Jim-jams versus the burka

An interesting variation on my recent post comparing wearers of the burka to the Naked Rambler - and the similar pleas for tolerance used against critics of these antithetical states of dress/undress - was provided by last week's story about the Tesco store in Wales which had banned customers who wore "nightwear" while shopping, "to avoid causing offence and embarrassment to others."

Of course, compared to nudity on one hand and wearing a burka on the other, stepping out in your jim-jams doesn't seem particularly radical, but Tesco's action interestingly demonstrates how a particular type of dress can breach accepted cultural norms, although it would seem that what some find acceptable in Cardiff is an unusual sight in Dundee.

However, that Tesco felt the need to ban shoppers in their PJs shows that at least some members of the public find dress of this type to be socially unacceptable, and in turn this demonstrates the crude and presumptuous nature of the statement made by a lawyer in defence of the Naked Rambler: "In England we've taken the view that Stephen Gough is not a danger to society but is a harmless eccentric, part of life's rich tapestry and we won't waste police time and money on him."

Crude and presumptuous unless, of course, the English find permanent public nudity more acceptable than shopping in pyjamas and slip-slops (Tesco also prescribed proper footwear), which seems unlikely.

Anyway, now is perhaps not the time to get into the substantive arguments regarding the wearing of jim-jams in public, but in view of the reported justification proffered by banned shopper Elaine Carmody, it's perhaps best not to intellectualise the debate:

She said she had been "popping in for a pack of fags," but if she had been doing a full shop "then we obviously would have gone in clothed".

Well that's OK then - presumably other shoppers will only be offended or embarrassed if she is pushing a full trolleyload in her PJs. (Interestingly, Ms Carmody is pictured in her pyjamas with a trolley, which she presumably doesn't use for popping in for a packet of fags - no 'off her trolley' jokes, please.)

Meanwhile, for a fascinating read on intolerance towards the mere Muslim headscarf in secular Turkey, see this in The Times.

For those interested in the burka debate, Times Online also carries a couple of contrasting recent articles on UKIP's proposed ban. Dominic Lawson says:

That is not the British way; we evolved — not least as a result of our own historical experience — a much more tolerant approach to open expressions of religious difference, which can be summarised by the phrase “live and let live”. [...]

If the would-be populists of UKIP think that the average British churchgoer would be enthused by the attempt to stamp out the visible manifestations of a minority’s adherence to Islam, in effect to criminalise religious conscience, they are much mistaken.

Meanwhile, critic Alice Thomson, while not supporting a blanket ban, says:

The burka is not an invisibility cloak, it’s a passive- aggressive statement, a rejection of the community. The person wearing it is signalling that either she or her family wants her to remain apart from society. It implies that wearers believes that British men may become dangerously lecherous if they see their faces and that British women are too provocatively clad. Like smoking, wearing a burka doesn’t affect just the wearers, but those around them, who may feel shunned.

Iraq war smoking gun as elusive as WMD?

Of course, we've all known for some time that the weapons of mass destruction which were instrumental in the official justification for the war against Iraq didn't really exist. Equally, we all know that critics of Labour's decision to launch hostilities against Saddam Hussein's regime are relentless in their pursuit of a blatant lie in this regard; in short, a smoking gun on the WMD.

Tony Blair's appearance today before the Chilcot enquiry represents yet another significant moment for those pursuing WMD deceit, but the Times this morning suggests they are likely to be disappointed:

There is very little reason to go over this well-trodden ground again. The desire to do so appears to be based on the assumption that the inquiry is only ever the right question away from uncovering the deceit that must lie beneath. As each successive witness emerges without any such revelation, critics scratch their heads and denounce the inquisitors for the feebleness of their questioning. Critics are assuming the existence of a bombshell, then denouncing the inquiry for its failure to find one.

There is a simpler explanation. There is no bombshell. There is just a parade of people, politicians, advisers and civil servants, at varying stages removed from power, recalling the nuances of an agonisingly difficult decision. The suggestion that the conflict was founded on a deliberate lie, a widely held belief, is hard even to make sense of. No serious politicians would make a case in public that they knew to be untrue, in the certain knowledge that they would be found out. The truth is always murkier than that.

Thus Blair is likely to deflect, spin and obfuscate, but utter a bare-faced lie?

Of course, for Tony Blair's detractors Chilcot has provided plenty of ammunition, but a smoking gun seems as elusive as the weapons of mass destruction themselves.

Lights out!

Following yesterday's stooshie regarding the 'Christmassy' lights in Dundee's Hilltown - which it seemed might become 'all-the-year-round' lights - I had the thought that perhaps this was another facet of Dundee City Council's alleged attempt to secularise Christmas. Remember the Winter Light Night imbroglio? Well perhaps the Hilltown Crimbo lights had trumped even that - how about rebranding them something catchy like 'perennial' lights?

Sadly, it's not to be. Despite local councillor Jimmy Black's suggestion that the lights would become a permanent feature in addition to the tree, following yesterday's Courier article the Hilltown's answer to Blackpool's illuminations has disappeared. Boo hoo.

But if Mr Black was correct in saying that the lights would cost the same to run as a streetlight, it's surely pertinent to ask how much it costs the council to take down the lights and put them up again next year.

Of course, despite the possibility of gilt yields rocketing and credit rating agencies downgrading the UK's triple-A status due to our burgeoning debt burden, the issue of cost is probably not the determining factor as regard the future of the Hilltown's thingummy lights.

The question no doubt preoccupying the corridors of power in Dundee's City Square is presumably of greater political and philosophical significance than mere economics: what would happen NEXT Christmas?

If the lights were present all year round what would the lord provost switch on next December, and how would the arrival of the festive season be marked in the Hilltown? Clearly the answer to these questions would have been a further enhancement in the display, but after the excitement of this Christmas's upgrade and in view of the tightening of the municipal budget, that was perhaps an unlikely and unrealistic scenario.

Thus the tree has now taken on a distinctly forlorn and threadbare look, and the only visual interest at this road junction is now the smokers standing on the pavement outside Cookies Bar.

Of course, the wider lesson is perhaps that whoever said micro-local politics was boring should perhaps take a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror.

Shine on you crazy Christmas lights!

Early in the new year I wrote about the dramatic enhancement of the Christmas decorations in the Hilltown area of Dundee. A new twist in this seemingly never ending saga of unbridled excitement and aesthetic delight has emerged, however.

It seems that not only is the tree not just for Christmas, but the lights themselves are to be a permanent feature! In a news article that has all the hallmarks of yet another Unionist conspiracy, today's Courier reports that Dundee's SNP administration is under fire for leaving the lights burning until after, um, Burns Night, following an earlier row over a council decision to cut funding to community projects (which Lib Dem councillor Fraser Macpherson described as, "a staggering example of the SNP acting as Robin Hood in reverse — taking from the poorest in society, the people most in need of help.").

But local councillor Jimmy Black says the lights are to remain to "brighten the area up" and "cheer people up", and suggests that this ostensible extravagance will in fact cost around the same as a streetlight to run.

I had noticed that the lights were still ablaze, and indeed did wonder whether they were to be a permanent fixture in the area, particuarly as they don't have a very 'Christmassy' appearance.

And since the festive lights in St Andrews have in the past been up until February - they are similarly monochromatic and thus also have a less seasonal look, it's just that there's a lot more of them - the continuation of the Hilltown's limited display seemed unremarkable. (The environmental aspect of the Hilltown's ongoing adornment isn't mentioned in the Courier article, but see my 2007 letter - under the pseudonym 'Lichts Aff' - in the Evening Telegraph contrasting the St Andrews lights with Fife Council's stance on carbon emmissions.)

On the aesthetic point, it's probably worth noting that the lights look slightly more attractive in real life than in my unflattering camera phone snap, and indeed the Courier's illustrative photograph perhaps shows the tree and adornments in a better light.

Interestingly, however, the paper's photo also shows an unflatteringly large amount of the nearby Cookies Bar, and the smokers (presumably) standing at the pub door perhaps illustrate the paradox of the powers that be trying to prettify the area on the one hand while making it less attractive on the other, courtesy of the smoking ban. Personally, I would prefer not to have the smokers rather than to have the lights!

Geography supplants partisanship as fire board politics hot up

While there's normally little evidence of any real debate or dissent on issues relating to the Tayside Police Joint Board - indeed, from a layman's perspective it's difficult to discern much in the way of a rationale for the body - it's a different story as regards the councillors elected to the Fire & Rescue equivalent, with crude politicking and electoral considerations surrounding the actions and opinions of both many of the board members and other politicians.

However, Dundee MSP Shona Robison sets the scene in a letter published in the Dundee press, but to what extent are the political class living up to the fine words expressed?: "It would be wrong for Fire Board members to vote along party political or geographical lines."

The context is a controversial proposal by fire chiefs to downgrade cover at Balmossie Station in the east end of Dundee, with resources redeployed to the Angus town of Forfar, primarily because the workload of the former full-time station is significantly higher than the latter, which is staffed by part-time/retained firefighters. Thus it is thought that an enhanced service at the Forfar facility would optimise safety across the area as a whole, albeit that those served by Balmossie would see some diminution in cover.

Thus surely the arena for the kind of geographical and political tussle that Ms Robison thinks should be avoided. However, later in her letter the Scottish Government health minister shows the way forward by ignoring Tayside generally in favour of the city of Dundee:

Therefore, I cannot support the proposals (to downgrade full-time night cover) as they stand and I would urge the Chief Fire Officer, the Fire Board and the FBU to seriously investigate alternative options which can command broad support and deliver enhanced safety for the people of [Dundee].

Thus no geographical considerations evident there then! Not that Ms Robison or the SNP generally should be singled out for criticism. The Evening Telegraph usefully carried a two-page spread on the issue recently, and the views of several politicians were outlined. For Labour, Councillor Laurie Bidwell said, "maintaining the status quo is vital for the safety of those he serves." Perhaps not surprising that the good councillor's ward is covered by Balmossie.

Katrina Murray, Labour PPC for Dundee East at Westminster said: "These proposed cuts will affect the day to day safety of not just the people served by this fire station but all of the folk in Dundee."

As for the the other half of the SNP duo who represent the east end of Dundee in our parliaments, MP Stewart Hosie said his constituents had raised real fears.

Slightly more recently, in the wake of a Dundee City Council committee meeting this week which voted unanimously against the proposal, Councillor Bidwell said: "Just as I predicted, it is inconceivable any city councillor should support a reduction in this vital emergency service."

Absolutely no evidence of political or geographical motivation then! Oh well, I suppose they're at least being honest and up front about where their priorities lie, even if it's delivered in the usual slightly self-righteous, safetyisparamout-esque manner.

Of course, no doubt the key to resolving the paradox between Ms Robison's fine words quoted at the outset and the equally fine words uttered by the other politicians is that none of the above mentioned are actually members of the fire board, and can thus ignore the non-political, non-geographical imperatives.

So we can rely on Conservative and fire board member Councillor Rod Wallace? It seems not. He says: "I stay within half a mile of Balmossie fire station and it is a very important part of my life. I, along with the people of my ward, feel reassured by the service it offers."

What was that about geography? Location, location, location, as Shona Robison nearly said. And Mr Wallace also takes to task, "the convenor of the board [who supports the proposal] in his leafy suburb of Aberfeldy."

And here was me thinking that the area served by Balmossie was the leafy suburb of Dundee! Aberfeldy must be very leafy indeed, although it should be said that the convenor's own town would not in any way be affected by the proposal, a consideration which clearly has both pros and cons from the decision making perspective.

However, there's a further nuance to the political aspect of the fire board: members shouldn't vote along party lines according to the Robison doctrine, but does this mean that they shouldn't necessarily follow the wishes of their constituents? Who knows, but Councillor Wallace adds: "I am a councillor who is also on the fire board, so I have that additional responsibility. But the views of my electorate come first."

Which is clear enough, but raises at least one point. Since not all councillors are members of the board (which comprises representatives from Angus, Dundee and Perth & Kinross councils) then in a self-evident geographical tussle such as this then in theory some residents may not be represented on the board at all, thus in effect it's gerrymandered. And with the support or otherwise of so many councillors crudely dependent on whatever happens to benefit their ward, town or city, any notion of a cross-Tayside perspective from fire board members is clearly lacking.

However, there is some evidence that board members are prepared to set party loyalties aside to look at the approach more objectively. Convenor Ken Lyall favours the shift in emphasis from Balmossie to Forfar and in doing so sets himself against his SNP colleagues in Dundee. Indeed, Councillor Lyall took Dundee SNP administration leader Ken Guild to task over his support for Balmossie, comparing Mr Guild's stance to his cost-cutting measures on the council, and more recently accusing the city's councillors of "political point-scoring" following this week's council vote.

On the other hand, Mr Lyall's claim that the Fire Brigades Union, which opposes the proposal, is using "emotional scaremongering tactics" and that the union's focus is on "protecting its members rather than the communities they serve", was perhaps ill-judged, but as a former police officer and ambulance crew member the councillor is perhaps better placed than most to evaluate these matters.

Meanwhile, in Forfar itself three out of four of the town's councillors support the enhanced cover that the change would bring (no surprise there then, except insofar as support was previously merely lukewarm) but with an interesting difference in opinion between SNP husband and wife team Bill (for) and Glennis Middleton (against).

Perhaps most commendable, however, is Tory councillor John Whyte, who is one of the board vice convenors, and who says, despite representing a ward covered by the threatened Balmossie station: "I also have a responsibility to look at the overall picture as one of the vice convenors for Tayside region." The SNP's Christina Roberts, also a vice convenor, is conveying essentially the same message.

Thus despite the generally non-conflictual and apolitical nature of these bodies, it's clear that in this case party politics, crude politicking and the survival instincts of individual politicians are very much to the fore, not to mention the understandable concerns of firefighters and residents as regards their own self-interest. Indeed, the Courier's uncompromising columnist John J Marshall says:

To their shame, a number of local politicians are disgracefully 'stoking the fires'. They posture about protecting lives but the only skins they are trying to save are their own.[...] The fire union, of course, exists to look after the interests of its members and provide them with the best possible deal, like undisturbed nights.

A more responsible approach is expected from those representing the public, such as viewing the bigger picture.

Indeed, when the issue was last discussed and voted on party political feuding reared its ugly head when SNP councillor Sandy West said: "Could it be that, even outside the Angus Council chamber, the sole policy of the Angus Alliance is to automatically vote against anything an SNP Angus councillor puts forward?"

To which Councillor Bob Myles of the Angus (Unionist?) Alliance retorted: I am very disappointed that five years of work developing a comprehensive rationalisation of Tayside Fire Service was thrown out on petty parochial issues, and again we have Angus SNP members trying to make political capital out of a totally non-political issue."

Thus it may all be slightly unedifying, but I suppose in some ways it's better than the nodding dogs on the Tayside police board. However, the problem is that when councillors dissent from the official board line crude party politics doesn't take long to rear its ugly head.

Of course, in situations such as this one it's always a lot easier to defend the status quo than promote change which might objectively be viewed as more equitable in the wider context, with vested interest groups - in this case politicians, firefighters and residents - who would be adversely affected by change more organised and vehement in their opposition than those who would benefit are in their desire and enthusiasm for change.

To that extent Balmossie will win the day rather than Tayside as a whole, but the run up to the vote in a couple of month's time seems likely to generate much heat and perhaps a little light as well, and whichever way things go the embers of the dispute are unlikely to be extinguished for some considerable time.

Cal Merc: some things never change...

A belated (in the online media context!) welcome to the Caledonian Mercury, "Scotland's first truly online newspaper". Except that it isn't. Isn't a newspaper that is - there's no obvious dedicated section for news per se. Of course, that seems to be a rationale for the new publication; it's eschewing the traditional 'dead tree' press emphasis on news reporting - which is, after all, a saturated market - in favour of "providing in-depth and unique coverage of specific areas of Scottish life".

A quick perusal of the site certainly confirms that - it looks more like the online version of a traditional newspaper's features and comment sections. And as someone who tends to read analysis and opinion rather than news as such - which tends to come in snippets from newspaper headlines, half-watched TV news bulletins and second-hand via blogs and other online comment - I clearly welcome this addition to the online Scottish media.

An initial caveat, however. The content seems limited in scope (no business/economy section, for example, while one of the main categories is the slightly arcane 'heritage') and the impression is that this is due to limited resources rather than a genuine intention to permanently confine Cal Merc to "specific areas of Scottish life", thus perhaps trying to make a virtue of necessity.

Indeed, Editor Stewart Kirkpatrick said on last night's Newsnicht that his new baby might expand its scope in the medium-term if necessitated by a "market" or "gap", which again might represent spinning a line as regards currently available resources.

As for content, I haven't had time to read much of it yet, and evaluation is perhaps best left to the experts on such matters, but leading commentator Gerry Hassan (who also appeared on Newsnicht) seems unimpressed by the early stuff, which also reflects his views on the MacBlogosphere. Oh dear.

Never mind though, it's early days yet, and Mr Kirkpatrick claims a seemingly implausible but otherwise fantastic 30,000 unique visitors on Cal Merc's first day, which clearly bodes well for the future.

Of course, a perhaps dubious feature of online media is the interactive aspect, and Cal Merc is even offering prizes for the "most intelligent comments" left by readers. However, early signs suggest that the readers' comments section of the site may turn into another Scotsman-style discussion forum, which would at least make the selection process easier for the judges, but which would do little to help establish the publication's reputation. But at the moment the already seemingly dominant Nationalist contribution to the site seems to be directing its opprobrium towards political opponents rather than Cal Merc itself, and this seems to be based on the assumption that the editorial line won't replicate the perceived Unionist bias of the Scotsman and Herald.

What will transpire in this regard is far from clear from my armchair in Dundee, but I suspect this aspect of the new site may well end in tears.

However, in the meantime I wish the Caledonian Mercury the best of luck. It might very well need it!

A dubious privilege

Elderly volunteers at a Dundee charity shop claim to have been forced out after being asked to choose between working with prisoners on work placements and being shown the door. A 71-year-old lady was moved to tears by the ultimatum, and told the Evening Telegraph: "We were assured we wouldn’t be working with rapists, child molesters, paedophiles or serial abusers, but were told we could get murderers, drug abusers or fraudsters."

Well that's OK then. Indeed, a subsequent letter published in the newspaper slammed the ladies for being so ungrateful, saying: "It clearly has not been properly conveyed to them that it is a privilege to work with and to be part of the rehabilitation of offenders in the community."

The ingratitude of it all. Of course, the more cynical among us might sympathise with elderly ladies in their 70s and 80s who are just a tad concerned about working with murderers and drug abusers, despite the rehabilitative value of these work placements. But, rest assured, there's absolutely nothing to worry about, says officialdom: "Individuals undertaking supervised work placements have undergone extensive risk assessment. The Scottish Prison Service places great importance on preparing prisoners for release, and undertaking work placements is one way of testing prisoners prior to their release."

Hardly reassuring, however, that in the same few days as the above appeared in the media, the jail in question - Castle Huntly open prison - was back in the headlines following the abscond of a violent prisoner who had been transferred to the open estate after only a quarter of his sentence had been served. This followed other high-profile cases in the last few years. Robert Foye raped a schoolgirl while on the run. Dangerous criminal Brian "Hawk" Martin also went walkabout. Killer Robert Brown fled to Africa and was later found hanged.

Last week Professor Alec Spencer slammed justice secretary Kenny MacAskill for failing to fully implement his recommendations for change made in a report commissioned following Martin's escape. Thus perhaps the elderly volunteers can be excused for failing to be reassured by the SPS's "extensive risk assessment".

The service talks of work placements "testing" prisoners prior to their release. I wonder what failing the test would entail?

Wha's like Fiona Hyslop? Not the Cuthberts!

Last week Scottish Government minister Fiona Hyslop proffered her vision of culture in an independent Scotland, and it's an attractive scenario indeed:

Artists and creators often hold up a mirror to society, reflecting back the experience of belonging; nowhere more so than in Scotland, where our distinctive cultural life is known the world over.

I firmly believe that a Scotland with more control over its own affairs - a Scotland more confident in itself - would see fresh creativity shine through as a result. In turn, a more confident nation leads to an even more creative one - a virtuous circle of increasing confidence and creativity.

There is a hard edge to this, of course, as Scotland trades on the international recognition of its culture and heritage. It is a major attraction for visitors and showcases our country as a diverse and exciting place to live and work; so increased confidence and creativity can only be good for business.

Braw. So what's not to like? Of course, the above is the theory, but what about the reality? How does the virtuous circle work in other facets of Scottish life?

Actually, rather than independence per se Ms Hyslop refers to "a Scotland with more control over its own affairs", so after ten years of devolution there's plenty evidence available to test her thesis.

Problem is that according to the Nationalists the first eight years of devolution under Labour and Lib Dem rule wasn't a happy experience, so Scotland controlling its own affairs must surely be an end in itself rather than the means to an end outlined by Ms Hyslop.

But let's be charitable and assume Ms Hyslop really meant that Scotland would only be more confident and create a virtuous circle and all that if we not only had more control over our own affairs, but in fact 'we' referred to a particular faction within Scotland, namely the Scottish National Party.

We can test this theory as well, because of course the SNP has controlled Scotland's devolved administration for almost three years now.

Thus, for example, we were promised maximum class sizes of 18 for early years primary school kids. But last Sunday's press revealed that it could take another Parliamentary term - thus until 2015 - before the pledge is met. Indeed, Ms Hyslop's demotion from education secretary to her current post of culture minister was thought to be largely due to her inability to deliver on this promise.

Then there was the Scottish Futures Trust, which seemed to promise to magic up funds for large scale public infrastructure projects at next to nil cost, with sources of finance apparently to be willing to do this more out of the goodness of their heart than to make a profit. But this Sunday's press reveals that economists Jim and Margaret Cuthbert - the Nationalists' favourite husband and wife team after Mr & Mrs Hosie - have slammed the SFT as making the "disastrous mistake" of not taking account of lessons to be learned from past experience with PFI.

Thus yet more evidence that the reality of government doesn't quite match up to the soaring rhetoric and inflated expectations proffered.

Rather than instilling confidence and creating a virtuous circle, policy failures and broken promises could well have the opposite effect; indeed, exacerbating the so-called Scottish cringe that the SNP seeks to reverse.

Thus more realism and less of the rhetoric, please.

Every double standard helps!

I would have to admit to having a love-hate relationship with the seemingly ubiquitous Tesco. On the one hand, I'm never out of their Dundee stores, but on the other hand I've often thought about setting up another blog critiquing the shopping experience there - for example, the awful experience of the self-service tills, which to my mind is the antithesis of good service.

However, I mention the above merely to underline that I'm not a dyed-in-the wool Tesco hater, but I couldn't help notice a news article in last week's Courier concerning a successful planning application by Asda to build a shiny new £24 million mega-hyper-super-dooper-market sort of thing in Dundee, which will apparently create 500 jobs.

Tesco lodged an objection to Asda's proposed new store, despite previously insisting that it "doesn't lodge objections to rival retailers' planning applications".

This volte-face has nothing to do with the fact that the new Asda store lies less than half a mile from a new Tesco Extra (that's the type that sells everything from dozens of different varieties of milk, the latest 'bonkbusters', umpteen brands of flat-screen TVs to paint for the bedroom ceiling) which opened a mere few months ago, perchance?

Absolutely nothing to do with that, according to those purveyors of mass consumerism. It's all to do with alleged breaches of Dundee City Council's planning policy, and certainly nothing to do with creating a local monopoly in an area that has little more than a few convenience stores in the immediate vicinity, you see.

In particular, Asda's plans failed to take account of the vacant Stack Leisure Park about a mile away in the suburb of Lochee, which would be a "preferable, sequential" (eh?) site for Asda, according to Tesco.

Which begs the question (to those not familiar with Lochee, at least), why didn't Tesco open a store on the Stack Leisure Park site in Lochee instead of their preferred site over a mile away, particularly in view of its self-evidently preferable and sequential status?

Er, because it was Tesco who abandoned the Stack Leisure Park site in favour of their expanded store a mile away!

Indeed, Tesco has been accused of helping turn Lochee High Street - a recipient of £2 million from the Scottish Government's Town Centre Regeneration Fund - into a 'ghost town' by abandoning the nearby Stack site, but now self-righteously wants Asda to reverse the damage done and do its bit for the community, which by sheer coincidence would help maintain the market dominance of its new Tesco Extra store.

While I'm sure we're all hypocritical to a greater or lesser degree, surely the trick is not to be brazen about it, but in this case Tesco seems to have demonstrated both these undesirable traits!

Any naked burka wearers out there?

Of course not - by definition a burka wearer wants to cover everything up, thus the antithesis of going naked. Therefore 'naked burka wearer' is an oxymoron.

However, the connection between nakedness and wearing the burka was brought to mind by a couple of items in last weekend's media. First, UKIP's Nigel Farage was confronted by Respect's Salma Yaqoob on his party's plan to ban the wearing of the Muslim burka or niqab. Second, the usually naked Stephen Gough featured in the press because his ongoing unwillingness to cover his modesty had led a Scottish sheriff to suggest that the 'Naked Rambler' might be locked up indefinitely if he didn't mend his ways.

But the link between these two ostensibly antithetical issues relates to the largely similar arguments used by both Salma Yaqoob and Stephen Gough to justify wearing the burka and going naked respectively.

On the BBC's Politics Show Ms Yaqoob countered Mr Farage by saying: "...the British way of life is 'live and let live', freedom of speech, freedom of worship. As long as they are not imposing it on anybody else they should have the right to wear it."

Meanwhile, in a Scotland on Sunday article Mr Gough expounded his rationale thus: "This is about individual freedom and people's tolerance to other people being different."

Therefore both arguments in essence relate to individual freedom on the one hand, with concomitant tolerance from people on the other.

Thus it would be interesting to know Mr Gough's views on wearing the burka, but I'm surely not sticking my neck out in suggesting that burka wearers object to Mr Gough's own particular version of 'live and let live'.

Of course, the objection of many to both positions is essentially that going naked in public and wearing the burka are anti-social in relation to our dominant cultural norms, although precisely where these norms lie is a matter of some debate.

However, that opinion on these matters differs between people and across time is neatly demonstrated by comparing Ms Yaqoob's reference to British values with a more nuanced view expressed by lawyer Mark Stephens in defence of Mr Gough: "In England we've taken the view that Stephen Gough is not a danger to society but is a harmless eccentric, part of life's rich tapestry and we won't waste police time and money on him. In Scotland, a more prudish approach has been taken."

Thus Mr Stephen's version of Ms Yaqoob's British 'live and let live' perspective only extends to England, while north of the border it's a different matter.

How this might translate into perhaps differing English and Scottish views on the burka is anyone's guess, but of course both Mr Stephen and Ms Yaqoob self-evidently express slightly presumptuous and reductionist opinions on these matters.

However, clearly the debate on these issues underline that there must be limits to both individual freedom and the tolerance of others, but of course the vexed question is where these limits should lie.

The first minister doth protest too much

Today's FMQs was dominated by a spat between Alex Salmond and Iain Gray on the Daily Record scoop that Scottish Government minister Roseanna Cunningham had been "minded" to ignore Home Office advice that the Royal Family's security could be compromised by plans to publicise public footpaths which run close to the Queen's Balmoral estate. The proposal by the Cairngorms National Park Authority was only rejected when a UK Government minister threatened that the Home Secretary would over-rule Scotland's SNP administration on national security grounds if Ms Cunningham didn't back down.

Of course, that 'Republican Rose' is possibly the best known anti-royalist in mainstream Scottish politics provides an edge to the story, while the fact that Alex Salmond wants the Queen to continue as head of state in an independent Scotland merely adds grist to the mill.

At FMQs Mr Salmond excels at loud, angry and righteously indignant rebuttals to the questions he's asked, and while in the knockabout context of the weekly joust his performance is usually impressive and effective, on the other hand the more exaggerated he becomes the more he conveys the impression that he's on the ropes and that his responses are more bluster than substance.

That certainly seemed to be the case today, when the first minister responded to what seemed like a perfectly reasonable question from Iain Gray by describing the Scottish Labour leader's position on the issue as an "absolute, total, rid-ic-ul-ous absurdity".

Moreover, when Mr Gray reiterated that Ms Cunningham's initial position had only been reversed when it became obvious that she would be over-ruled by Whitehall, Mr Salmond's response was merely to ignore this in favour of emphasising the eventual result (which is, of course, undisputed), deflecting attention from the substantive point by making allegations about a politically-motivated leak, trying to embarrass the Scottish Labour leader by raising the issue of his predecessor Jack McConnell, and generally making light of the whole thing with an overly self-righteous and patronising approach.

Of course, Mr Gray's approach to the subject may have been legitimately questioned by Mr Salmond - the occasion seems to be as much questions by rather than to the first minister - but the usual hyperbole, stridency and over-defensive approach merely confirms suspicions that the questions posed have substance, and the more Mr Salmond huff and puffs the more this impression is underlined.

But as the Sunday Post's Campbell Gunn pointed out on the BBC's Politics Scotland, if the Queen's security eventually trumped the rights of ramblers to the satisfaction of all concerned, the subsequent political furore has ensured that the paths in question have been afforded much more exposure than they would have if they'd gained the limited proposed publicity in the first place.

Sturgeon sanitises

Last week's report from the Healthcare Environment Inspectorate on standards of cleanliness at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee is a classic example of official sanitisation. While the report did make some recommendations for improvement, in general terms inspectors "praised the cleanliness of the facility", according to the Evening Telegraph.

And NHS Tayside's response to the report is not short on self-congratulation:

We are extremely pleased that, in their report, the inspection team found many areas of good practice, singling them out for special commendation. We are also very encouraged that the HEI Chief Inspector commented on the good standard of overall cleanliness in the hospital. This is confirmation of the commitment and hard work of all staff, from our domestic assistants, to nursing staff, estates staff and many other individuals working across Ninewells.

Nothing wrong with that, of course - credit where it's due and all that, but of course there was one big, fat, salient, in your face fact that was omitted from the HEI report and the NHS Tayside response, not to mention statements from both health secretary Nicola Sturgeon and Dundee City Council social work and health convenor Jim Barrie.

Yes, all omitted to mention the fact that five patients died following an outbreak of C. difficile at the hospital, despite inspection visits taking place at the same time, including one to the affected ward.

Granted, Ms Sturgeon's response does mention the C.diff outbreak, but, shhh, don't mention the fatalities.

Of course, to a large extent we take it for granted that what politicians have to say for themselves has to be taken with a large pinch of salt, and to a degree this extends to officialdom as well. However, it's often the case that another arm of officialdom - an independent regulator, perhaps - can be relied upon to state the unvarnished facts without fear or favour, but in this particular case the sanitary inspectors seem to have sanitised the true facts of the case, as has health secretary Nicola Sturgeon.

It's difficult to discern what's hoped to be achieved by this kind of lack of candour - it's not as if the deaths were state secrets that could be swept under the governmental carpet forever, and indeed anyone who was interested knew about them. The Dundee press headlined on the failure to mention the fatalities, and a patients' representative subsequently described the omission as "insulting", and said: "It’s not compassionate to forget about the five patients who died. The report should not have glossed over their lives — they were human beings who had rights."

Thus it seems that officialdom and politicians gained absolutely nothing from their failure to disclose the full facts of the case, and instead were made to look dishonest and more concerned at saving face than the health of patients, and to that extent only attracted public opprobrium.

So it's business as usual then.

My 'rhetorical letter'!

It would seem that my letter published in last weekend's Scotland on Sunday hasn't merited a response, or at least there's nothing in the online edition.

No doubt the whole of Scotland has been waiting on this with baited breath, but in case anyone was out of the country at the time the letter asked why the Unionists generally and the Calman Commission in particular consider it appropriate to have different speed and drink driving limits - and thus differing levels of safety, presumably - north and south of the border, while I also wondered which aspects of national speed limits the Nationalists were considering changing such that devolving this power seemed to be a matter of some urgency, because I cannot recall any proposals or indeed debate on the subject at all.

To be honest I wasn't really expecting a response, and to that extent the questions and indeed the letter as a whole were rhetorical in nature.

However, the reason I raise the letter again relates to Duncan Hamilton's column in this weekend's edition of Scotland on Sunday, where the high flying lawyer, former MSP and adviser to Alex Salmond laments the Labour party's response to a recent opinion poll showing that the public are "unconvinced" by independence. Iain Gray's claimed this is "bad news" for the SNP, while in turn Mr Hamilton says: "The level of political analysis would make you weep."

Which, given the non-response to my letter from either side of the debate, I thought a tad ironic from a personal perspective, although it didn't quite reduce me to tears. But only Iain Gray?

Anyway, Mr Hamilton has a fairly good stab at telling us that the analysis of the poll figures by everyone except the Nationalists is complete bullocks, and that it all bodes well for his gradualist perspective on independence. But even if the figures do show support for further powers for the Scottish Parliament, where his own analysis perhaps makes me weep is insofar as it seems to assume that if the Holyrood is in some way preferred to Westminster then that's a resounding thumbs up for the former, while I suspect it's more of a case of a thumbs down for the latter and devolved government being seen as the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, this weekend's Sunday press seems to be carrying a higher than average number of stories unfavourable to the SNP administration - class sizes, prisoner escapes, and a 'tartan tax' claim being among the most obvious in Scotland on Sunday, while the Sunday Times has former rugby star Kenny Logan branding the SNP 'unfit to govern' over the Beauly to Denny power line decision, and the Sunday Herald goes with a 'whitewash' headline regarding Alex Salmond's decision to clear his own spindoctor over his conduct in the Cheese-gate debacle - perhaps underlining that government is a bit of a poisoned chalice rather than a case of a tartan nirvana being established by virtue of hoisting a different flag.

Of course, perhaps I'm just hallucinating and we are living in a tartan nirvana and the press are part of a Unionist conspiracy and just misleading us all into thinking Scotland is less than perfect.

Hypocritical garbage on litter

The recent Hogmanay Edinburgh Street Party highlighted official hypocrisy towards the issue of littering. In a news article entitled 'Great party...shame about the mess', The Scotsman's report on the event and subsequent clean up said:

Early yesterday morning, more than 50 street-cleaning staff began the task of removing 30 tonnes of litter from Edinburgh city centre.

Yet the report juxtaposes that with the following statement from a senior police officer:

We have been delighted with the behaviour and attitude of revellers in Edinburgh this Hogmanay. Only four arrests were made by our officers on scene, and we would like to thank the public for helping to create a fun and memorable event for all concerned.

A few weeks ago I highlighted the tokenistic stance of the powers that be in Dundee to the issue of litter law enforcement, with the negligible amount of fines handed out being contrasted with the scale of the problem.

Indeed, I well recall a BBC Life of Grime programme from a few years ago which featured Scotland's capital, and footage showed New Year revellers knee deep in rubbish but council orderlies out at the crack of dawn cleaning the whole thing up - it wouldn't do for ordinary people to see this mess. However, elsewhere in that episode council enforcement officers were filmed sitting in surveillance vans during daylight hours and handing out fines to the odd 'suit' who dropped a cigarette end. (I'm not sure if this particular juxtaposition was deliberate.)

Perhaps the authorities should be more honest about their stance on litter - if effective enforcement is either impractical or undesirable then they should tell us so in preference to the current approach, which is self-evidently ineffective and seems to achieve little more than breed resentment against the tiny number of 'easy targets' brought to book.

Instead of praising the "behaviour and attitude" of people who treat Scotland like a rubbish tip, perhaps it's the behaviour and attitude of the authorities that should be examined.

(I see the comments added to the Scotsman's article contain some predictable stuff about "belittling Scotland" and suchlike. Unfortunately this kind of attitude is similarly part of the problem rather than the solution.)

Salmond's Calman call is the limit

(Published as a letter in today's Scotland on Sunday)

Since Alex Salmond recently implored Prime Minister Gordon Brown to devolve further powers to the Scottish Parliament before the UK general election, it would be instructive to know what exactly the First Minister would do with one of the measures in question - setting national speed limits - given that such an exercise would presumably prove controversial.

Thus precisely which of the national speed limits - namely those pertaining to motorways, dual carriageways and most non-urban roads - do the Nationalists have in mind, and to what extent would they be reduced, since presumably they wouldn't be increasing?

The law on speed limits has become increasingly messy and lacking in clarity as it is, with a significant ostensible increase in micro-management being juxtaposed with highly selective enforcement and even tacit official endorsement of speeding, whether intended or otherwise.

Yet Calman claims that a "divergence" in national speed limits within the UK would be "manageable" and that enforcement would not "present particular difficulties", despite the self-evident potential for further confusion.

It would also be interesting to know why the Unionist parties consider it desirable to have different speed limits (not to mention drink-driving limits) - and thus presumably different levels of safety - north and south of the border.

A related point is Calman's slightly contrived and unconvincing attempt to justify different standards within the UK regarding different aspects of road safety on the basis that some facets of road traffic law are more objectively assessable than others.

This, and the lack of substantive proposals from the Nationalists on speed limits, perhaps underlines that the Unionist rationale for Calman was merely to throw the pro-independence dog a placatory bone and that the SNP are now keen to have something more to chew on just for the sake of it, despite initial representations that they had no desire to sup at the Commission's table.

Who's "so bloody arrogant" now, Councillor Vettraino?

On Monday the Courier published a letter from Councillor Ross Vettraino in reply to a leader column critical of Fife Council's response to the big freeze. The letter seemed uncharacteristically strident, arrogant and patronising, at least considering its source. For example:

"...that seems to go beyond the comprehension of the unnamed journalist."

"I would have thought that would have been obvious."

"...a remarkable lack of understanding."

"The price that we as a society sometimes pay for the privilege of a free press is that irresponsible journalists will sometimes abuse that privilege and write rubbish!"

The Courier has published numerous extra letters relating to the weather conditions and governmental responses, and several predictably take issue with Mr Vettraino. For example:

"The price that we, as a society, sometimes pay for our democratic system, is that we get councillors like Ross Vettraino."

"...plumbed new depths in his defence of his party's administration of Fife Council."

But particularly unfortunate for Mr Vettraino was the fact that on the day his letter was published the media was full of stories about Fife Council effectively running out of salt and having to be bailed out by the Scottish Government's Resilience, er, thingy.

Thus Courier columnist John J Marshall rubs salt in the wound (yes, it's that pun again!) in an appropriately robust riposte:

Shooting the messenger has long been the sport of inadequate politicians. It is usually amusing. When the politician manages to shoot himself in the foot at the same time, it's hilarious. [...]

All this at least gave us a laugh at his expense, and you wondered how he might succeed in trying to extract the large foot from his mouth.

Not being familiar with the good councillor, I was curious as to his background, and despite having recently been reported to the police in relation to a Google search (sic!) I threw caution to the wind and used the search engine as Su...er, I mean, as God intended.

Skipping past the usual Fife Council website stuff and the like, the first result of any interest came from the now dormant Scottish Unionist blog, which in an interesting discussion about anti-Englishness (which progressed onto racism) disclosed that in 2007 Councillor Vettraino had described the English as "so bloody arrogant", which, even ignoring the racial aspect, seems more than a tad ironic in view of his response to the big freeze and related press comment.

Mr Vettraino made his comments in the Los Angeles Times during campaigning for the 2007 Holyrood elections, which, of course, the SNP marginally triumphed in and thereafter went on to form the current Scottish Government. But perhaps his more general observations are of greater interest than the anti-English stuff (although that didn't stop him accepting an OBE!):

Down the road in Glenrothes, SNP candidate Vettraino said he was amazed by the support he was finding in local canvassing. "Fife has been Labor-controlled for almost 40 years, and they think they can do anything and get reelected. Well, they've got a surprise coming," Vettraino said.

He tells residents they aren't casting a vote for independence by supporting the SNP. They're giving the party a chance to run things better, he says, and, in a few years, letting themselves vote on independence. "Labor, the Tories and the Lib Dems are all saying to Scotland, 'You're not getting independence. It's not good for you,' " he said. "Well, the Scottish people will decide what's good for them."

Fortunately for Mr Vettraino his comments were not made in the context of campaigning for the Glenrothes by-election in 2008, but it's certainly the case that it was the SNP rather than Labour who had "a surprise coming" in that particular contest.

And let's hope, for the SNP's sake, both at Holyrood and in Fife, that "giving the party a chance to run things better" before voting on independence doesn't relate to Fife Council's and Mr Vettraino's response to the freezing weather and gritting problems!

But perhaps every blizzard has a silver lining? Last winter Mr Vettraino made the Daily Mail when he proposed that bin collections in Fife should be extended from the current two weeks to once a month and suggested the denizens should facilitate this by buying less food.

Thus since road conditions in Fife have meant that some have had their already extended rubbish collections further delayed by the inability of refuse trucks to access their properties, it might be thought that this would provide a good testing ground for the councillor's theory.

But perhaps not - the Dunfermline Press reports that binmen are suffering "torrents of abuse" over the rubbish collection farce.

(The Courier stuff mentioned isn't online.)

They've seen the light(s)!

After my slightly cynical post last Christmas about the somewhat underwhelming decorative lights adorning the tree in Dundee's Hilltown area (above), I was gobsmacked to see that the powers that be (see below) had provided for a significantly enhanced display during the more recent festive period. This is illustrated below, but those of an excitable disposition should scroll down VERY SLOWLY.

Although the Dundee press merely reported that the lord provost had attended the switch-on ceremony, the significant augmentation in the display begs the question whether the same bureaucracy that was reported to have provided the tree in the first place was also responsible for the more decadent approach this time round:

The tree was made possible through funding from the Fairer Scotland Fund and support from the Top of the Hill Forum, the Central Community Regeneration Forum, the environmental sub-group, the urban design officer from Dundee City Council's planning and transportation department, and the local regeneration staff from leisure and communities.

(For the avoidance of doubt, the red light towards the bottom of the tree is part of the pedestrian crossing, not the Christmas lights, er, I mean Winter Lights, or whatever. I think. But if my theory is correct then when someone is crossing the road it would certainly add a bit more colour to the whole thing.)

What amounts to "barely concealed delight"?

In Duncan Hamilton's column in last weekend's Scotland on Sunday, the former SNP MSP and advisor to Alex Salmond said: "The UK finances are in tatters and we may yet be downgraded as an economy by the international ratings agencies."

Thus entirely in keeping with more general Nationalist criticism of the UK economy, and fair comment to boot. But earlier in his column Mr Hamilton had said, regarding Ireland: "For Unionist politicians in Scotland, particularly Jim Murphy, there is a barely concealed delight that the Celtic Tiger has been wounded."

So how does what Jim Murphy has said about Ireland's economy compare to Mr Hamilton's criticism of the UK above? Perhaps the most obvious is Mr Murphy's "arc of insolvency" jibe, but that seems no worse than saying, for example, that the "UK finances are in tatters".

So does that mean that Mr Hamilton is, to use his own words, displaying barely concealed delight that the UK economy is in difficulties?

Or has Jim Murphy said something significantly more derisive that I've missed?

SNP councillor must be very, very angry at SNP council

The debate over the response of local authorities to the freezing weather conditions continues to hot up, with SNP MSP Tricia Marwick calling for a "full inquiry" into how Fife Council got into the position of only having a few hours of grit supplies left before being bailed out by emergency supplies organised by the Scottish Government. Ms Marwick says, "Statements on behalf of the council that other authorities were in a similar position to Fife are simply not true," which is a commendable stance in view of the fact that the council is SNP (and Lib Dem) controlled.

Indeed, Douglas Chapman, the council's SNP education chairman, is also asking questions, and the Courier quotes him as saying yesterday: "I will be very, very angry if staff and pupils cannot get to any of our schools tomorrow because main routes have not been adequately gritted."

However, another news article in today's Courier reveals that 21 schools in Fife are to remain closed today due to the severe weather and related problems, some apparently on police advice. And it's also reported that the parent of a pupil at a Cupar primary will be keeping his nine-year-old away from the school in protest at the dangerous state of the playground and surrounding areas, where he says even his dog fell.

Thus happy days for the pupils, but presumably Councillor Chapman will be very, very angry this morning unless, of course, he claims that the schools are closed because of conditions other than the lack of gritting on the main routes which he specifically mentions in his statement.

Meanwhile, the Times accuses John Swinney of "rubbing salt into the public's wounds" by referring to "perfectly adequate walking conditions" in "a number of communities", while Magnus Linklater slams the "staggering combination of arrogance, complacency and sheer indifference" from council bureaucrats and says: "Not even the worst weather in 30 years is allowed to interfere with the inalienable right of councillors and officials to take their statutory break."

Thus it's interesting how the cold weather has become something of a political hot potato, and having slipped and fallen myself - not to mention several close shaves - and driven in some of the appalling conditions, the issue clearly provides an added personal resonance. (In Dundee the Evening Telegraph reports that its news editor - who had been processing stories on the crowded A&E department at Ninwells Hospital - slipped on ice and broke her arm.)

Having driven for 25 years I think the worse driving conditions I've seen were in north east Fife on Saturday afternoon, following snow showers from Dundee into the adjoining corner of Fife. In truth there wasn't too much snow, but it seemed to be combined with black ice to provide particularly slippery conditions, when even driving along a straight bit of road at slow speed was a tricky business.

The traffic came to a complete halt at around St Michael's, a mile or so north of Leuchars on the main Dundee to St Andrews road. A couple I spoke to later said they eventually abandoned their car and walked a mile or two to Leuchars station to catch the train. I got caught up in the jam at St Michael's, and decided to try taking the main road to Cupar as a detour. However, just short of Balmullo the traffic came to a standstill, and when it started moving again the car two in front of me couldn't get going on the innocuous-looking incline on the approach to the village. After several minutes slipping and sliding the driver eventually turned round and headed back. The next car then spent several minutes slithering around before also turning tail. By virtue of my superior driving skills, er, I mean, by dint of good luck I managed to negotiate the slight hill, but who knows how the queuing cars behind me got on. However, I did hear on local radio later that many people had been out pushing cars and falling on their backsides and suchlike, and I think it took a couple of hours to get everyone moving again, despite the limited amount of snow.

Of course, councils cannot be expected to cope with every eventuality, and nothing in life is perfect, but the annoying thing is the usual self-evident air of complacency and concomitant lack of candour from bureaucrats and politicians, with the usual party points scoring arising as a corollary.

Thus in response to extraordinary weather conditions we have very ordinary politics. Quelle surprise!

'January sale' drinks mogul misses the point?

(An abbreviated version of the following is published as a letter in the Scotsman)


Drinks mogul Tim Martin perhaps misses the point in decrying government attempts to further regulate liquor licensing when he compares the binge drinking in the streets and at home with "supervised" pubs, "where at least you can't behave too badly".

But the main problem relates to what happens when drunks spill out of pubs, with shouting, swearing, vomiting and urinating being merely the low-level tip of an iceberg of crime and disorder, but which in any case makes late night city centres such unpleasant and indeed menacing places for ordinary people.

Perhaps if Mr Martin - who is reputedly worth in excess of £100 million by virtue of his stake in the JD Wetherspoon pub chain - and other opinion formers had the misfortune to live beside a pub or club then they might be forced to reassess their characterisation of the on-sales trade as a "controlled environment".

Indeed, there's more than one way to look at this, because while it's unusual to see drunks stagger out of or be carried unconscious from off-licences and supermarkets - currently villains of the piece as regards the alcohol problem - it's commonplace in the supposedly supervised pub and club sector.

Also, north of the border at least Mr Martin should be aware that a rationale for the Scottish government's minimum pricing proposal is to make pubs and clubs more attractive vis-á-vis off-sales outlets, so here at least it's not a case of a "mad, stupid" government "trying to ruin pubs".

On the other hand, when several Scottish councils tried local minimum pricing schemes (subsequently deemed illegal by the courts) it was elements of the pub trade who objected, so perhaps Wetherspoons - (in)famous for its '99p a pint' promotions and current 'January sale' - is similarly unenthusiastic about the SNP's current proposal.

Rubbing salt in the wound

The big freeze gritting debacle continues apace, with the four major councils in the Courier's readership area - Dundee City, Perth & Kinross, Fife and Angus - all under fire over their ability to keep the roads and pavements safe during the recent adverse weather.

As is so often the case in such situations, there seems to be a reluctance on the part of officialdom to be candid about the true extent of the problem or to admit to any failure, and instead it's a case of the usual spin and self-congratulation, thus rubbing salt into the wounds of endangered, inconvenienced and occasionally physically harmed citizens, whereas what we all want to see is more salt on the streets and roads.

Thus Councillor Tony Martin, Fife's transport chairman says: "Gritting teams in Fife have been working relentlessly day and night over the festive period, in the most severe weather conditions in many years, in an attempt to keep as much of Fife’s extensive road network open as possible."

However, this is in response to today's news that Fife has only a few hours of salt supplies left, and has had to turn to a Scottish Government 'resilience operation' to bail it out. Officials are blaming unprecedented demand and shifting the blame onto suppliers, while claiming that other councils are in a similarly critical position, which in turn they seem to be denying, and Scottish Government finance secretary John Swinney says there's no immediate problem at the national level.

Meanwhile, the opposition group leader on Fife Council talks of "losing control" and "major failings," and also says: "It seems that within the council there seems to be a lack, not just of clarity, but also understanding of what the requirements are." A couple of opposition councillors in Dundee are also making similar noises after being "overwhelmed" by complaints.

By the same token, in Angus Councillor David Fairweather, the inappropriately named vice-convenor of the council's infrastructure services committee, praises the work of the council and in the face of significant criticism blames the weather, adding that "some who should know better are putting in their tuppenceworth without knowing the facts" and saying staff and contractors should be "congratulated, not criticised". There's also the usual stuff about the council "taking its winter maintenance obligations very seriously and I am happy to say that, once again, we have achieved our priority of keeping Angus moving", blah, blah, blah.

However, the rest of Saturday's Courier article (not online) outlines how footways and non-priority routes will not be treated on holidays, and that normal service will resume on Tuesday. Thus it's clear that the festive break has been a factor in adding to the problems caused by the exceptional weather, despite claims to the contrary by the councils in another weekend Courier article.

Of course, in this regard the nub of the problem lies in what local authorities consider 'essential services' and thus whether staff are required to work during holiday periods. Clearly some of those involved in the gritting operations have been working with little respite over the festive season, but others doing similar work have not, and since non-essential personnel like bar and restaurant staff, shop workers and bus and taxi drivers work during most (if not all) of what others consider a holiday fortnight then perhaps some effort should be expended by councils to ensure there's at least a bit more work done to keep the roads safe and allow more residents to enjoy the freedom to move around.

Perhaps working on Christmas and New Year's Days would be asking too much, but on the other hand in some respects staff holidays are clearly taking precedence over public safety. During more normal winter conditions gritters are often out at unsocial hours when the temperature is well above zero and the risk to safety must be marginal, yet when there's self-evident danger roads and pavements are left untreated for days and even weeks.

Duncan Hamilton looks Alex Salmond straight in the eye?

Former SNP MSP Duncan Hamilton wrote a column for the Scotsman until mid-2007, but seemed to give this up when appointed a part-time advisor to Alex Salmond. However, the lawyer has recently started writing a weekly piece for Scotland on Sunday, perhaps suggesting that his relationship with the first minister is on the rocks?

Anyway, whatever Mr Hamilton's current role, his column this morning seems to have a dig at the SNP mantra of 'Westminster cuts', which is trotted out whenever the implications of the impending public spending squeeze for the Scottish budget are considered.

While his pro-independence credentials are confirmed by his comparison of Ireland and the UK in emerging strongly from the recession - 'A wounded Celtic tiger is still more nimble than the UK' - perhaps the most interesting passage of his article is where he outlines Ireland's attitude to its public finance calamity:

Yes, Ireland has taken brutally tough decisions on spending, but so will we when the farcical pre-election deception ends in the inevitability of savage post-election cuts. David Cameron and Gordon Brown might also note that I have not met a single person who wants to condemn the Irish finance minister, Brian Lenihan, for his budget – he looked the country in the eye and told them the truth.

Sounds a bit like when Councillor Ken Guild, Dundee City Council's administration leader, accused Gordon Brown of trying to bankrupt Britain. Thus perhaps a touch more realism on display and an acknowledgment that Scotland has shared in the spending excess that has created the current public borrowing catastrophe, and a realisation that we must share some of the pain in turning this around instead of the knee jerk response of blaming Labour and Westminster (although in this regard I suspect Mr Guild's comments were unintentional).

Indeed, across in Sunday Times land Unionist Alan Massie - in making the case for a shift of emphasis from the public to private sector - makes a broadly similar point to Mr Hamilton, but unsurprisingly doesn't beat about the bush in directly lambasting Mr Salmond and the SNP:

What is worrying is the SNP government’s reluctance to accept just how serious our economic plight has become. This reluctance manifested in its repeated complaint that its budget is being cut, rather than accepting that high levels of public spending are the problem, not the answer. It cannot bring itself to accept this because the immediate consequences of cuts will be painful and perhaps electorally damaging. But a refusal to look reality in the face is a sign of weak, self-deluding government.

Indeed, and of course Mr Salmond's response is instead to heap the blame on Gordon Brown, Labour and Westminster, and I doubt if Mr Massie's advice will cut much ice with the first minister:

Salmond would win more respect if he told us the truth: that times are tough, and will get tougher before they get better; that we can no longer afford the luxury of providing everything on a wish-list and spending as it there was no tomorrow.

(Duncan Hamilton's piece also perhaps has a pop at the SNP's stance on another policy totem when he praises the Irish people for looking to the future and asking hard questions about things like "mass immigration".)