [...]

The report showed there were major weaknesses in the identification of children who needed protection, staff across services did not always respond quickly enough to children who were at risk of significant harm and they did not always report concerns until the child’s circumstances had reached crisis point.

The report follows the killing last year of 23-month-old Brandon Muir at the hands of Robert Cunningham, the boyfriend of the Dundee toddler’s mother. [...]

Their investigation carefully examined the work of the city council, the police, the NHS, the children’s reporter and other local agencies.

On 3 June 2009 the first minister said, in relation to absconders from open prisons:

Every single member of the Scottish Parliament should have obligations to our prison officers and police service. ...it is about respecting their operational independence, as has always been done, backing our prison officers in the incredibly difficult job that they do, and understanding that, even in the heat of an election campaign, going for a quick hit in the chamber is irrelevant, compared with the important job of backing the people who keep us safe from harm.

But three weeks later a report in the Courier said:

Mistakes by prison bosses allowed a dangerous criminal to be moved to an open prison from where he went on the run. [...] In his report on the incident, published yesterday, Professor Alec Spencer of Stirling University criticised the Multi-Disciplinary Progression Group at Shotts Prison which made the decision to transfer Martin to Castle Huntly.

“It appears that nine members of the Shotts Multi-Disciplinary Progression Group (MDPG) overlooked the fact that Martin had previously absconded,” the report said. “However, the offence of ‘Prison-breaking (escape from lawful custody)’ was written on the front page of each of his annual reviews. Police intelligence also indicated Martin as an ‘Escaper’. This information appears not to have been brought to the MDPG’s attention and was not taken into account when the final decision to transfer Martin to open conditions was taken. The MDPG appears to have overlooked or ignored the references to prison-breaking, escaping or absconding. In addition I understand that there was also reference to this among earlier papers in an extensive social work file.”

While it's easy to quibble with straightforward comparisons between Mr Salmond's utterances and the quotes above from elsewhere, on the other hand it's equally self-evident that there's more than a touch of the soundbite about his statements to parliament.

In particular, the first minister in these instances demonstrates the classic trick of appealing to the emotional barrier surrounding public servants in particular occupations - such as police and health workers - which acts as a shield in several ways.

First, it allows the politician to deflect criticism from any of their own related shortcomings. Second, it shields public servants from any plausible censure. Third, the first two factors together help insulate the relevant public services from proper scrutiny and democratic accountability.

For example, there is often a cross-party clamour to praise police in relation to a particular issue, while as regards other aspects of government and the public sector opposition parties will criticise by default.

And compare the approach of politicians to the likes of police officers on the one hand and their political opponents on the other. The former can do no wrong, while the latter can do no right.

Surely the truth of the matter lies somewhere between those two extremes.

Durkheim and Hutcheon on religion and nationalism

The nineteenth century decline in participative religion in Europe coincided with an increase in national sentiment. Indeed, the rise of 'nation states' was accompanied by an ethos that was quasi-religious in flavour, and many authors likened religious to nationalist sentiment, even arguing that previous notions of attachment to the church were redirected towards the nation.

Sociologist Emile Durkheim argued that religious and national rituals - such as singing national anthems - had much in common, and said:

...it is by uttering the same cry, pronouncing the same word, or performing the same gesture in regard to some object that [the people] become and feel themselves to be in unison.

Of course, the tide can swing the other way, and the contemporary Islamist goal of a global caliphate for the Muslim religion in a global theocracy is clearly antithetical to the concept of the nation state.

However, in present day Scotland there is arguably some evidence of attempts to promote religious and nationalist sentiment as complimentary rather than mutually exclusive. One controversial SNP parliamentary candidate is a Muslim who has advocated the restoration of the caliphate. A current by-election candidate is a member of hardline Catholic sect Opus Dei. And SNP leader Alex Salmond recently let it be known that he is a man of Presbyterian faith and that this has had a profound effect on his life, which perhaps adds credence to the view that he is "cosying up" to the Catholic church, arguably for electoral gain.

In a wide-ranging critique of Scottish nationalism in today's Sunday Herald, Paul Hutcheon provides a rather Marxist take on this confluence of nationalism and religion:

This combination of nationalism and religion is a recipe for keeping people dumb, poor and unable to understand the rational world that exists outside of their wee bit of hill and glen. According to this world view, it matters little that you work 50 hours a week for poverty pay, get treated like dirt by employers or are let down by public services, because at least you love your country and have Jesus in your life.

Leaving aside the hyperbole, Hutcheon is surely right in that religion and nationalism can divert attention from what ultimately matters in politics, which he describes as the "distribution of power, money and opportunity", and in support of this he berates the view that Scots have "always been big on compassion and community", says that Scottish civic nationalism is a "value-free zone" and questions its claims regarding social justice because of the SNP's reliance on funding from right-wing businessmen and the party's co-option of establishment figures.

While there's clearly plenty to quibble with there even for non-nationalists, Hutcheon's central claim - that nationalism diverts attention from substantive politics and policies - will resonate with many of those disillusioned with politics, and who view devolution and nationalism as more about flag waving and political aggrandisement than the pragmatic policies necessary to deal with Scotland's myriad problems. As Hutcheon puts it:

Far from being a liberating force, nationalism is more akin to a ball and chain, or a set of blinkers that prevent people from seeing the world as it is.