Season's greetings!

A belated merry Christmas and an early happy New Year to my/both/all reader(s)!

I had meant to take a suitably festive/seasonal photo in Dundee to illustrate this post, but the opportunity never really arose - hence the delay - and instead I've used last year's snap of Dundee's City Square in festive guise.

No 'true grit' from me!

Police in Dundee seem to be taking a more realistic view of the state of the area's roads following their stance expressed on Monday - and highlighted here - that they had "no reports of any adverse road conditions in the area". Yesterday's Evening Telegraph quoted a police spokesman as saying: "In light of the sub-zero temperatures and icy conditions in recent days we are reminding drivers and pedestrians to take every precaution on the roads."

Meanwhile, relations between residents and local authorities in Courier country seem to have become very frosty over the efforts of councils to deal with the snow and ice that are making for treacherous conditions on the region's roads and pavements. On Tuesday I highlighted a Courier report critical of Fife Council's response to the problem, and in today's letters column all but one of the missives contain complaints relating to the issue in the Kingdom.

Meanwhile, last night's STV News reported that hospital theatre staff in Fife have had to be recalled from their holidays because of the extra operations resulting from falls caused by the icy conditions. By contrast, one of the Courier's correspondents makes the point that Fife Council's "highly paid, ineffective" officials are "probably on holiday at present" (and hell would probably have to freeze over to disturb this, never mind the roads and pavements!), while independent councillor Bryan Poole highlights that possibly a majority of its senior officials don't live in Fife and thus won't appreciate the strength of feeling.

In Tayside the Evening Telegraph reported last night that hospitals are "continuing to be inundated by patients requiring treatment for ice-related falls" and that: "The volume of incidents is such that NHS Tayside has been unable to give a total for the numbers of patients treated for weather-related fractures and other injuries."

Meanwhile, Dundee City Council is blame-shift..., er, I mean encouraging an ethos of self-reliance from residents by asking them to do their own gritting while the council deals with priority routes, but this has cut little ice with independent councillor Ian Borthwick, who has called for a policy review in light of the worst conditions for some time. And this has clearly gone down like a lead balloon with many Dundonians if the subsequent flurry of letters in the Evening Telegraph are representative of public opinion.

Today Perth & Kinross gets the cold shoulder from residents, with the Courier's report highlighting the response of one motorist, who branded the "council's failure in face of the big freeze "a joke"". The paper also reports that some of the council's gritter fleet was off the road because of technical problems caused by the "extreme weather" (echoes of Fife Council earlier in the week!). Equally unilluminating is the reported response of officialdom to questions relating to how many gritters were out of action at any one time: "Different numbers at different times."

Yesterday I took the above photograph of a tricky road in rural Fife, and out in the middle of nowhere came across a grit box, and wondered whether I should do my civic duty in view of the official stance in Dundee. However, since there were probably at least a couple of miles of road similar to that pictured, I decided that discretion was the better part of valour. No 'true grit' from me!

Cold comfort

I was bemused by a report on local road and weather conditions in last night's Evening Telegraph, which stated "police said there were no particular problems on the roads" and "Tayside Police said they had no reports today of any adverse road conditions in the region", while earlier in the day the Scotsman had quoted the force as saying: "Tayside Police are advising drivers to consider the necessity of their journey prior to leaving and should not travel unless absolutely necessary."

I took the above photograph a few hours after the Evening Telegraph report, and this depicts a Dundee side street not a million miles from Tayside Police HQ, with the clearly visible hardenened snow and ice covering both the road surface and pavements. Although the main roads and arteries are clear, and some of the pavements have been cleared and gritted, there must be hundreds of streets like the above in Dundee, and conditions have been similar for several days, with neither indications of a thaw nor council action to reverse the problem in the offing for the next few days at least, with the festive break clearly being a factor in the latter case.

Thus as well as the obvious - and sometimes hidden - danger to both drivers and pedestrians, I would imagine that many people, particularly the frail and elderly, are effectively housebound by these conditions. I often walk several miles a day in the area, and last year I slipped and fell on the ice within the area covered by the photograph, although luckily no one was shooting photos or videos at the time, so the main injury was only a slight dent to my pride.

Indeed, I also fell in the last few days just out of shot by a hundred yards or so, and the photo doesn't do justice to the amount of slippery slopes (literally!) in the area, thus as a still reasonably fit thirty-something (OK, forty!) I can certainly appreciate the concerns of the less able-bodied.

Having driven on both black ice and in a raging blizzard in north east Fife at the weekend, at a rough guess I would say that conditions there are largely similar to Dundee, but the approach of residents and (opposition) councillors in the Kingdom seems a tad more critical than that of Tayside Police on the other side of the river.

For example, today's Courier reports a Ceres resident as saying the meals on wheels couldn't be delivered and that the roads and pavements are a "disgrace" and a "death trap".

However, the Labour-group leader in particular seems to be attempting to politicise the issue, while according to officialdom the council is doing the best it can in the circumstances, and any shortcomings are being blamed on, um, the severe weather.

Do police really encourage speeding?

Further to the Courier correspondence on drivers warning each other about the presence of police speed traps, a letter today defends the practice, and the writer states the following:

Driving on the motorways in England, I have more than once been signalled by a police car crew pulling alongside me to get a move on when my strict 70mph was causing tailbacks, bunching and risks of collisions with drivers pulling out to overtake me.

While I don't often drive on English motorways, and would accept that the authorities generally and traffic police in particular may turn a blind eye to speeding in limited circumstances, on the other hand I find it hard to believe that police would encourage a driver cruising at the 70mph limit to speed up.

Of course, even the element of a tacit acceptance of exceeding the speed limit has the downside of causing confusion, and that was the kind of thing I was alluding to in my recent blog post. And, indeed, if the letter writer is correct then this merely adds to the confusing nature of the law in this area - not only does it seem that a degree of speeding is considered both socially and officially acceptable, but those adhering to the law are to an extent considered anti-social - when what's needed is certainty and transparency. And, of course. clarity is fundamental to good law.

The Courier's correspondent also makes the same point as I did about the authorities in effect condoning (or at least replicating) the behaviour of drivers warning each other - by publicising the location of speed traps and making cameras easy to see - but does this from the perspective of speeding being acceptable in certain environments, while of course not saying this explicitly, and instead claiming he warns other drivers "to encourage safe driving".

The writer also predictably qualifies his stance by stressing the importance of adhering to speed limits outside schools, which again underlines the scope for confusion over the whole issue - is this approach merely confined to schools, or is it of wider application; does the correspondent think that he should be the final arbiter on such matters, or should we all in effect make up our own minds on appropriate speed?

Perhaps it would be easier to set speed limits appropriate to the conditions and encourage adherence rather than the current official nods and winks, and differing public perceptions of what it all means in terms of driving within the, er, law.

Public-spirited or helping evade the law?

An exchange of correspondence in the Courier opened with the claim that drivers flashing their headlights at others to alert them to the presence of a police speed trap in effect condones law breaking, while a response suggests that such action enhances the deterrent value of these measures.

But surely this merely helps make the deterrent very specific rather than general. For example, if police launched a crackdown on knife crime by searching youths, if one group alerted others to the specific location of such an operation then no doubt any youth carrying a knife would either dispose of it or avoid the search, but this would do little to act as a more general deterrent to carrying such weapons.

By the same token, alerting other motorists to a speed trap may make them slow down at that location and at that time, but more generally this could be construed as assisting in evading the law, and the deterrent is very specific.

But given that the powers that be do a similar thing by making speed cameras easily visible and publicising their locations, then it's arguable that drivers alerting each other are merely being consistent with the official stance on these matters.

The Courier's latter correspondent is, however, right to highlight the confusion caused by the increasing regulation of driver speed, particularly when this is contrasted with selective enforcement of the ostensible limits.

Thus the authorities like to present an image of increased micro-management of speed - with 20mph zones, for example - whereas the real world result is significantly more crude and characterised by increased law breaking and public resentment at selective enforcement.

As with the issue of alcohol abuse, strict enforcement of existing laws might have been preferable to increasing bureaucratisation.

Messrs MacLachlan & McRae: mavericks or martyrs?

It's interesting to see that some of the Nationalist bloggers seem to be treating Mark MacLachlan - of The Universality of Cheese fame/infamy - as something of a martyr, while the more mainstream pro-independence blogs have been largely silent on the issue, thus reflecting the official SNP position that the real life version of Montague Burton is a maverick who had to be cut loose and arguably - from his perspective, at least - hung out to dry. Of course, this merely reflects the split in the Nationalist movement between those who might euphemistically be described as ultra-Nats (better not use the c-word!) and the mainstream/official SNP view, with the latter regarding the former as something of an embarrassment, although there does seems to be an element of Bloggers v The Rest of the World in play as well.

However, in a characteristically curiosity-fuelled rush of blood to the head I recently ventured into a Scotsman thread on Cheese-gate, and mention was made of the bizarre case of Willie McRae, who twenty-odd years ago was a prominent lawyer and Scottish Nationalist who was almost elected to Westminster. Known for his anti-nuclear campaigning, he was found dead in mysterious circumstances in 1985. Initially thought to be the victim of a simple car accident, it later emerged that McRae had been shot in the head, with the conspiracy theorists suspecting British state involvement in his death, while a more prosaic explanation was simple suicide. But in some ways the official version of events is even more inconclusive than those pertaining to the assassination of John F Kennedy and the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber - it seems that officialdom has never publicly come to a definitive conclusion relating to the Glasgow lawyer's death.

However, the then SNP leader Gordon Wilson appointing Winnie Ewing to carry out an internal investigation into McRae's death, but when the Crown Office stonewalled her enquiries mainstream Nationalism effectively gave up on the case, and clearly devolution and two years of an SNP administration in Holyrood have changed nothing in this regard. As a Herald article from 1995 puts it:

...to general astonishment, the SNP gave up. No prominent Nationalist has since immersed himself in the McRae mystery. It only fuelled the lunatic fringe -- now convinced that McRae had been a key subversive, finally silenced by the British State, whom even the SNP were desperate to disown.

Thus the suspicion that Willie McCrae was seen as something of a maverick by mainstream Nationalists and therefore became regarded as inimical to the SNP's modern image, which in turn has made him something of a martyr in ultra-Nat folklore.

Of course, Mark MacLachlan and the cybernats (oops, I've said it!) are a long way from Willie McCrae and his claimed links to the SNLA - the former lost his job and is being hailed as a hero by online militants, while the latter lost his life and was claimed to have links with the SNLA - but if the official SNP line is perhaps that McRae wasn't a maverick, then that certainly doesn't seem to be the case with MacLachlan.

But with an out of court settlement a possible outcome of Mr MacLachlan's unfair dismissal case, it might be that the truth surrounding Cheese-gate may remain as shrouded in mystery as the precise circumstances of Willie McRae's death.

(For a perspective leaning more towards the state conspiracy on McRae's death see this more recent account from the Daily Record. Alternative explanations for the inconclusive nature of the official account of events is that McRae's family preferred his background and suicide to remain under wraps, or that official cock-ups in the investigation resulted in a cover-up conspiracy from the authorities - shades of the likes of Lockerbie and Shirley McKie, perhaps. Of course, you can't believe everything you read anyway - for example, the Record article states that David Coutts - a then Dundee SNP councillor who was among the first to see Willie McRae's body - was the fiancé of the doctor who examined the injured McRae but failed to spot the gunshot wound, whereas the Herald states that the doctor's fiancé was in fact someone else but that David Coutts had been travelling in the same car as them, with his wife.)

Theory meets reality: police boards and accountability

The issue of the lack of political scrutiny of police forces has been touched on here several times in the past, with a particular emphasis on Tayside. Of course, the theory of democratically elected councillors holding senior police officers to account via the police board machinery is unproblematic, and indeed is outlined succinctly in the Herald in relation to a call this week by Strathclyde Chief Constable Stephen House for a single Scottish police force. In response, Patrick Shearer, Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway and President of Acpos, is quoted as saying:

Local accountability is at the heart of Scottish policing.

However, yesterday the Scotsman reported news which perhaps better reflects the reality of the situation, in Tayside at least:

The public body responsible for monitoring a Scottish police force has been reprimanded for failing in its duty.[...]

Despite a good working relations with the police force, scrutiny of the force's performance was described as "weak" and board members did little to challenge how things were done.

Indeed, the report by the Accounts Commission says "it suspects the problem is not confined to Tayside" and it has called for "clearer guidelines covering the duties and responsibilities of police boards across Scotland".

That'll upset the tea and biscuits trolley at the Tayside Police Joint Board meetings up in Forfar!

We can do without these online smear campaigns...

...says today's Herald in an editorial accompanying articles alleging that Scottish Government minister Mike Russell knew about his former aide Mark MacLachlan's controversial University of Cheese blog - and even suggested ideas for it - and that an SNP councillor who denied knowledge of one of the blog's allegations is, ahem, alleged to in fact be the source. The newspaper says:

The authors of unattributed internet postings assume that their cloak of anonymity is a shield against prosecution and therefore feel free to blur the line between allegation, unfounded gossip and speculation. [...]

When allegations cannot be substantiated, journalists and responsible authors, bloggers included, investigate to discover the truth.

Absolutely, and since little 'ole Planet Politics and its humble author seem to have been subject to something of a smear campaign themselves I would be grateful for any information regarding the source and content of various distortions and defamatory claims. All information received will be treated in the strictest confidence.

I'm the soul of discretion, you see!

Civilised smoking ban?

My previous post questioned the effectiveness of enforcement of the laws against littering. Indeed, I asked whether the tokenistic nature of these so-called 'crackdowns' had any point at all beyond the powers that be merely trying to look as if they're doing something about the problem, while in the process alienating the very small section of litterers who are actually brought to book.

I took the accompanying photographs outside licensed premises in Dundee during the summer, and they perhaps graphically illustrate the pointlessness of handing out one ticket a day or so in a city the size of Dundee.

Of course, the images demonstrate one of the less desirable results of the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces, but this kind of thing is rarely mentioned in the official spiel on the issue as a huge advance towards a more civilised society. In turn, the spin on litter enforcement doesn't quite acknowledge the full extent of the problem either.

My last post also underlined the pointlessness of Dundee City Council's reaction to complaints about widespread littering by school pupils during their lunch break. Indeed, later that week the Evening Telegraph carried a very similar story about the mess left by students at lunchtimes - same problem, different school.

And again the official response is very similar to that earlier in the week: "Constant reminders...need to be good neighbours and to respect the community...the school carries out a number of activities to build good relations...visiting sheltered housing...school ceilidh...always working to further strengthen links with local community."

Aye, but what about the litter?



(Please note that the littering portrayed in the photographs isn't always as bad as that - it seems this was the result of several days accumulation.)

What's the point?

A recent article in the Evening Telegraph revealed that council litter patrols in Dundee have handed out on-the-spot fines totalling over £15,000 since last year, in what officials describe as a "zero tolerance" approach to enforcement action.

Sounds like quite a lot of cash, and just the kind of thing to have some shouting about "losing our civil liberties" and suchlike, which was in fact one of the complaints during a crackdown almost three years ago.

However, while the figures reveal a significant increase in fines - at the back end of 2005 or thereabouts less than two tickets were issued each month, but during the middle part of this year almost one ticket per day was handed out - as regards the number of offences committed the enforcement action is still effectively negligible. For example, most of the fines relate to cigarette-related litter, but walk past any Dundee pub or club on all but the quietest nights and you're likely to find dozens of cigarette ends - and indeed hundreds in many cases - which are either tidied up by the licensees at the end of the night, swept up by council orderlies the next morning or perhaps left to accumulate for several days.

Which begs the question, what's the point of handing out fines? There are clearly not enough to act as any significant deterrent, and to that extent the recipients of such penalties perhaps feel they're subject to arbitrary punishment - no doubt they're of the 'easy target' variety - and thus the whole exercise achieves little more than breed resentment, while doing nothing to tackle the overall scale of the problem.

Of course, the action does make the powers that be look as if they're doing something about the problem, and the revenue must defray some of the costs of providing the patrols but, other than that, this and other similar action smacks of mere tokenism, and is nearer to zero enforcement rather than the official spin of zero tolerance.

Meanwhile, another report in the Evening Telegraph this week (not online) highlights a Dundee couple's anger at the litter left lying here, there and everywhere by school pupils on their lunch break - another issue that regularly rears its head in the local press.

Equally predictable is the published response from the city council: "The school regularly reminds pupils to be good neighbours and treat the area around the school with respect...integral part of local community...build links with neighbours..uphold the school's reputation...blah, blah...

Seems little real point in that either.

How about an 'arc of politician pay cuts'?

Following the Nationalists' claim of an 'arc of prosperity' of economically successful European countries, the global financial meltdown saw Unionists dub these small, independent nations the 'arc of insolvency'. More recently, SNP Treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie attempted to reverse this more negative perception by suggesting that an independent Scotland could become part of an 'arc of recovery'.

Mr Hosie's perspective seemed hopelessly rose-tinted even then, but the downgrading of Irish debt and the country's projected economic contraction of 7.5% this year - the UK's debt has not been downgraded (yet!) and the magnitude of our downturn is significantly less - has been compounded by this week's news of savage spending cuts announced in Ireland's second emergency budget in eight months.

Part of this package includes pay cuts of 5-15% for public servants, while Taoiseach Brian Cowan will have his salary reduced by 20%. "Those at the top will lead by example," finance minister Brian Lenihan said.

Meanwhile, the Times reports that the SNP Government are likely to follow the lead of chancellor Alistair Darling, who in yesterday's Pre-Budget Report announced a one per cent cap on public sector pay. Scottish ministers are already subject to a pay freeze, as are senior civil servants, and Lorraine Davidson's article says finance secretary John Swinney has signalled that Scotland will follow Mr Darling's wider clampdown across the public sector.

Of course, this remunerative self-denial seems paradoxically spendthrift compared to the Irish approach, therefore if Mr Hosie and the SNP want to demonstrate a willingness to follow the lead of the arc nations then perhaps they should be proposing significant pay cuts for the political class?

Perhaps Mr Hosie could set the ball rolling on this at Westminster, while Alex Salmond could do the necessary at Holyrood. To paraphrase what Ireland's finance minister said: "Those at the top should lead by example."

Even the prisons are closing for Christmas

I'm not really sure what to make of this week's news that Noranside open prison in Angus will close over the Christmas period, and most inmates will spend the festive period at home with their families.

While still young and idealistic I would have denigrated the right wing approach to criminality as "hang 'em and flog 'em", but in more recent years I've swung in the other direction, although perhaps wouldn't go as far as describing my approach in terms of the aforementioned caricature, and nor would I champion the less coercive but ultimately defeatist perspective characterised as throwing away the key.

However, the measure itself does look a bit too much like it's in the interests of administrative convenience rather than serving the needs of justice, and there's the predictable opposition criticism about "soft touch" SNP, and suchlike.

But not particularly reassuring is the equally predictable statement from an Angus councillor and prison visitor, who says she has "complete confidence in the Scottish Prison Service to handle this properly", which sounds just like the kind of blind mutual admiration within the political/bureaucratic complex that was on display in relation to previous controversial 'escapes' from the open prison estate.

However, I feel on more certain ground in relation to the enforcement of rules and laws per se rather than the related punishment, and another interesting newspaper piece by Andy Hayman, former Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner, usefully shines some light on the touchy-feeling approach to the issue, at least from the public's perspective, if not his own:

The softer side of policing has as much a part to play in cutting crime as the tougher, law enforcement role. However, it is not always what the public want. It can feel as if police officers are turning into pseudo-social workers while the full array of their policing powers — to search, arrest and charge offenders — is becoming redundant. Looking at officers doing such work, I found myself wondering how many actual arrests leading to convictions they had made in the past six or nine months.

By the same token, Mr Hayman also touches on some of the convoluted and wasteful bureaucracy attaching to parts of the criminal justice system:

But the range of multi-agency work in which the police play a central role has increased. I met a group of convicted offenders clearing rubbish from a garage as part of a community service order. They were unlikely to abscond, but were nearly outnumbered by probation officers, council employees and officers from the local neighbourhood policing team, including a sergeant and a constable, supervising them. This was “man-to-man” marking, with all the hallmarks of a “chain gang”. I wasn’t trained just to stand around with a clipboard, and I left with mixed feelings about what seemed a dubious use of an officer’s time.

Back to basics?

Drink driving: one rule for the better off...?

The annual Scottish police festive crackdown against drink drivers has stepped up a gear with the news that serial offenders may lose their means of transport as well as their licence, with vehicles to be seized by police and possibly forfeited by the courts.

But the Scotsman reports that a solicitor has expressed reservations about the initiative, claiming it offends against the presumption of innocence to seize the driver's car before the appropriate court hearing, and also that the punishment is disproportionate, since a £250,000 car could be confiscated for an offence that normally attracts a financial penalty of only £1,000 or so maximum.

Thus the obvious potential for legal challenges, and while the lawyer clearly moves in rarefied circles if he cites the rather disproportionate example of a £250,000 car to make a point about proportionality, on the other hand this perhaps underlines the point that the scheme could turn out to amount to one law for the better off, with a different outcome for those financially disadvantaged.

I seem to recall that Tayside Police undertook a similar initiative a number of years ago, but the wheels seemed to come off somewhat when a driver with an expensive motor car challenged the forfeiture of his vehicle, and the courts agreed that the punishment was disproportionate.

Thus it seems likely that the courts would be more lenient towards a driver with an expensive car rather than someone with something more modest. And the driver with an expensive car would have a much greater incentive to challenge the decision than someone of modest means, who might consider a formal objection just not worth the hassle.

Indeed, a broadly similar scheme exists under which the vehicle being driven by an uninsured driver can be seized and forfeited, but this can be avoided by presenting a valid insurance document and paying a statutory fee and storage charges to release the vehicle.

Thus the price of releasing the vehicle does not depend on the value of the car, and to that extent the owner of a valuable vehicle would have a good financial incentive to pay the penalty charges, while the bargain basement driver might well incur as much cost as the car is worth, thus in effect it's not worth recovering.

That's not to excuse either driving while drunk or uninsured, but here there's surely an element of one law for the better off, with another law for those of more modest means.

Salmond and two kinds of lies

Praise be to Alex Salmond, who is this morning reported to have "slapped down" so-called "cybernats" who use the internet to spread lies about opponents. At an SNP meeting in Perth the first minister told delegates: "If you get angry, DON'T go online anonymously - go out and campaign."

Of course, the kind of malicious falsehoods and defamatory comments which contaminate part of the blogosphere are one thing - for example, unfounded, misleading and irresponsible claims made about real life people, who could thus be endangered, by those who hide behind a cloak of anonymity - but Mr Salmond was involved in slightly different accusations about lying this week. In September 2007 he told MSPs that the SNP would achieve its pledge to reduce class sizes before the end of the parliament. But at a meeting a few weeks previously a civil servant had warned that the policy would take considerably longer, therefore the first minister is now being accused of misleading parliament and breaching the ministerial code.

The word 'mislead' is interesting here, because in a general context to mislead isn't necessarily to lie - the person making a misleading statement could genuinely believe it to be correct, while the word 'lie' implies a deliberate attempt to mislead. It's interesting, therefore, that the Scotsman used the term mislead in reporting the story, while the normally sober Courier pushes the boat out with the headline: 'Salmond accused of lying on class sizes'. On the other hand, the ministerial code refers to knowingly misleading parliament, thus essentially the same as lying, but it sounds less harsh; euphemistic, perhaps.

But is Mr Salmond likely to have lied to parliament? It certainly seems unlikely that such an allegation would be proved with any degree of natural justice in play. The disputed claim made by Mr Salmond seems similar to promises made by politicians as a matter of course, and that everyone takes with a pinch of salt. Of course, it would be great if there was an expectation that the parties would keep their promises and therefore be more realistic in what they offer us, but since the general perception is that manifesto 'commitments', say, are aspirations rather than the cast iron guarantees posited, then any wholly realistic party might be perceived as underselling itself and thus be disadvantaged electorally.

Thus Mr Salmond's pledge seems of the pie crust variety - made to be broken, and perhaps more delusional than dishonest. In truth, if politicians had to be brought to book in some way every time a promise of this type was broken then they would all be deemed pathological liars and the whole process would never get anywhere.

Therefore the likelihood that Mr Salmond's pledge will not be met seems more the kind of thing that should be judged by voters at the ballot box rather than some kind of quasi-judicial parliamentary procedure which will very probably throw the complaint out and thus make the accusation look like a mere political stunt and waste of time.

Thus Mr Salmond is to be commended for his comments on the first type of lie, while the opposition parties should just get over the second - leave it to the electorate in the court of public opinion.

Food for thought on minimum pricing

An interesting angle on minimum pricing for alcohol from Courier political editor Steve Bargeton, who asks where the principle of hitting us in the pocket for the state of our health could lead. He says:

If you can make the case for ramping up the price of drink to stop people getting liver disease and other horrible conditions, you can make the case for upping the price of other things like food to stop health obesity - a national health problem of similar magnitude to alcohol...and growing.

Indeed, and the argument that limiting the number of pubs and takeaways can help solve attendant problems of crime and anti-social behaviour can be similarly dismissed by reference to the obesity problem - it's like claiming that capping number of supermarkets will make people consume significantly less food.

The fact is surely that these kinds of measures would only make a marginal difference to the associated problems, and instead divert attention from addressing the issues more directly. And, as Mr Bargeton alludes, where will this kind of micromanagement end?

Megrahi's release licence: theory meets reality

An article in last weekend's Sunday Post outlined the farcical situation regarding the terms of the Lockerbie bomber's release licence. It should be recalled that Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi must keep in touch with officials at East Renfrewshire Council to ensure he doesn't misbehave, since otherwise this could result in the revocation of his licence and a recall to custody. The Scottish Government view is:

Any prisoner released on licence is subject to the conditions attached to that licence. A breach of a condition will be reported to Scottish Ministers who will refer the matter to the Parole Board to decide the appropriate course of action.

If the breach presents a threat to public safety Scottish Ministers can revoke the licence without referring the case to the board.

But the Post quotes Clive Fairweather, former Chief Inspector of Prisons, as saying:

Mr Megrahi could be waving a Kalashnikov in front of the screen, or running a terrorist training camp, and I doubt if the Scottish Justice Department will be sending an armed escort to Tripoli to bring him back. [...]

Just who are we kidding, going through this monthly pantomime? It achieves nothing, and must have Colonel Gadaffi sniggering in his tent.

Of course, this juxtaposition of the official version of events with the reality of the situation is particularly self-evident in this case, but similar contrasts are surely widespread in more mundane aspects of the criminal justice system, and indeed in government generally.

Cheese-gate rumbles on

The weekend's MacBlogosphere scandal continues on a slightly different tack with a story by the cybernat's bête noire David Maddox in today's Scotsman, which states that blogger Jeff Breslin of SNP Tactical Voting fame is due to meet SNP media chiefs to discuss the party's online strategy:

The SNP has invited one of Scotland's leading bloggers to host talks on how to get a grip on its increasingly negative profile on the web, The Scotsman has learned. Jeff Breslin, author of the SNP Tactical Voting website and a contributor to The Scotsman's Steamie, has revealed that he is to meet members of the party's media team this week to discuss blogging.

However, the pro-Nationalist Mr Breslin has denied this on his blog, and seems to accuse Mr Maddox of misrepresenting him:

100% not true. I'm not actually due to meet anyone party-related this week or any week thereafter.A simple lesson for me here though is that giving people the benefit of the doubt and taking them at face value is not always the appropriate and honourable course of action I tend to think it is. Dimming down the sunny, wide-eyed optimism when people will happily shoot you down is well worthwhile.[...]

And anyway, I think it's pretty clear that by naively giving my fellow Steamie contributor a bit of rope to hang me with, it's abundantly clear I'm no "expert". I screwed up, I can admit that; shot my mouth off for a moment and had it blow up in my face, but if you learn from your mistakes they make you stronger I suppose...

Interestingly, Jeff doesn't actually reveal what he said to David Maddox, and clearly if the report isn't wholly accurate then it would be instructive to know exactly what the blogger extraordinaire said to the journalist.

Also, in his blog post on the unmasking of the then SNP aide Mark MacLachlan as author of the controversial Universality of Cheese blog, Jeff says:

I definitely feel for Mark. I met him at a Blogger's Breakfast at Spring Conference and briefly again at the Autumn Conference a few months ago.

Did Jeff know that Mr MacLachan was the author of the disputed blog but was not aware of his position in the SNP, or did Mr MacLachlan not reveal what his precise involvement with the blogosphere was, or were the details of what went on considered confidential?

Also, Jeff is quoted in the Scotsman article as saying:

I've run what I like to think is a fairly decent SNP blog for nearly three years and haven't heard a peep from the press team except being ordered to take a post or two down.

What precisely are the circumstances surrounding the SNP ordering the taking down of posts made by Jeff, whose blog is ostensibly unofficial?

Electioneering for fag-end governments

With the latest opinion poll showing support for an independent Scotland at a record low of 20 per cent, it's difficult to think of an obvious rationale for yesterday's launch of the SNP's white paper for a referendum on independence. But, of course, it's not really about independence at all, at least in the next few years or so.

At best it's all part of a gradualist strategy towards Scotland breaking away from the UK; the independence option must remain because it's the SNP's raison d'etre, but the white paper hands the Unionist parties an olive branch in the form of alternative options on the ballot paper - the further but limited devolution of powers as proposed by the Calman Commission, or the so-called devolution-max option, with full control over tax raising and spending, and other currently reserved matters such as employment law and financial regulation.

Of course, the opposition parties seem unlikely to support a Bill even with the less radical options included, but who knows, and if enough support was garnered to pass the legislation then some extension of powers for Holyrood would very probably be endorsed by Scottish voters, thus better for the Nationalists than the status quo, and yet another step down the gradualist road to independence.

However, the more likely result is for the referendum Bill to hit the Holyrood buffers, in which case Alex Salmond will portray the opposition as denying the 'people of Scotland' their say: "It is now time for the voice of the people to be heard," he says. And in offering the two options short of independence, he hopes to be seen to reach out to those wary of or opposing independence, thus hoping to compound the Unionist image as anti-democratic.

Moreover, the Scottish Government needs the distraction of a referendum debate to divert attention from the fact that the cupboard is largely bare as regards a legislative programme for the remainder of its term before spring 2011; its other flagship policy - minimum pricing for alcohol - is effectively a dead duck. To drop either proposal at this stage - as occurred with the Local Income Tax legislation - would prevent the SNP from gaining maximum leverage from the twin mantras of accusing the opposition of denying the Scottish people a say in their future and condemning the nation to further health and crime problems cause by alcohol abuse.

Of course, the same mentality of a fag-end government was similarly evident last week with the Labour Government's white paper on the implementation of the Calman Commission's proposals to devolve more powers from Westminster to Holyrood. These proposals seem highly unlikely to make it through Parliament before next year's general election, and are instead merely filling in time while at the same time electioneering to Scots voters.

Thus neither Your Scotland, Your Voice nor Scotland's Future in the United Kingdom are quite what they seem - they are less about their stated purpose than short-term politicking and long-term electoral strategy, and both are of no relevance to the immediate needs of Scotland and its people.