Cultural contradictions and councillor confusion (revisited)

It's interesting that Mohammed Asif, Dundee's only Muslim councillor, has criticised the city council's decision to downplay the Christmas aspect to this year's festive lights switch-on, now dubbed Winter Lights Night. He said:

I am not a Christian, but I recognise that Christmas is probably the most important cultural celebration for families in Dundee. I do not celebrate Christmas as a religious festival, but I do celebrate Christmas along with my family. The people of Dundee know the lights are on for Christmas. Let’s just call it Christmas.

Yet the last time Councillor Asif hit the headlines was when he objected to Tayside Police using a black puppy in promotional literature since it might offend Muslims, because in Islam such dogs are considered "ritually unclean". However, when the Dundee press tried to find support for the councillor's stance in the local community there was very little in evidence.

But SNP administration leader Ken Guild cites Mr Asif's intervention as "destroying the myth that the arrangements have had anything to do with offending Muslims". But if Mr Asif is as representative of Muslim opinion as he was during the puppy incident then his comments do nothing of the sort, and in any case the political correctness agenda is quite often driven by the white liberal class rather than the ethnic/cultural/religious minorities on whose behalf they claim to be acting, thus the councillor's comments prove nothing as regards the rationale for the Winter Light Night rebranding

Meanwhile, a correspondent to the Evening Telegraph with a culturally diverse name sees Christmas as integral to "embracing" and "celebrating" diversity, and also takes the opportunity to have a pop at the ruling SNP council administration. But Jill Shimi is the former council leader who stood down as a Labour councillor in to seek higher office in the 2007 elections, so perhaps there's some political motivation at work there.

Indeed, Mr Asif is also a Labour councillor, which perhaps helps explain his cultural volte-face, but on the other hand maybe he's just trying to atone for past sins (hope no one is offended by the Christian origins of that phrase!) regarding the puppy on the postcard.

However, comments regarding the issue by the city's lord provost perhaps demonstrate where the real power lies in Dundee - it should be recalled that staunch Unionist John Letford resigned from the Labour party to propel the SNP to the levers of power in City Square. Mr Letford said: "It will all be sorted for next year and we will not allow this to happen again."

Well that's assuming that the lord provost is a bit more switched on about the lights switch-on than the recent reports suggest he is, but now he's claiming that the guidance from officialdom was a "vague policy document that seems to have caught us on the hop", despite the earlier council assertions that the Christmas aspect to the Winter Light Night was adequately explained to members of the relevant committee.

However, the Courier reports that Councillor Laurie Bidwell now says the move to secularise the Christmas lights switch-on was raised when the council's city development committee debated the issue in August. He said: "I was one of the few councillors that night who actually spoke out against this at the meeting, decrying the secularisation of the event."

And Mr Bidwell also quotes from a press release by the SNP's Willie Dawson, dated 21 August: "Understandably, this has provoked negative reactions, especially from members of the church communities in Dundee".

Let's hope that by next year all councillors are as switched-on as Mr Bidwell about what's being proposed!

CyberNats tamed?

It was always difficult to discern an obvious rationale for a pro-independence blog like Montague Burton's The Universality of Cheese. Intelligent, well-written and knowledgeable, but interlaced with a persistent poisonous streak which meant that personally I would only visit the site very occasionally, and just for curiosity's sake.

Of course, some of his posts went way beyond a slight tendency towards nastiness, and today's News of the World exposes the blog's author as former SNP apparatchik Mark MacLachlan - he resigned his post following his unmasking. Indeed, he was an aide to constitution minister Mike Russell, with particularly unfortunate timing for the Nationalists in view of tomorrow's St Andrews Day launch of the SNP's White Paper on an independence referendum, with today's Sunday Times poll - showing a mere 20% supporting independence and a little better 25% desiring an early vote on the subject - rubbing salt in the wound.

But what MacLachlan hoped to achieve with the blog is beyond me. Of course, stuff of this genre has its own fan base, but from a broader perspective the site seemed more likely to repel rather than attract neutrals to the independence cause, even assuming that blogging can exert much influence at all outwith the online political bubble..

And given the former position of the blog's author the revelations can now only damage the SNP.

Thus perhaps Mark MacLachlan merely desired a little online adulation and saw a blog with a hefty dose of bile and vitriol as a more effective means to that end than a more moderate approach, or perhaps the venom on display provided some sort of personal catharsis.

But whatever he sought to achieve, the MacBlogosphere in general and the SNP's online presence in particular are well rid of the likes of The Universality of Cheese, and it is to be hoped that this latest exposé - following the demise of Wardog last week - will encourage others to adopt a more civilised approach.

However, while some moderation is tone seems likely, on the other hand this weekend's affair seems more likely to exacerbate the bunker mentality of many of the CyberNats, with Monty joining Wardog on the road to canonisation, and providing yet another cause célèbre against the supposed Pravda-esque Unionist/Labour/media conspiracy.

Salmond's RBS BS BS

In view of last week's appearance by Stephen Hester, chief executive of RBS, before a Holyrood committee investigating the banking crisis, it's worth recalling remarks made by Alex Salmond on Scotland's banking behemoths a mere year and a half ago:

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.

Of course, the evidence suggests that none of the major political parties had a handle on the situation or the impending financial meltdown, so to that extent it's fair to say that Alex Salmond is no worse than the Browns, Camerons and Cables of the otherworldly political bubble.

However, it's also worth recalling that Mr Salmond's background as a former RBS economist is often cited by his supporters, and to that extent Mr Hester's remarks last week are particularly interesting:

Problems at the Royal Bank of Scotland were "obvious to all" before the financial crisis took hold, the group's chief executive said today.

Stephen Hester, who took over from former boss Sir Fred Goodwin after the banking crash, said the RBS balance sheet was "too big and too vulnerable".

"In the case of RBS, it had a balance sheet that was too big, too vulnerable and it was not supported by adequate capital."

The bank's problems were "on full view to everyone", as were the global problems which led to the recession.

Thus while RBS's balance sheet problems may have been "obvious to all" and "on full view to everyone" even before the financial meltdown, clearly this didn't extent to the ex-RBS economist, whose earlier remarks therefore amount to little more than BS.

(BS is often used as an abbreviation for both balance sheet and something slightly naughty!)

Disorder and defeatism

Some interesting comments from contributor 'Indy' in response to my earlier post about policing, which are perhaps worthy of a more detailed examination. I agree with much of what Indy says as regards the symptoms, but not the solution. Indy's comments are in italics.


Whether people ever really were routinely picked up for being drunk and disorderly is debatable but it would certainly be completely impractical now. If police were to arrest every person who was drunk and disorderly on a Friday or Saturday night they would be so busy carting them back to the police station and finding space to hold them there would be no police available to respond to 999 calls. It is just not practical.

Indeed, it would require a radical approach, and one that none of the political parties seems even remotely likely to entertain, which is why it's not practical, or, should I say, principled.

But the point is surely that if a greater effort was made to address the problem then it would be reduced in scale, thus the reverse of the neglect that caused the problem in the first place. Moreover, if there were fewer aggressive and incapable drunks on the streets then there wouldn't be so many 999 calls anyway, so it's win-win.

Of course, while it's easy to get into this position incrementally over a number of years, turning the thing round is more difficult, and something more radical than the current proposals is required, but I'm not holding my breath.

Incidentally, how did the powers that be stop people smoking in pubs and clubs overnight?

And are you saying these 1,000 new police officers are a waste of time in relation to this problem? I'd have thought that at least some of the additional numbers are devoted to this matter, so what are they doing?

You could I suppose use civilians to do the job - community wardens perhaps.

I thought the wardens' hours were such that it was ensured that they were off home to bed before the pubs spilled out? And who would blame them, given the toothless, touchy-feely ethos of the whole project, thus merely an extension of the thinking that has caused the crime problem, and not the solution.

And even if the wardens were used then they would clearly need police powers (rather than being an adjunct of environmental health) and things like handcuffs etc, in other words they'd effectively become policemen - what a good idea instead of the current glorified neighbourhood watch scheme!

It would be a good form of shock therapy if drunks got lifted or even issued with a summary fine every time they set a staggering foot out the pub door. But by God what outrage there would be. I can just imagine the screams of political correctness/nanny state gone mad. If people don't have the right to get rat arsed on their own streets what's the world coming to etc.

Indeed, the culture of drunkenness is a product of the human rights/political correctness culture, but neither Labour nor the SNP are remotely interested in addressing that, hence the problem. But you're right about the shock therapy required.

Because that is the underlying issue - people do not think that it is a crime to get totally drunk and fall about the place and even if they were arrested they would still not think it was a crime. Driving a car while drunk, beating up your wife while drunk - yes almost everyone would accept that those are crimes. But being out of your face staggering down the street - sorry but very few people would recognise that as being a crime.

Yes, and it's a cultural change that's required, and the culture certainly won't be changed by minimum pricing, will it? It's far too crude - if it achieves anything it will just stop people getting blootered so often because they can't afford it, whereas what's required is stopping people getting blootered because they want to. Period.

There is no point blaming the police for that and you can't blame politicians either. They are not responsible for that state of affairs, they are simply responding to it.

Oh aye?!?

The problem didn't happen overnight, so at what point was it decided to ignore offences like drunk and disorderly when things might have been manageable without radical change? How did police decide this and how was it endorsed politically?

Who's responsible for the PC/human rights culture?

While I don't think individuals can be blamed, it's surely the case that fault lies with officialdom somewhere. If politicians think they can effect cultural change then why shouldn't they be held to account when their action or inaction creates adverse consequences?

Of course, there are various, ahem, stakeholders and myriad dynamics involved, but simply absolving the powers that be from blame doesn't help identify the causes of the problem, it just looks self-serving.

And this discussion merely underlines that the alcohol/crime problem is merely an aggravating feature in the country's lack of law and order/rules and boundaries, caused by things like the human rights zeitgeist and light touch policing.

On a related point, the chief inspector of police (for England and Wales) this week claimed that policing had lost its way:

[The chief inspector] added that police performance and accountability is still a “cluttered” landscape.

“You have got Government, you have got regulators like myself, you’ve got local partnerships, you’ve got Government offices, a whole series of interests.

“If you add it all together and put on a piece of paper the links to show who is providing information, who is asking for information, who is suggesting new initiatives … it makes the London Underground map look like a walk in the park.

“There are just so many people, with so many different interests in play, it is very noisy.

Policing by platitude?

People now have less faith in police and policing than they had once upon a time. An example of this appeared in a recent Telegraph article by Byrony Gordon, who had witnessed a violent attack in a London street:

On the television, in video games, and on the news – this week, we saw CCTV images of five women attacking a stranger in Grimsby – the sight of people acting like feral animals no longer has the power to shock.

Certainly not the police, who reacted to the phone call from the bus stop as if it were the shipping news. There was no sense of urgency.[...]

On Thursday, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Denis O'Connor, said that serious assaults were being written off by police when they should be properly investigated, possibly in an effort to meet Government targets. In one case a man needed six stitches to a head wound after being beaten up; it was GBH, but was recorded as "no crime".

A particular facet of the problem - and one which is particularly relevant to Scotland's current debate about the ill-effects of alcohol - is the policing of late-night drunken behaviour in city centres.

In the same newspaper Libby Purves said:

This year, I walked a 10-hour shift with a policeman on a Friday night in a provincial town. I learned that "drunk and disorderly" is no longer a routinely arrestable crime (frankly, there just aren't enough cells). On a beat like that, by midnight D & D is more like a general description of everybody in sight.

By the same token, a contribution left on this blog in relation to the problem said:

The reason why the police don't routinely pick up people for being drunk and disorderly these days is because there are so many more drunk people - because people drink much more than they did in the past.

Which perhaps gets to the crux of the issue - a crime is more widespread, thus that's a reason to ignore it? That's maybe why it's become more widespread; as it's increased in frequency, police increasingly turn a blind eye to it, therefore creating a vicious circle and further compounding the problem.

One aspect of the official response to the crime problem is to shift some of the blame onto the public. For example, a senior Strathclyde Police officer recently suggested that older people returning to late-night central Glasgow could help reclaim the streets from the drunks, but this seems to get the cart before the horse. Indeed, a restaurateurs' representative responded, in a letter to the Herald:

Chief superintendent Anne McGuire refers to the atmosphere in Glasgow at the weekend as boisterous and refers to a state of mind where people are fearful and intimidated. In doing so, she describes a set of circumstances whereby those participating are responsible for a good old-fashioned “breach of the peace”.[...]

There is no realistic chance of less “boisterous” people flocking back into Glasgow in order to cure this problem for the police, it is up to the police to deal with it first and create an environment where sensible people would want to spend time.

I agree whole-heartedly that people come into town in order to socialise, and that it would be a huge deterrent to turning up in the town centre already drunk if offenders knew there was a very real threat that their night would be cut short by the police.

By the same token, Dundee's lord provost recently said, in relation to a crackdown on crime and anti-social behaviour:

There are too many people who are willing to hide behind their curtains and make anonymous phone calls but not really get involved in taking on the problems. It is time for the people to stand up and be counted and show more co-operation with the police.

However, this was made in the context of a 'here today, gone tomorrow' crackdown-type initiative, although rather than just a good old-fashioned 'blitz', or whatever, the current clampdown is led by no less than a Community Engagement Team.

But it is perhaps this kind of transient, headline grabbing initiative that deters people from taking a stand; maybe there are ample police officers around at the moment and this should encourage people to put their head above the parapet but, on the other hand, when the Community Engagement Team is engaging with some other community, what happens then?

Unfortunately the main concern of councillors seems to be to the usual one of telling us what a good job everyone in authority is doing, and shifting the onus on to the public to maintain the momentum once police numbers are reduced, but without addressing why people might be reluctant to do so.

Of course, the lord provost infamously managed to have riot police sent to question a retired Dundonian soldier who had called him an "embarrassment" in an email, thus he seems unlikely to appreciate how vulnerable ordinary people feel about sticking their necks out.

And in view of some of the evidence cited above, is it any wonder that many people doubt the efficacy of policing anyway, and a degree of public mistrust has built up regarding the whole political/policing edifice? Of course, the official response largely ignores the real world realities and anxieties. Instead, we have the likes of this from police in response to a Dundee shopkeeper "being subjected to taunts of racial abuse and intimidating behaviour from children as young as eight":

We are proactively working in a partnership approach with several other agencies to work in the community.

Reassuring?

Blogging self-destruction

It was with trepidation that I scoured the weekend's press for the half-expected articles about Wardog's blog. Although disagreeing with his politics and despairing at his increasingly venomous tone, we left occasional comments on each other's blogs and generally got on reasonably well, if only in the context of the narrow confines of debate in a Web 2.0 environment.

Thus from a personal perspective it was sad to find that several newspapers had covered the story of Wardog's blog and the comments made therein about several Labour politicians, which have reportedly come to the attention of his part-time employer in the academic sector and may well have repercussions regarding his professional and business reputation elsewhere.

While his writings have always tended towards the edgier (to put it euphemistically) side of blogosphere, in recent weeks they appeared to become increasingly vitriolic, culminating in the offensive remarks which ultimately led to the blog's demise and the adverse publicity in the press.

It was almost as if Wardog was trying to provoke a big reaction of some sort, but whatever his intention he certainly seemed set on a path that ultimately culminated in blogging self-destruction.

Of course, it's not entirely clear how the issue of Wardog and his blog came to the attention of the media in the first place, but while there is very probably an element of political motivation somewhere along the line, on the other hand it was ultimately his own decision to reveal his identity and to write the offending posts; combined, this amounts to a misjudgement, in my opinion, and to that extent Wardog dug his own blogging grave.

And while his more vehement supporters are blaming everything from a Labour/press conspiracy to a police state, the brutal fact is that anyone posting the likes of Wardog's remarks in a non-anonymous environment does so at their own peril - from my own perspective the story didn't seem particularly newsworthy, but the press have their own rules, as we all know, and whatever fault lies on their part, a reckless approach to online discourse is undertaken at the writer's own risk.

Likewise, there are accusations of censorship and the predictable comments about 1984, East Germany and suchlike, but ultimately there was nothing to stop Wardog from continuing his blog, but clearly - and rightly, in my opinion - he decided that his employment, professional reputation and personal wellbeing came before the right to vent his spleen in public.

Of course, on a broader note there's a lot, lot worse out there on the blogosphere than what Wardog posted last week but, in a nutshell, the point of much of it completely escapes me. Clearly there's a market for such stuff on the web, and indeed to an extent there seems to be a greater camaraderie among purveyors and readers of such matter than for more moderate opinion, but from the wider perspective it seems to amount to little more than verbal thuggery and thus achieves little of substance. And, more to the point, it all seems unlikely to exert even the slightest influence on mainstream opinion - even the parties and causes these people purport to support seem to regard this body of opinion as a liability rather than an asset. Surely their case would be made a lot more effectively if a more measured style and tone was adopted?

Unfortunately Wardog seemed to get caught up in this ethos which seems to think that anything can be said without regard for truth and decency, and without consequence. Of course, it's all very well to hide behind pseudonyms to do this, but Wardog made the mistake of outing himself, and sadly the consequences have ultimately been very real. Meanwhile, the otherworldly milieu of the genre will wallow in a persecution complex, indulge themselves in grand conspiracy theories and ultimately exploit Wardog's predicament as cyber-martyrdom, whereas for his alter ego the consequences could be very real. Indeed, he's as much a victim of the environment of extreme blogging as of the press and politics and his own self-immolation.

But let us hope that the consequences for Wardog's real life persona don't go beyond the termination of his blog and ending up as tomorrow's fish supper wrappers. Whatever happens, I wish him well.

(Links and real names have been deliberately omitted.)

Christmas (sic!) trumps safety amid more councillor confusion

The row over Dundee City Council's rebranding of the Christmas lights switch-on as Winter Light Night rumbles on, with numerous letters in the local press no doubt adding to official discomfiture.

And Courier columnist John J Marshall argues that the name change had more to do with avoiding causing religious offence than the expanded programme planned for this year, citing the Director of City Development's report to councillors, which said the evening would be:

A chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the city, focusing on our shared culture, history and identity.

Indeed, the words 'shared culture' in particular seem symptomatic of typical PC-speak. However, the phrase above seems to originate from a national initiative called Light Night, which is an offshoot of the Association of Town Centre Management, perhaps indicating that the downgrading of the Christmas aspect of the programme was not wholly politically motivated. In fact none of the other cities hosting a Light Night appear to have a festive element to their events.

However, in view of previous nationally publicised controversies about the secularisation of municipal Christmas celebrations, then presumably Dundee City Council officials should have realised that the move could prove controversial, even if councillors perhaps weren't as attentive as they might have been over the matter.

Anyway, it's interesting that another issue dominating the local news this week also involves lights, but this time of the lamp standard variety. It seems that the council has been refusing to repair lampposts damaged by errant drivers, and a slightly bizarre notice attached to a 'street lighting column' in the city's Menzieshill area reads:

PUBLIC NOTICE
The street lighting column situated here was struck & knocked down (most probably by a vehicle). No one has owned up to this accident. The column is unlikely to be replaced unless a responsible party can be found. Should you have any information regarding this incident please call the customer services helpline on 0800 23 23 23.

Unsurprisingly, concerns have been raised over safety and even the ruling Nationalist administration are unhappy with the situation, but SNP councillor Will Dawson, convenor of the city development committee, claims the decision not to replace damaged street lights was made by the previous Labour/Lib Dem administration and the SNP had not been aware of the measure until a couple of months ago. But Lib Dem councillor Fraser Macpherson has countered that the "budget was passed unanimously and all aspects were discussed in an all-party setting", and is calling for a rethink.

Thus more than a hint of party politics in evidence, not to mention more councillor confusion, but it's interesting to compare the cost of the Winter Light Night - £50,000 - with the cost of repairing the damaged streetlights, which with currently around 10 in the city would total something like £8-10,000.

And all this seems to partly stem from a spat between SNP and Labour councillors following a recent stabbing and knife-point robbery in the Menzieshill area, with the former describing as "destructive" and "offensive" remarks by the latter's Tom Ferguson relating to the two incidents.

SNP councillor Alan Ross described the area as a "safe and nice place to live". Unless, of course, you are left in the dark due to unrepaired street lights.

Yes, Mr Gray, that said it all

At FMQs earlier today Labour's Iain Gray pushed the mantra that Alex Salmond is 'losing it', and in evidence cited the SNP's trouncing in last week's Glasgow North East by-election. Indeed, the victor in that contest just happened to be in the Holyrood chamber, and Mr Gray triumphantly said:

Willie Bain, Scotland's newest MP, sitting in the public gallery, that says it all.

Indeed, Mr Gray. That says a lot about a new MP who was only yesterday being paraded in front of the cameras with Mr & Mrs Brown in Downing Street before taking his place in the House of Commons, only to a few hours later hotfoot it back to Edinburgh (paid for by the taxpayer, presumably) to make a guest appearance at FMQs. I know that candidates in the by-election had some difficulty differentiating issues devolved to Holyrood from those reserved to Westminster, but this is getting ridiculous.

That also says a lot about Mr Bain's attitude to the House of Commons - rather than prioritising finding his feet in his new environment he instead thought it better to rub the SNP's noses in it at Holyrood's weekly set-piece.

And that also says a lot about Labour's attitude to yesterday's Queen's Speech - Willie Bain's response to his party's legislative programme was to disappear back north to be paraded as a political scalp, which in turn underlines the pointless nature of his election during the fag-end of a government, with yesterday's Westminster set-piece amounting to little more than wasteful electioneering.

And on a wider note Alex Salmond's humorous and indeed self-critical quip about Willie Bain possibly seeking a dual-mandate emphasised the question mark often surrounding the post of MP/MSP as amounting to a proper job: Alex Salmond manages to do both, as well as serving as first minister.

Indeed, Mr Gray - your remark said a lot about the nature of party politics and priorities.

Anoraks v nonattitudes

The post-poll analysis of last week's Glasgow North East by-election largely failed to mention the impact of the Socialist Labour Party on comparisons with the result in the 2005 general election.

Of course, convention holds that the Parliamentary vote to re-elect the Speaker should be uncontested, thus the figures are not readily comparable, but the SNP did stand against Labour's Michael Martin in the 2005 contest - not to mention several minor parties - and to the extent that the SNP and Labour hugely outpolled the other candidates both now and then means that there is some merit in comparing the numbers.

However, in 2005 Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party garnered 4,036 votes, while last week its candidate secured a mere 47. This surely underlines that the earlier hefty vote for the fringe party was down to voter confusion - as the Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin wasn't identified as a Labour candidate on the ballot paper, thus voters intending to vote Labour put their cross beside the hard left option.

Hence while the bare numbers show that Labour's share of the vote increased from 53.3% to 59.4% between the two polls, if it's assumed that c. 4,000 of the Socialist Labour Party's vote were intended for the Labour Party in 2005 then its share would have been around 67% then, therefore meaning that the straightforward comparison between 2005 and 2009 flattered last week's Labour candidate Willie Bain - the bare numbers show him increasing Labour's share of the vote significantly, whereas adjusting for the Socialist Labour Party effect shows a significant fall.

Anyway, a week's a long time in politics, and to that extent the above is all water under the bridge now, but I thought of this facet of the Glasgow North East result when reading an article in this morning's Times by political guru Daniel Finkelstein. The piece is essentially about public ignorance of politics, and includes examples like the following:

A very nice friend, who reads the newspaper every day, told me that she didn’t think David Cameron would win the election. Why, I asked? Because the Tories will win, she replied. But he is a Tory, I exclaimed. Oh, she said, I thought he was Conservative.

Although I don't think I come into the league of political anoraks - and I mean the term as a compliment, not a criticism! - like Will Patterson, it's easy to find public attitudes like this amusing, although clearly the serious issue with people like the so-called "nonattitudes" is the implications for the democratic process. For example, Mr Finkelstein points out how the likes of today's Queen's speech is an irrelevance outside the political bubble; it will barely register with the general public, at least as regards anything approaching the substance of what's announced or its relevance (or lack thereof this time round).

Lord provost not switched-on over switch-on

Dundee has been in the national media recently over the City Council's decision to dispense with the traditional Christmas lights switch-on, which will now be called the Winter Light Night. Church groups and others have complained that the rebranding has eroded the traditional Christian aspect to the festival. Unsurprisingly, others still have viewed the decision as born of political correctness, with the Christmas element being dropped to avoid offending members of non-Christian faiths.

However, it's since been reported (not online) that the council and church groups have held meetings to clear the air, with the SNP administration insisting that the event has merely been extended from the traditional Christmas lights switch-on, hence the change in title. Indeed, when the Courier first reported the new event in August the council's development director was quoted as saying that "the Christmas lights will also be switched on for the first time for the event".

On the other hand, perhaps comments on the Homecoming Scotland website by development committee convenor Will Dawson do allude to a desire to downgrade the significance of the Christian element, if not to 'cancel Christmas' altogether: "The varied programme of Winter Light Night reflects today’s Dundee as a diverse and vibrant city. There will be something to suit all tastes, and everyone is invited."

Anyway, today's Courier reports that Dundee's lord provost John Letford - who it should be recalled defected from Labour to help the SNP take control of the city council, but who remains a staunch Unionist - shares "the churches’ view about the omission of the word Christmas from the switching on of the lights", following complaints that "the Christian faith has been betrayed and that he was responsible".

And Mr Letford claims he was in the dark on the lights:

He accepted that an item about the Winter Night Light had gone through committee and he had not opposed it but said that was because he believed what was being proposed was in addition to the traditional Christmas lights event, rather than a replacement.

But it is in addition to the Christmas lights and not a replacement, surely? Indeed, the council has responded:

The proposal for the Winter Night Light celebration was approved unanimously at a meeting of the city development committee on Monday, August 24. The report (submitted to the committee) explained that the Christmas lights will also be switched on for the first time for the event.

Which is in fact what was in essence outlined by the Courier report almost three months ago - presumably Mr Letford neither paid attention to what was going on when the committee met nor read the report about the proposal in the local press.

Of course, in view of the lord provost's role in propping up the SNP administration there's a potential political dimension to all of this, but more importantly this issue is perhaps instructive as regards the efficacy of the council's decision making process.

In the normal course of events the fact that councillors are voting on matters they are not 'switched-on' about will not become an issue, but this particular controversy at least highlights that much of our so-called local democracy is little more than municipal government by officialdom, with councillors merely turning up to rubber-stamp decisions made by the bureaucrats.

An earthquake of sorts

While it perhaps wasn't a political earthquake on the scale of the SNP's victory in Glasgow East last year, Labour's early morning triumph in the Glasgow North East by-election was surprising in view of the party's margin of victory over the Nationalists. It seems that the result was never in doubt, but did anyone forecast that Labour's Willie Bain would secure almost 60% of the votes, while the SNP's David Kerr polled a mere 20%? Equally predictable, however, was that none of the other parties even came close.

Nationally, Labour will of course be hugely encouraged by the result, which they will take to signify - rightly or wrongly - that Gordon Brown isn't a totally busted flush and that the forthcoming general election isn't a completely lost cause.

In view of Labour's lack of popularity at the UK level and the Scottish Government's relative popularity in mid-term, the SNP will be bitterly disappointed that they didn't at least perhaps poll half the number of votes that Labour garnered, since with hindsight anything more ambitious was grossly unrealistic. And the result perhaps adds credibility to the recent opinion poll showing Labour decisively ahead of the SNP in Westminster voting intentions. Of course, the Holyrood data shows a different picture, but maybe the evidence demonstrates that the gloss is slowly but surely coming off the SNP Government - à la Barack Obama, but at a slower pace - and Alex Salmond's forecast of 20 seats at the general election was delusionally optimistic. Indeed, perhaps the prospect of a Tory Government could benefit Labour rather than the SNP north of the border, since the former will be seen as the credible opposition standing up for Scotland rather than Mr Salmond's implausible wish to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament and thus "hang Westminster by a Scottish rope".

The other big story of the night was that the Conservatives managed to squeeze the BNP out of third place, despite fairly certain noises to the contrary only minutes before the result was declared. But the Tories' margin over the BNP was small, and indeed was largely similar to that in the European elections in May. However, UKIP outpolled both the BNP and Tories in May, but did not take part in the by-election, thus it's perhaps reasonable to assume that UKIP's votes were split between the two, which may in fact have prevented a third place from Tommy Sheridan, who seemed to mop up much of the hard left vote from the other parties.

Contrary to my forecast, Independent/Jury Team candidate John Smeaton secured little more than 250 votes (as compared to around 1,000 for the Tories and BNP), which again demonstrates the difficulty of anti-politics candidates in making an impression, even with the current mood of anger and disillusionment following the MPs' expenses scandal.

Of course, in that regard the abysmal 33% turnout tells its own story.

The Sun hoist by its own petard?

It must have seemed an open goal for the Sun. A a grieving and aggrieved mother, whose son had died in Afghanistan, a scribbled note of condolence - replete with spelling mistakes - from an unpopular prime minister conducting an increasingly unpopular war, and only weeks after the newspaper had turned its back on the Labour Party. And we all know that the Sun doesn't take prisoners, and doesn't adhere to a publishers' Geneva Convention in its battle against political foes, even when reporting on a real, and increasingly fraught, war.

But it now seems that the Sun's plan has unravelled somewhat, and while it may yet win the war, it appears to have lost the battle. Jacqui Janes' grievances always seemed a bit narrowly-based to justify the paper's splash - she seems broadly supportive of both the war in Afghanistan and Gordon Brown himself, despite understandable anger at equipment shortages. Her outrage regarding the letter per se seemed to be based largely on its untidy and misspelt nature, which she described as an "insult" to her dead son.

A recording of Mr Brown's subsequent phone call to her was made without his knowledge and was made available on the Sun's website. Of course, it's also been underlined that the prime minister is blind in one eye, has limited vision in the other and may in fact be dyslexic. His poor handwriting has indeed been a well known issue for some time, even for non-politicos.

Robert Crampton in the Times suggests that the furore may have arisen due to differing mores between social classes:

In the middle class, many of whose members spend their lives in front of computers, the handwritten note is seen as superior to the typed. It represents the personal touch. Authentic, rootsy, person-to-person, heartfelt.

But to Jacqui Janes, I think, to judge by her comments in The Sun yesterday, the handwritten note is something that you leave out for the milkman when you want an extra pint.

And it's difficult to find anything wholly critical of Gordon Brown in the rest of the press, particularly following his emotional and very personal message conveyed at a press conference yesterday. Ian Bell in the Herald analyses the Murdoch angle and suggests it's "just not British to hound a man for attempting decency". Even Tom Bradby's coverage on ITV News last night seemed more sympathetic than when the story broke, Craig Murray is broadly supportive and indeed the Sun's online comments seem to be generally critical of the paper's stance.

In the Times Melanie Reid compares the attack on Gordon Brown with how a disabled person might be treated in a more humdrum context and contrasts the episode with the official "Fairer Britain" objective of "mutual respect based on shared values with fairness at their core":

Fair? It’s so far from fair that it takes one’s breath away. Whatever one thinks of Mr Brown he is still the PM, and whatever his considerable failings as a politician, there is something pretty vile about the personal attacks now being levelled at him.

As one partially sighted writer put it, perhaps instead of criticising we should be deeply impressed that someone who can only read large print and needs help from aides should write by hand to the bereaved relatives of soldiers killed in action. His letter was self-evidently physically laborious and came from the heart, which makes it even more sad that it is being misinterpreted.

It's thus perhaps unsurprising that today's Scotsman reports that Mrs Janes has now forgiven Gordon Brown, and says she "felt exploited" (although she seemed to say otherwise when questioned by Jeremy Paxman on last night's Newsnight) and "didn't expect the attack on Mr Brown to be so personal".

And while the Sun itself adopts a slightly different angle - it says Mrs Janes now "accepts humbled PM's apology" - it's latest coverage certainly portrays the prime minister in a slightly better light than in its previous reports.

Thus perhaps two lessons can be drawn from this affair. First, people will clearly recognise sincerity in particular circumstances, even if in a more general context where motives are doubted and opportunism suspected. Second, and following from the first point, attacks of a more personal nature can often backfire, even evoking sympathetic responses from normally visceral opponents.

Immigration and employment ghettoes

(Published as a letter in the Sunday Herald.)

Sunday Herald correspondent Bob Purdie portrays the immigration problem as largely cultural. He writes that a culturally diverse and tolerant society can be achieved by creating “an environment in which people can meet each other as human beings”, but ignores the economic impact, which may indeed be a root cause of cultural friction.

Often immigrants are portrayed as addressing skills shortages, such as in the NHS. That’s all very well, assuming there are genuine vacancies rather than merely a wish to drive down wages. However, in many entry-level jobs the effect is very often merely to dampen earnings and displace indigenous workers.

An example of this is the taxi/minicab sector, where drivers are paid by commission and/or are self-employed owner-drivers. The presence of additional drivers at the rank or in despatch offices has a self-evidently detrimental effect on earnings, thus causing friction.

Of course, it’s often argued that immigrants are taking such jobs merely because indigenous workers won’t do them. However, in many English towns and cities indigenous cab drivers are an unusual sight, whereas in equivalent Scottish locations the reverse is largely true. Thus, rather than indigenous Scots being unwilling to drive cabs, perhaps the difference is the presence of large immigrant workforces lowering earnings for cab drivers in English locations. As this effect takes hold the sector becomes a labour market ghetto.

Hence the consequent “British jobs for British workers” style of rhetoric and fertile ground for the more overtly racist political parties, which exploit economic detriment and insecurities among threatened or displaced workers.

BNP set to steal Smeato's thunder?

In view of my recent post about immigration and its possible impact on the Glasgow North East by-election - 'Smeato set to steal BNP's thunder?' - a piece in the Times makes for interesting reading. Angus Macleod's news article says that the mainstream parties are worried about the possibility of the BNP coming third in next week's poll.

This would indeed be a shocking result - although the possibility is dismissed as "slim" by polling analyst Professor John Curtice - but the figures suggest that it's not as far-fetched as it might appear at first glance.

Of course, for various reasons the figures from the 2005 Westminster contest are unhelpful, but the European election results from earlier this year can perhaps offer some assistance. While Labour and the SNP were way ahead of the other parties, the significant others polled as follows:

BNP - 545
Conservative - 561
Lib Dems - 533
Greens - 822
SSP - 287
Socialist Labour - 446
UKIP - 618

Thus while the Greens were fairly comfortably ahead of the pack, it would clearly not require a miracle for the BNP to take third place, and the Times article mentions the party's high profile following leader Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, together with the prominence of the asylum issue in the constituency - although the latter point would presumably have been a factor at the time of the Euro poll earlier this year, the Griffin controversy could have galvanised the issue.

However, Angus Macleod doesn't mention UKIP, who aren't standing in the by-election. But since they polled more than the BNP then it might be expected that Griffin's party could benefit substantially from the lack of a UKIP candidate.

Of course, this also ignores the Smeato factor, and my previous post suggested that although John Smeaton's precise views on immigration seem to be an unknown quantity - beyond his claim that the system should be "fairer" - statements he's made in his Sun column could be construed as anti-immigration (despite also making positive noises about immigrants), and thus appeal to some who might otherwise vote BNP. Most obviously, in relation to the criminal element among immigrants:

We are now being flooded by foreigners from dangerous cultures where life is cheap. [...] Is it any wonder when our courts are full of scumbags from around the world.

Thus I suspect that this kind of thing, together with Mr Smeaton's high profile and more general appeal, will win the day over the BNP and secure third place for the Jury Team's candidate.

The bookies certainly seem to think so, although Ladbrokes seem to be offering only 33/1 on a Smeato win as opposed to 8/1 when his candidature was announced.

Sit on it!

Some Nationalist bloggers are rightly asking why their opponents are preoccupied with issues like whether their candidate in the Glasgow North East by-election has made misleading statements about where he was born/brought up (or whatever) instead of concentrating on Westminster issues such as Afghanistan, MPs' expenses and the recession. And, indeed, why the Labour candidate is highlighting issues devolved to Holyrood such as knife crime and the Glasgow Airport rail link.

A fair question, but by the same token the Nationalists have been making similar nitpicking criticisms over whether a leaflet produced by Labour's Willie Bain contains text in his own handwriting or whether it's computer generated, or indeed (shock, horror) that it might have been produced on a printer or photocopied instead of every one of thousands (presumably) of copies Laboriously written out by Mr Bain itself.

And part of a leaflet (above - click to enlarge) taken from Scottish Tory Boy's blog seems to do a pretty good job of bigging up the personal and local credentials of the SNP's David Kerr, for example:

• highlighting his local roots;
• detailing his personal life ('career highlight' - interviewing the Fonz!);
• outlining how he will deal with local issues such as fighting "against the gangs and against the council cuts to build a safer community".

Of course, the graphic looks like merely an extract from the leaflet and no doubt there's myriad other campaign materials, but it does seem to encapsulate the aspects of his life and campaign that Mr Kerr wants to highlight.

Thus it now seems a bit rich of the Nationalists to accuse Mr Kerr's opponents of ignoring Westminster issues and instead nitpicking about the minutiae of his personal background. And, of course, in last year's Glasgow East by-election the SNP made much of Labour's Margaret Curran's misleading statement about where she lived. Therefore Mr Kerr's supporters can hardly complain with any credibility when these issues come back to bite them on the bum.

Unfortunately this is symptomatic of the usual by-election bickering and hypocrisy, and in effect a microcosm of politics generally. It bears repeating that by-elections have little relevance outside the political bubble - even the constituents show little interest in these contests, never mind the wider country - and indeed it will be back to square one in this constituency within six months or so.

Of course, for the party political tribes it's all about gaining the by-election scalp and self-indulgently parading it for all to see, and to that extent the kind of thing on display in Glasgow North East is entirely justified. But from a wider perspective the obsessional response of the parties to these effective no-contests and the often playground-level conduct of the campaign merely cements voters' disdain of politics rather than endearing the political class to the public.

(For any younger/older readers, 'sit on it' was a catchphrase of the uber-cool Fonz in 70s/80s American sitcom Happy Days. In essence it's a euphemism for, to put it euphemistically, 'go forth and multiply'!)

Eurozone financial straitjacket

(Published as a letter in the Herald)

As a well know advocate of the European Union and euro membership, it's surprising that in a letter to the Herald Alex Orr complains that Scotland "operates within a financial straitjacket, while all around us other countries facing the same challenges have the ability to adapt to the prevailing economic conditions because, as independent nations, they have the full range of fiscal powers needed to do so".

Eurozone members enjoy no independent powers relating to monetary policy or devaluation, both of which can, of course, be useful in times of economic slowdown. For example, with the economies of France and Germany resuming economic growth there is a danger that the European Central Bank will increase interest rates to suit economic conditions in these countries, while the likes of Ireland are still mired in recession and with a huge mountain of government and private debt to service.

Of course, Mr Orr's "financial straitjacket" seems to ignore monetary rather than fiscal policy, but even as part of the UK the latter still operates to counter the economic slowdown. Granted, the Scottish Government has limited powers over how much it directly spends, but the fiscal stimulus of the VAT cut was enjoyed throughout the UK, and things like enhanced spending on benefit payments during the recession are similarly beneficial.

Moreover, it may well be of interest to read Mr Orr's views on the fiscal powers of independent nations following next month's Irish Budget, which seems likely to include swingeing public spending cuts to help counter the country's ballooning public borrowing.

Megrahi "has not deteriorated"

The Sunday Telegraph is reporting that the condition of the Lockerbie bomber has not deteriorated since he was released from a Scottish jail in August, according to a "senior source involved in his release". The report quotes the source as saying:

His condition has not deteriorated in three months. He is pretty much in the same way as he was when this all started. He is just as he was. There is nothing that leads anyone to believe he is in any different condition to when he left Scotland.

Of course, the medical diagnosis that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi only had three months left to live - made on July 30 - was crucial to Kenny MacAskill's decision to release him on compassionate grounds.

The newspaper says that leading cancer specialist Professor Karol Sikora - who made the diagnosis - said last week: "I would think he must be fairly close to the end now. That would be my prediction."

Thus if the Telegraph's source is correct then the news is likely to put further pressure on Prof Sikora, since the newspaper says:

He was paid a one-day consultancy fee by the Libyan government to draw up a report delivered two days later. In an interview in September not long after Megrahi's release, Prof Sikora said he was initially "pessimistic" that the experts could say he would survive any less than a year. But Prof Sikora admitted that the Libyans had encouraged him to conclude that Megrahi had just three months to live following his examination

"The figure of three months was suggested as being helpful [by the Libyans]," he said. "To start with I said it was impossible to do that but, when I looked at it, it looked as though it could be done – you could actually say that."

While one of the doctors in the team was apparently 'more vague' about putting a limit on Megrahi's life expectancy, a third doctor, Professor Ibrahim Sharif, a Libyan oncologist from the Tripoli Medical Centre, agreed Megrahi had 'about three months'.

Another cancer specialist is quoted as saying:

I would not be surprised if Megrahi was still here well into next year. For sure it could be right his condition has not deteriorated.

Of course, this is also likely to reignite the political row over the release, but the evidence seems to point towards an unsatisfactory position relating to the medical diagnosis rather than any fault on the part of Mr MacAskill.