The 125 billion pounds question

That Unionist rag the Sunday Times reports on a study claiming that an independent Scotland would inherit a debt mountain of £125 billion ('Alex's albatross'?) and future fiscal performance would be highly dependent on the volatile oil price, but for good measure Nationalist cheerleader Joan McAlpine uses her column to take a more positive view of economic performance post-separation. She also has some interesting comments on the proposed referendum questions:

Apparently the civil servants who drew up the sample ballot papers printed in the consultation document had little trouble defining independence and devo max. Calman was problematic. It is an incoherent pick and mix of compromise — unlike Donald Dewar’s original Scotland Act, which chose to define the powers reserved to Westminster, rather than those devolved to Scotland. It seems unlikely that anyone looking at the options would favour the flawed and confusing Calman over the simplicity of devo max, so the latter will most likely end up on the final ballot.

Well there's a surprise - the SNP will choose devo max over Calman, which would perhaps confirm that consultation about what's on the ballot paper is more about dragging the whole thing out rather than any genuine intention to consult. And while I've certainly argued in the past that Calman was unduly complex and confusing, Joan seems to be saying that which of the two options ends up on the ballot paper depends on the ability of civil servants to express them clearly rather than the substance of the powers proposed to be devolved. And unlikely that anyone would favour Calman? Well, not inside the Nationalist bubble, presumably, but there's also the major part of the population of Scotland to consider.

Moreover, Joan contrasts the "flawed and confusing" Calman with the simplicity of devo max, with civil servants having "little trouble defining" it, as is the case with independence. Well the substantive Calman proposals may be complex and confusing, but if faced with the option on the ballot paper it seems a straightforward case of taking it or leaving it, but if the independence question is supposedly characterised by simplicity then I wouldn't like to see the difficult option:

The Scottish Government proposes that, in addition to the extension of the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament set out in Proposal 1 [either Calman or devo max], the Parliament's powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved.

Which could certainly be construed as asking whether additional power should be sought as some sort of stepping stone to independence rather than as a question about independence per se.

As I argued here the other day, the question also twice refers to the extension of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and could this repetition, combined with a conclusion to the question which seems to stop short of asking about full independence, be worded to exploit the established desire of the Scottish people for more powers short of separation?

Thus as a whole the question, which purports to be about independence, could in fact be intended to downplay the concept and to that extent encourage the more sceptical to vote for it?

Perhaps this all sounds a bit too much like accusing the SNP of electoral chicanery, but even assuming good faith the question presumably doesn't comply with the Electoral Commission's guidelines, as outlined in the Scottish Government's consultation paper:

A referendum question should present the options clearly, simply and neutrally,
and should:
- be easy to understand;
- be to the point;
- be unambiguous;
- avoid encouraging voters to consider one response more favourably than another; and avoid misleading voters.

Surely it doesn't achieve that?

The 'can't lose' (draft) referendum Bill

It's either a deft piece of political footwork or cynical electoral artifice, depending on whether you're pro- or anti-SNP, but there's certainly nothing straightforward about the party's manoeuvring regarding its Bill for a referendum on independence.

Of course, the SNP's raison d'être is an independent Scotland, but its precise rationale for a plebiscite in the current parliament hasn't been entirely clear, particularly of late. There has never been a majority in favour of independence, and public support has been waning in the wake of the bailout of the Scottish banks, the "arc of insolvency" and the financial crisis generally. In contrast, the UK clearly has its problems, but it represents a safe haven of sorts in a time of economic turmoil and uncertainly, thus why take a risk with an unknown quantity? By the same token, the first SNP administration in Scotland has run the country competently enough, but as with many other governments the initial high hopes fuelled by rhetoric and idealism have been brought down to earth by the realities of government. Thus the SNP Government hasn't set the heather alight, and insofar as it hasn't knocked Scotland off a cliff that was likely to be the case whichever party was in power. As Alan Cochrane argued in relation to the swine flu epidemic:

I am happy to acknowledge that Nicola Sturgeon, the Health Minister, has appeared to be on top of the situation. But this is no more than we should be able to expect from any competent adult and to be fair to her, Miss Sturgeon is much more than that.

Absolutely, and as she demonstrated earlier this week, Nicola Sturgeon is a highly accomplished political operator, but that's a different thing from actually running the country, as indeed her mea culpa regarding her letter of support for a convicted serial fraudster perhaps ably demonstrated.

And with little in the pipeline - except, of course, Scotland's oil - until the denouement of the current Scottish Government, the SNP are at least partly on the way to the status of a fag-end/lame duck administration, not to mention perhaps fulfilling the maxim (almost) enunciated by a (in)famous politician - all governments end in failure.

Thus while an independence referendum was neither likely to make it through Holyrood nor result in a 'yes' vote from the Scottish public, it does provide a useful distraction and its defeat in Parliament would provide the SNP a stick to beat the opposition with - denying the people their say, and all that - since there's popular support for the idea of a referendum, if not for independence per se.

Of course, there was always a danger from the SNP's perspective that a referendum could be won if Holyrood called their bluff, and thus in all likelihood lost in the country when the electorate were given their say, thus killing independence stone dead, at least during the political career of Alex Salmond and some of his more mature lieutenants.

However, the Bill published yesterday adds to the political manoeuvring in relation the whole referendum concept. First, it has already been delayed, and its draft status further prolongs the issue. Thus perhaps the hope is that the advent of a Conservative administration at Westminster or the uncertainty of a hung parliament will make conditions more favourable for the push towards further devolution or even independence. Why bother with a draft when the same could have been achieved by publishing a Bill proper after the election? Simply because it ensures that it provides the SNP with an issue to highlight during the Westminster campaign. And in the medium-term the pro-UK 'safe haven' argument will lose its potency as the financial meltdown drifts further into the past, while the ongoing debt problem comes further to the fore. Moreover, with the possibility that the legislative process could stretch beyond the 2011 Holyrood elections, there's a chance that the Lib Dems could be brought on side in the next Scottish Parliament to ensure the safe passage of a Bill.

Then there's the substantive issue of the proposed referendum itself. It's not a simple choice between continuation within the UK or an independent Scotland; there's also to be a question on either the limited extension of devolution proposed by the Calman Commission or the greater powers afforded by the concept of 'devo-max'.

Thus the SNP can't really lose. They know that the public are almost certain to support the idea of more powers for Holyrood, therefore even if independence was defeated it could still be proclaimed a victory for the Nationalists. Moreover, this would help pave the gradualist path towards independence, and also make a future referendum at an earlier date seem more legitimate, albeit that Mr Salmond is no doubt realistic enough to realise that an independent Scotland is unlikely during his tenure as first minister.

Indeed, the rather convoluted nature of the question posed on independence and its twin reference to the extension of powers seems designed to exploit the established support of the Scottish people for more Holyrood powers, thus fuelling the well-established debate about what precisely the independence referendum question should be.

Therefore the whole scenario is carefully choreographed to ensure maximum advantage for the SNP. The referendum is kept alive until after the election and for a considerable time thereafter. If it's defeated at Holyrood that will be characterised as refusing the people of Scotland a say on their constitutional future, which the party hopes will play well in 2011. The delay might increase the likelihood of the Bill becoming legislation, thus it would then be game on. Then a vote for further devolution is likely and this would satisfy the gradualist impetus, and this would be encouraged by a strong but minority vote for independence, possibly helped along by the emphasis of the question on extended powers and its juxtaposition with the devolution option.

Of course, that's the Nationalist perspective, but how all this will play with the public is another matter: the whole thing might look like a diversion in an anaemic road back to a strong economy, as the Unionists clearly hope, while support for the SNP's record in government seems lukewarm. And despite Alex Salmond being quite explicit about many aspects of the strategic and tactical manoeuvring inherent in all of this, the public may view things as being a bit too cynical and self-serving for the SNP. In particular, when the rather convoluted and thus confusing nature of the independence question is highlighted - why not ask something more straightforward? - this might just suggest to the public that they're being duped into dancing to an SNP jig, to coin a phrase.

Or even hung by an SNP rope.

Tweedledum and tweedledee to go head to head

The following was originally part of my post the other day about mistrust in public life and a degree of self-doubt as regards trying to highlight such issues, particularly by way of the arguably futile pursuit of blogging, but the post got a bit too long. However, the question is, perhaps, why stick your head above the parapet if the only people likely to pay any real attention are those likely to be offended? Anyway, there's always something that comes along to dissipate any lack of motivation.

Thus to one such minor example last weekend, apropos a local issue which made the national press:

Explosive courtroom claims that a 40-year-old cocaine addict was hooked on the drug by colleagues in the Tayside Police control room and suffered abuse at the hands of serving officers were not borne out by a high-level internal probe, a force spokesman said yesterday.

[The accused's solicitor] said she had been taken on a night out by colleagues to a Dundee pub “with the specific intention of introducing her to the drug.” Around the time she was addicted to cocaine she was contacted by various police officers—detectives and uniformed officers—who knew the extent of her addiction but would phone her and invite themselves up to her flat and “for want of a better word, abuse her,” Mr Donnelly said.

Sounds a bit far-fetched. A cocaine addict just sent to prison for embezzling £27,000 during her subsequent employment with a funeral director - hardly the most reliable witness, right? Indeed, the Courier's report goes on:

A Tayside Police spokesman said the force was “deeply concerned” by the version of events offered in court on McLaren’s behalf as it was “not consistent with a thorough and detailed investigation undertaken at the time under the direction of the deputy chief constable.

“Certain allegations were thoroughly investigated by a senior detective officer, during which a number of staff were interviewed. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated."

And yet more reassurance in the shape of Dundee West MP Jim McGovern, who told the Evening Telegraph:

I participated in the police parliamentary scheme from 2005 to 2006 which involved local MPs working with the local police. That scheme involved spending time with the drug squad too, and in my view Tayside Police treat drug abuse very seriously indeed. Because they treat it so seriously I’m sure an internal investigation will have been carried out thoroughly.

Well that's OK then - Jim knows the polis so everything must be hunky dory. But hardly had that edition of the Tele been adorning the fish suppers in Dundee when it was reported:

Two further Tayside Police civilian officers have been caught up in the cocaine scandal, with one believed to have left the force, while another was dismissed but won reinstatement on appeal after similar allegations.

Mr McGovern's slightly uncritical approach brought to mind Dundee councillor Jim Barrie's fawning remarks relating to the City Council's social work department in the wake of the killing of toddler Brandon Muir at the hands of a drug addict, which turned out to be slightly misplaced.

Which is an unfortunate comparison, because in a few week's time the SNP's Mr Barrie will be challenging Labour's Mr McGovern for the Dundee West seat at Westminster, and it looks like a two-horse race between the tweedledum and tweedledee of genuflection.

At least MSPs Joe Fitzpatrick for the SNP and Bill Aitken for the Tories seem to be asking some slightly more searching questions of Tayside Police, but although this issue will no doubt soon amount to little more than fish supper wrappers as well, in the meantime it will do little to enhance public trust in politicians and officialdom.

Sturgeon redeems, almost

Nicola Sturgeon's statement to MSPs earlier today was characterised by a welcome dose of honesty and humility. In responding to criticisms regarding her letter to the criminal courts in support of convicted fraudster Abdul Rauf, she clearly decided to climb out of the political bunker, admit to a degree of human fallibility and also demonstrate some contrition. Thus a stance not readily associated with politicians, and therefore likely to impress the more cynical section of the voting public (and perhaps even the non-voting public as well, assuming news of Ms Sturgeon's statement permeates through to them).

Thus instead of the previous Scottish Government talk about a "duty" and "absolute obligation" to represent constituents in this way, she outlined a more qualified responsibility on MSPs in relation to such matters, couching this in terms of "reasonableness", "legitimacy", "appropriateness" and the "application of judgement".

The deputy first minister also expressed regret for some of the content of her letter, in particular her characterisation of Mr Rauf's fraudulent conduct as a "mistake" and also insofar as she had asked the sheriff to consider a non-custodial sentence for her constituent.

She then apologised, and admirably didn't use words that might be construed as half-hearted or euphemistic, and although it's always easy to look for a lack of sincerity on such occasions, clearly it's difficult for politicians to totally avoid this, whatever their real intentions are.

However, given Ms Sturgeon's frankness and the measured nature of her response, it's perhaps appropriate not to attempt to pick holes, and the obvious conflict with previous statements - in particular, those made by herself and Alex Salmond - is maybe best not emphasised.

Unfortunately, when pressed by Iain Gray about the conflict with what Mr Salmond had previously told MSPs, Ms Sturgeon surely went too far in trying to defend the first minister, and to that extent undermined the tone of her prepared statement, and since she will have been prepared for such a question her response cannot be excused as an off the cuff mistake.

Nevertheless, in the round it was an impressive performance by Nicola Sturgeon, and all the more so because politically she could have gotten away with a lot less, and without admitting to errors and misjudgements.

She also made some more general criticisms in relation to the kneejerk reactions (which she called "instant judgements") of politicians and the consequences of this, and of course that is all very appropriate. However, this is all likely to be forgotten about in short order, and normal service will no doubt be resumed soon.

(The BBC's questionable decision to cut short Ms Sturgeon's responses to subsequent questions from MSPs meant I have only seen part of her response to Iain Gray and none of the other questions, thus the above reflects primarily on the prepared part of her statement, although I haven't made it to the end of my Politics Scotland video yet, so there may be more in the latter part of the programme. However, it seems likely that the conflict between today's statement and Alex Salmond's previous comments will be re-examined at tomorrow's FMQs.)

Intimidation is in the eye of the beholder, indeed!

Some of the more balanced and fair-minded comment on the current Gordon Brown allegations got me thinking about the tone of the criticism used on this blog. Not being one to personalise things I try to stick to robust critique and avoid ad hominem attacks, and you won't find any posts on here accusing politicians of being thieves and liars, for example, even if that might be literally correct. Unfortunately some seem over keen to use such terms in relation to a scenario where, for example, people have suffered financial detriment due to government policies and thus politicians are accused of being thieves, or a politician has inadvertently said something that is factually incorrect but is nevertheless called a liar.

But we all have different approaches to these matters, and different words mean different things to different people, but to read others making broadly similar criticisms in relation to political discourse perhaps invites a degree of retrospection and introspection. Thus I occasionally cringe at what others have written, but on reflection perhaps use similarly toned criticisms myself. And reading something I've written a day or two previously it often seems overly harsh, although I suppose that the standards displayed by what's been described as the more sociopathic side of the blogosphere perhaps helps return a sense of perspective and proportion to the more self-critical approach.

Of course, another facet of this issue is that others will view my own writings differently, and this may be skewed by partisan or personal matters. Indeed, some of those criticised may deflect attention by taking offence, and in turn this may be genuine, or merely synthetic. For example, I recall a couple of years ago using the words "hypocritical" and "ill-informed" in the local press in relation to a political figure - note that I didn't call this person a hypocrite, but merely called their stance hypocritical, on the grounds that the latter sounded less harsh and personal than a more direct description. Nevertheless the response was that I was guilty of a highly personalised attack. But since the response completely side-stepped the substantive issues that I'd related the criticism to then it all looked simply like crude diversionary tactics. And, of course, the criticisms weren't what I'd call 'personal', because they were about this person's public stance on a political issue rather than relating to purely personal matters.

My caution on these things is one reason I avoid contact with officialdom on potentially emotive issues, and prefer to keep things in writing rather than verbal - at least there's something to fall back on if things get distorted. And interesting in this regard was a recent article in the Telegraph about the reluctance of some local authorities to disclose the remuneration of their top officials, despite the wholly reasonable public interest in such matters. The rationale for this was reported thus:

But local authorities claimed that the pay disclosures would leave their staff vulnerable to reprisals from taxpayers. They argued that officers would be subjected to “personalised attacks and mischief making”.

Thus it's entirely plausible to imagine a scenario whereby merely challenging a politician or public servant (or anyone, for that matter) could be misrepresented as something more sinister, and thus the complainant unfairly discredited and demonised.

And even if, as mentioned above, everything is kept in writing things can easily be misrepresented, particularly in what seems to be an increasing ethos and acceptability of dishonesty and distortion among many people; to put it as charitably as possible, for some the ends seem to justify the means. For example, a proffered piece of what I thought was some well-intentioned and constructive advice was recently bent and twisted so out of shape that I ended up being portrayed as a "dribbling loony" and a threat to the recipient and their family, inter alia.

Moreover, despite our apparently restrictive and illiberal defamation laws*, countering such scurrilous attacks is a tricky process, and not one for the faint hearted. I've no doubt that the libel jurisprudence does indeed favour big corporations and rich individuals at the expense of bloggers and citizen journalists et al, but reverse this scenario and it's not so easy for those of us at the bottom of the pile.

Thus the relevance of the above to the current debate on Gordon Brown and bullying should be obvious. As is usual in such scenarios, my own perspective is that there's very probably an element of truth in both the allegations and consequent rebuttals, but no doubt with the usual large dose of over-egging and hyperbole. Thus ultimately all such accounts should be taken with a substantial pinch of salt, albeit that this may be unfair on the more reasonable and truthful versions of events, but such is the cost in terms of mistrust arising from the culture of spin and dishonesty in the public sphere. In short, who can you trust?

And one particular exchange vis-à-vis the prime minister was perhaps particularly illuminating regarding all of the foregoing.

One last night's Newsnicht Paul Sinclair, a "former No 10 special advisor" to Gordon Brown, defended him eloquently, including the compelling comment that "intimidation is in the eye of the beholder", which essentially equates to much of the above - what may seem ostensibly objective from an individual's perspective can be subjectively interpreted and represented by others, reasonably or otherwise. There's no strict dichotomy between objective truth and subjective opinion.

Unfortunately Mr Sinclair, in my opinion at least, completely undermined his remark and made a bit of a fool of himself when pressed by Glen Campbell on the question of whether he considered that bullying in Downing Street may have been an issue in the past, if not presently. In response to what seemed entirely fair, but robust and probing questioning by Mr Campbell, Paul Sinclair responded**:

As I've said, Glen, please don't bully me, I feel quite intimidated. I'm not going to name names, nor am I going to phone a helpline...

Thus Mr Sinclair's response to what seemed in the journalistic context a wholly reasonable line of questioning appeared entirely unreasonable and disproportionate, and underlined what he said about these matters being in the eye of the beholder, but at the same time completely discredited him with his overreaction to Glen Campbell's interrogation. Frankly, if someone in the political sphere - and who has indeed worked in the Downing Street environment - can't withstand this kind of probing without resorting to such nonsense then they should be in another job, as was my line of thinking in relation to the local politico who I described as ill-informed and (almost!) hypocritical and who responded by accusing me of a personal attack but without addressing the issues, as described earlier. And if a blogger (say) considers it "offensive" to repeat a previous comment after a certain (unspecified) period of time then perhaps they should either address the substantive point or take a long, hard look at themselves.

Thus perhaps the lesson from all of this is simply to tread carefully, and from a personal standpoint I can only hope that Paul Sinclair isn't reading this - no doubt he has deeper pockets than me!

Previously I might have ended a post of this nature on a note of optimism - the truth will out, or suchlike - but experience dictates an increasing cynicism, and indeed perhaps defeatism.

*To the best of my (limited) knowledge I'm not aware of Scots law being substantially different from that pertaining to England and Wales in this regard, the latter being the subject of the Telegraph comment piece.

**The interview with Paul Sinclair runs from 4:40.

More hypocritical rubbish

A few weeks ago I highlighted the contrast between the Edinburgh Hogmanay Street Party revellers who celebrate New Year knee deep in their own litter and the view of a senior police officer, who praised their "behaviour and attitude".

Of course, a similar thing happens at the annual fly-tipping festival known as T in the Park, and as well as fawning from officialdom towards concert goers, the event also laughably tries to promote its green credentials in a manner that would impress even the most adept of political spinmeisters, which is probably why the Scottish Government joins in as well.

And while the fact that this privately organised money-spinning event has to turn to the public authorities to help clear up afterwards might just seem a wee bit embarrassing for all concerned, that ignores the ability of officialdom to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, like when a Perth Council solicitor recently praised T in the Park's organisers for not being "precious" about asking for help, and praising the "maturity" of their relationship.

But back to Edinburgh, and with the Hogmanay Party detritus long since swept under the municipal carpet, a news article in today's Scotsman is headlined: "Capital ruined by poor first impressions":

One of Scotland's leading tourism and events experts will today warn that the nation's capital is being let down by its "average" airport, a "clapped-out" main railway station and the "disgraceful" state into which its most historic street has been allowed to decline.

The complainant? None other than "the creator of Edinburgh's Hogmanay celebrations since their launch in 1992".

It's a while since I've been in Edinburgh's "most historic street", but is it in a more "disgraceful state" than the streets of the capital early on Ne'er Day?

Convergence contradiction?

(This was sent to Scotland on Sunday in response to an opinion piece last weekend.)

Duncan Hamilton's article in support of both the euro and EU intervention to rescue the debt-strapped Greek economy perhaps inadvertently highlights a couple of contradictions in SNP economic policy.

First, he acknowledges that the eurozone economies have not converged sufficiently to withstand the stresses caused by a single interest rate, and thus advocates "greater convergence" as the solution.

But the UK has enjoyed a currency union for significantly longer than the eurozone, yet a long-standing SNP argument is that interest rates set for the south east of England may be inappropriate for Scotland's economy.

Thus presumably insufficient convergence here then, so what price the eurozone countries that Mr Hamilton describes as a "vast and diverse range of economies", and precisely how long would convergence take in view of the UK experience?

Second, as regards EU intervention in Greece, he lauds the "advantage of collective action" and a "mechanism for urgent intervention and support which is ultimately in all our interests".

However, despite a similar argument being made in favour of the UK in the wake of the bailout of the Scottish banks during the financial crisis, the SNP's raison d'être continues to be the dissolution of such domestic collective support mechanisms.

These two examples highlight the contradictory nature of the SNP's "independence in Europe" aspiration, and suggest that Scottish nationalism is less about independence versus political unions and smaller versus larger governmental entities than straightforward antipathy to the UK per se.

Expert evidence?

Yet more evidence of the Herald's pro-Nationalist bias (this was confirmed recently when it failed to publish my letter about Nicola Sturgeon's missive to the sheriff in support of Abdul Rauf, not to mention pejorative remarks about a Labour fiefdom etc etc) with another story about an, um, expert lending their support to the SNP's minimum pricing proposal for alcohol. In a frenzy of Nationalist fervour it's reported:

Alcohol must be made more expensive and more difficult to buy if Scotland’s drink problem is to be addressed, an expert has claimed. [...]

“I’m not an expert on how you might do it..."

Whoa, perhaps it's best if we stop there - I often wonder what qualifications you need to be an expert on such matters, but if even someone who claims not to be is in fact deemed to be one (an expert, that is), then perhaps there's hope for us laypeople yet!

And why should the medical profession, for example, be deemed to be some sort of authoritative voice on these matters? They may be the experts at treating the victims of road accidents, say, but are they any better qualified than anyone else to proffer advice on driving or roads engineering? Except, that is, the real experts, whoever they happen to be.

Of course, even those charged with running the show - officials, legislators and councillors, primarily - give the distinct impression of havering nonsense a lot of the time. For example, SNP MSP Kenny Gibson recently said on television that even the licensed trade supports minimum pricing, which is about as relevant and compelling as turkeys voting to postpone Christmas (of course, if turkeys did actually vote for anything at all then clearly that would be of some significance, but you get my drift).

As I've said before, Adam Smith worked all this out some time ago - it's simply about economic self-interest - but surely it doesn't take one of Scotland's most famous sons to see through it?

The alternative explanation is that we're just being spun a line, but of course politicians are well known for both a lack of real world nous and an unerring ability to, er, withhold the full facts.

And in another 'Grouse declare the 12 of August inglorious' sort of moment, Dundee MSP and health minister Shona Robison recently cited the support of a "well known local hotel owner and publican" in support of minimum pricing, saying: "Publicans have nothing to fear from the proposal."

Of course not, since its effect would be to stifle competition from the off-sales sector. Indeed, the publican in question previously colluded with Dundee City Council to introduce an illegal price-fixing cartel, so his support for minimum pricing shouldn't be considered newsworthy.

Actually, that's perhaps a bit unfair on the publican, because the council probably knew it was acting illegaly but went ahead anyway - presumably in the hope that those affected would be unaware of their rights or consider that challenging the councils involved seemed too daunting - and thus he was being kept as much in the dark as the rest of us.

(If I remember correctly the Perth licensee quoted at the end of the article was talking out of his bahookie as well - there would be little point in competition law if it was so easily circumvented!)

Character reference characterisation correct?

(Sent as a response to a letter in this morning's Herald)

It perhaps ill behoves Iain A D Mann (February 17) to criticise a previous correspondent for failing to declare his political allegiance, and his nitpicking analysis of Brian Fitzpatrick's letter (February 16) also deserves further scrutiny.

Mr Mann describes Nicola Sturgeon's letter to court as: "Only a brief description of Mr Rauf’s poor health and family situation."

Yet the letter twice mentions his intention to make restitution and also alludes several times to some degree of contrition, including the much maligned description of his fraud as a "mistake" in the singular, this despite a previous conviction relating to hundreds of forged signatures over a lengthy period.

Ms Sturgeon's letter also refers to Mr Rauf's "standing in the community" and being "heavily involved in his community", while press reports suggest otherwise.

Also interesting is Mr Mann's description of a "polite request to consider alternatives to a custodial sentence", and since the letter links this to Mr Rauf's poor health and family situation it's amazing that his previous lengthy prison sentence is not mentioned. Moreover, Ms Sturgeon also implies that the impact of the conviction on Mr Rauf also constitutes a form of punishment, hence lessening the need for a custodial sentence.

Mr Mann also says that the sheriff is bound to consider alternatives to a custodial sentence in any case, which begs the question, what is the point of Ms Sturgeon's letter, particularly in view of his characterisation of it as purely descriptive?

Thus presumably the intention was to elicit the imprimatur of an MSP and high-profile Scottish Government minister.

Hence while it's arguably legitimate to take issue with the description of Ms Sturgeon's letter as a character reference, Mr Mann's perspective seems equally crude.

But he is perhaps correct to say: "This is clearly a trivial matter blown out of all proportion by the opposition parties desperate to capture the scalp of a highly successful government minister."

However, the response of Ms Sturgeon and Alex Salmond - an "absolute obligation" and "duty of care" in relation to constituents convicted of criminal offences, who should be assisted "without fear or favour" - was equally over-egged and merely added grist to the media and opposition mill.

And it's hardly the case that the SNP haven't made a meal of minor issues in the past in an attempt to gain political scalps, and nor will they ignore such opportunities in the future.


The text of Nicola Sturgeon's letter:

For the Attention of the Court;

MR ABDUL RAUF

I refer to my above named constituent and the case brought against him for benefit fraud.

I have been aware of Mr Rauf’s case since July 2008 when he sought assistance from me after a search warrant was executed at his home by the Department of Work and Pensions and officers from Strathclyde Police. It was clear at that time that he recognised the serious nature of the matter he was facing and that it would be necessary to pay back the money he had obtained unlawfully.

For a number of years Mr Rauf has suffered from poor health mainly associated with his heart; he has a family, including young children aged under ten; and he is heavily involved in his community. All of these aspects of his life have been significantly impacted upon by the mistake he has made.

Mr Rauf has accepted his wrongdoing and has experienced the consequences of it through the effect on his health, the distress caused to his family and the impact on his standing in his community. He has advised me that he has already paid £27,000 of the outstanding balance owed to the Department of Work and Pensions and has said, since he first sought my advice, that he will sell his interest in his property in Edinburgh to settle the remaining balance.

He and his wife are anxious that a custodial sentence may be imposed by the court and of the further affect this will have on Mr Rauf’s health and the impact on family life. I would appeal to the court to take the points raised here into account and consider alternatives to a custodial sentence.

Yours faithfully,

NICOLA STURGEON MSP
Member for Glasgow Govan

Margo and Megrahi

While it may be a slightly ghoulish subject, it's nonetheless worth mentioning some contradictory nonsense from officialdom in relation to the life expectancy of Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi.

It should be recalled that Megrahi was released from prison on compassionate grounds on the basis that he had less than three months to live. However, Megrahi has thus far survived six months, raising questions about the efficacy of estimates regarding his life expectancy on release.

East Renfrewshire Council is charged with monitoring Megrahi, on the farcical basis that his release licence could be revoked if he breaches its conditions. The Times reports that opposition politicians are requesting details of Megrahi's current medical condition, but the council response is:

They are private and confidential medical reports and we won’t be releasing them. We wouldn’t release medical reports for any client [sic!] and he, despite the circumstances and international background, is a criminal justice client [sic!!] like any other.

Which seems bizarre given that it was a medical report released into the public domain which formed the basis of Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi.

Indeed, the Scottish Government says:

The medical report from the director of health at the Scottish Prison Service which Mr MacAskill based his decision on, and which details al-Megrahi’s terminal illness, has been published.

Which seems to contradict East Renfrewshire's stance, but otherwise misses the point - it's Megrahi's current position that's of interest.

But since his medical condition and life expectancy were held up for all the world to see when he was released, there seems no particularly obvious reason why his current status should not be in the public domain, and surely this is a matter of legitimate public interest.

As for the Margo MacDonald link, it should be recalled that one of the arguments made against her assisted suicide bill relates to uncertainly regarding life expectancy, a point made on television by opponent Dr Gordon Macdonald of campaign group Care not Killing.

A Sunday Times article by Gillian Bowditch mentions one assisted suicide case from the Netherlands, where the practice is legal:

When the mother of a Dutch friend fell ill with cancer, I was shocked at how quickly she moved from diagnosis to death — assisted by doctors who had assessed her case as terminal. My friend, who had been in the process of moving back to Holland to spend time with her mother before she died, was denied that opportunity. Her mother was denied the comfort of regular contact with her daughter in the final weeks of her life.

And, for example, one of the conditions for physician assisted suicide in Oregon, USA is that the "patient must be terminally ill with a life expectancy of less than 6 months".

Of course, assisted suicide raises vast clinical, ethical and moral issues, but the medical uncertainty surrounding the Lockerbie bomber's life expectancy underlines questions relating to one aspect of the debate.

Thus the longer al-Megrahi lives the bigger the political headache for the Scottish Government, and the matter perhaps also lends support to opponents of Margo MacDonald's bill.

Exaggerated reaction and overdone response

Several letters in Saturday's Herald make a reasonable case for the letter written to court by deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon in favour of convicted fraudster Abdul Rauf.

However, precisely what such a letter - which surely contains nothing that his leading defence lawyer would presumably have been more than capable of telling the court - adds to the proceedings, other than the imprimatur of a leading politician who it is claimed barely knows Mr Rauf, is anyone's guess.

Nevertheless, I'm sure many would agree that the letter and its contents are less noxious than being portrayed by some, and to that extent consider the political response a gross overreaction and symptomatic of the typically crude politicking that characterises Holyrood.

However, rather than a measured response to the criticisms and an attempt to either justify such support for constituents on its merits and/or admit to some degree of misjudgement, the SNP leadership chose to fight fire with fire.

Thus in relation to acting on behalf of constituents we've been proffered such patronising nonsense as MSPs having a "duty of care", an "absolute obligation" and that anyone requesting help should be helped "without fear or favour".

Therefore the Labour Party and other opposition politicians have dug a hole for the SNP, who instead of attempting to stay on the terra firma have grabbed the shovel, jumped in and continued digging.

This dynamic of exaggerated accusation and overdone response seems to exemplify contemporary politics, and clearly it's difficult for any party to unilaterally rise above this in an attempt to break the cycle.

However, until this happens the political class will continue to be held in ridicule and mistrust by the electorate.

(Although this covers themes addressed in previous posts and comments, the above was drafted as a letter to the Herald but couldn't be sent due to technical problems. Hence it is posted here rather than completely wasted!)

A (police)woman's place is in the home?

As a great believer in sexual equality I was pleased to see that Justine Curran has been appointed chief constable of Tayside Police, joining Norma Graham of Fife Constabulary as Scotland's first female police chiefs.

However, I was bemused to read comments she made in an interview with Dundee's Evening Telegraph, which seemed to cast doubt upon her commitment to frontline policing:

There’s so much great stuff goes on in Tayside already, my challenges really involve knitting

Come again? Fortunately I was only skim reading the article, and although momentarily taken aback it then became obvious that there was no full stop and the sentence continued:

...all of those things together so I can sit here and feel comfortable that we’re delivering the same standards of service in every department. Within that we’re looking to build up our community policing so it’s really strong and people know who their local police officers are and that they can talk to them and, also, that they care about them and are dealing with the stuff that matters.

Ah, that's better, but perhaps underlines why I was only skim reading the piece. However, elsewhere in the same edition of the Tele the reality of policing was perhaps more ably demonstrated:

A Menzieshill resident has said she is dreading the light nights of summer because of drug-taking, under-age drinking and vandalism involving crowds of youths in that area of Dundee. She said: "Last year, on the lighter nights, we were constantly calling the police over young kids sitting outside. They were taking drugs and underage drinking, and 12-year-old girls were being bodily dragged up the road by their mates. It was happening constantly and I am already dreading the summer nights, so I hope by coming down and speaking to the police I can nip it in the bud.

“For a while we were phoning the police nightly. There were 50 or 60 young kids congregating in the field round the back of Dee Gardens. They were totally intoxicated. I saw some of them urinating in the street, setting fire to the bins and jumping on top of cars. They were doing the lot. I want to see regular police checks during the lighter nights. I understand the police can’t be everywhere at once, but when we have called before, they come down two or three hours later when a lot of the youngsters have already gone.”

Sounds familiar? The context was a series of 'community surgeries' held by police in the west end of Dundee, where residents can turn up and talk to officers about their concerns. One of the constables said: "It was worthwhile. There were various issues brought up — underage drinking, parking, drugs and anti-social behaviour."

Which sounds more or less what can be read about in the Tele every night. And it's not clear what can be done to help the lady quoted earlier if police neither have the personnel nor powers to deal with the kids despite numerous phone calls last year - what difference does a face to face meeting make?

Thus perhaps police time would be better spent actually dealing with the problems rather than wasting it on what looks like little more than a PR exercise which seems to add little to the sum of human knowledge.

Never mind though, at least Dundee's councillors seem pleased with the initiative, according to the next day's Tele. However, perhaps Councillor Richard McCready gave the game away slightly in his otherwise predictably gushing praise:

I think it’s great the police are listening to local people like this, and I’m glad to see the West End meeting has been well-attended. I really hope the police decide to keep this going. I’ll be writing to the new Chief Constable to commend the force on a great idea. Community police officers are doing a great job right across the city, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps Mr McCready hadn't read the previous night's Tele?

'Absolute obligation', or utter nonsense?

Alex Salmond is surely incorrect to state that MSPs have an "absolute obligation" to represent constituents à la Nicola Sturgeon and convicted fraudster Abdul Rauf. The relevant section of the Code of Conduct for MSPs says:

...there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member's political beliefs.

Thus the two highlighted exceptions could cover a multitude of sins, but the first minister chose to ignore them at today's FMQs, presumably because the other exception - that taking on a case would represent a conflict of interest with another case - was not relevant in relation to Mr Rauf.

Indeed, when Labour's Iain Gray asked MSPs to put up their hands if they would have written the letter under examination none of the members seemed willing to concur, even on the SNP benches. Commentator Hamish Macdonell said on television that he could find no MSPs who would admit to writing such a letter, and Mr Salmond could only adduce a few Westminster MPs in support of his claim that there is "example after example of MPs and MSPs putting forward representations to court".

And to extend a theme started by Tavish Scott, if a convicted gangster asked an MSP to represent them would they meekly roll over? And even if the MSP did agree to take up the case, would they do so merely in the manner specified by the gangster?

Of course not. The duty cannot be absolute, as indeed the Ministerial Code makes clear - that providing a reference is merely discretionary.

Thus the issue is one of individual judgement, and Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon should have defended the case on its merits rather than spout rhetoric about a duty to represent constituents "without fear or favour" and suchlike.

But as usual the opposition has made a meal of the issue and the Scottish Government has accepted the invitation to the table - without even requiring payment! - and to that extent their gluttony for the political bun fight has given them a severe case of indigestion.

Surely a more measured response and an element of humility - or perhaps even contrition - would have served the SNP better than meeting fire with fire.

Meanwhile, the otherworldliness of the whole charade is perhaps confirmed by the Caledonian Mercury reporting that Ms Sturgeon is to make an emergency statement to Parliament on the issue - after MSPs have returned from their mid-term holiday!

Mind boggling overreation beggars belief

In the wake of the "sickening" hyperbole employed in the reaction to the lunchgate stushie, tonight we're being treated to another round of overreaction to the news that Nicola Sturgeon wrote a letter of support to a court on behalf of a convicted benefit cheat who defrauded the public purse of £80,000 after it, ahem, "slipped his mind" that he owned a £200,000 property in addition to his £400,000 home.

Thus Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray claims it's "an appalling error of judgement" by the deputy first minister, and that Ms Sturgeon "must resign". For the Lib Dems Mike Rumbles says it "beggars belief" and that: "SNP MSPs don't seem to understand that being a minister is a serious job."

In turn an SNP spokesman has upped the stakes, describing Iain Gray's call as "absurd", "beneath contempt" and an "extraordinarily ill-judged attack".

Thus little more than the usual exaggerated language and faux indignation from both sides. Nothing new there then, and all this probably achieves nothing more than further demeaning the image of politicians in the eyes of the public, who can surely see through this kind of tit for tat exchanges by now.

What is perhaps of more substantive interest is the rest of the statement by the SNP spokesman:

Nicola Sturgeon represented her constituent entirely properly and appropriately as the local MSP - as all MSPs are obliged to do under the parliamentary code.

This individual had already admitted his guilt, and Nicola Sturgeon acted fully in accordance with her duties by advising the court that Mr Rauf has health problems, and therefore appropriately requested that his ill-health and impact on family life be taken into account when the court passed its sentence.

It's certainly a revelation to me that MSPs are obliged to represent constituents in this way, and have a duty to provide a 'character reference' of this type.

Thus perhaps the real issues are the extent of MSPs' obligations with regard to such matters, whether Ms Sturgeon made a misjudgement in providing the letter of support, and whether the SNP spokesman is perhaps spinning a line with regard to the duties of MSPs.

'Jewel in the crown' tarnished?

Last week I blogged about a couple of matters pertinent to Holyrood's committee system, described as the Scottish Parliament's "jewel in the crown" by David Steel, presumably in the days when optimism triumphed over realism as regards the devolution project.

As I wrote then, however, in the past few days Alan Cochrane of the Telegraph has criticised the justice committee's split along crude partisan lines in its report into Kenny MacAskill's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds, while in the Caledonian Mercury Hamish Macdonell outlined how committee protocol was distorted to ensure a Unionist chairman for the SNP's independence bill, while a casualty of this manipulation was Margo MacDonald's assisted suicide bill, much to the latter's disgust.

And on a slightly different tack, at the weekend the Courier's Steve Bargeton described a committee session on the new Forth road bridge, saying that the questioning of officials responsible for the project by MSPs, "Would have disgraced a primary one class."

Indeed, I also recall a couple of Dundee Westminster Labour MPs being ridiculed for the standard of their interrogations at committee sessions. For example, one was described as incapable of articulating even a straightforward question.

However, at the weekend, the Sunday Post, while critical of the Holyrood justice committee's report, seemed to think that the Westminster system has greater efficacy:

It was typical of so much that goes on in Holyrood's much-vaunted committee system these days, with votes being split along party lines. That's not the way the system was meant to work, and not how it works at Westminster, where the committees genuinely hold ministers up to scrutiny.

Of course, even those of us who take a significantly greater interest in politics than the average member of the public probably don't pay a huge degree of attention to the minutiae of what happens in parliamentary committees, but a few years ago I actually sat through a video of an entire Westminster committee evidence session relating to one of my own hobby horses, and an, um, 'interesting' experience it was indeed.

No point in examining the details of it now, but among the abiding memories of the session - which was about economic regulation - in general terms were:

• Obvious bias from the MPs in favour of the unions/vested interest groups;
• Hostility from MPs to one branch of officialdom, including at least one attempt to trip them up;
• A sympathetic hearing to other officials who were siding with the vested interests;
• A sympathetic hearing for the unions/vested interest groups;
• A failure to allow other officials to outline their rationale for a particular course of action;
• A failure to call any consumer representatives to give evidence.

However, the overarching impression left was one of the cluelessness of the MPs and indeed many of the witnesses, while those with any nous at all were a tad partial in their evidence, although this was lapped up by the committee.

It wasn't that the interrogation was unintelligent, it was just that the session was characterised mainly be partiality and ignorance of the subject matter, and despite the fact that a lack of knowledge on the part of the MPs might be expected, the self-evident shortcomings in the process meant that this was never overcome.

Thus to that extent the committee system is merely a microcosm of politics and parliaments generally. Of course, no doubt some committees are better than others, and elements of the Holyrood system better than those at Westminster and vice versa, but even if the Post is correct in saying that the latter's is better at holding minsters to account - and thus presumably less partisan - then that's surely not the end of the story.

Therefore perhaps the blog title shouldn't have asked if Holyrood's committee system is tarnished; rather, was it ever the 'jewel in the crown' in the first place, or was that just idealistic wishful thinking?

Something fishy about the SNP(!)

The lunch**** scandal (expletive deleted out of respect to those who find the g*** suffix offensive) has of course lent itself to all kinds of puns and gags.

The opposition have made a meal of things, have over-egged the pudding by tabling questions, no such thing as a free lunch etc, but after Wendy Alexander et al revenge is perhaps a dish best served cold - nothing like rubbing salt in the wound.

And Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon clearly have enough on their plate already, even though some might think they are getting their just de(s)serts. Could they be toast, or is the whole affair just mince, or a media inspired dog's dinner? Perhaps we're all out to lunch on the issue?

A misjudgement excusable, perhaps, for a politician in their salad days, but the last supper for a more seasoned operator, who ends up looking a bit of a neep or a right pudding? Should bread be handed to political parties on a plate like this merely to curry favour? Is such a meal ticket within the rules?

But it certainly gives journalists something to get their teeth into and they will no doubt feast on the issue for some time. It also provides food for thought for the electorate - clearly something to chew over.

Of course, the fact that the SNP's top twosome both have surnames pertaining to fish adds to the merriment, and the best joke is perhaps proffered in Monday's Herald letters page by a C A MacDonald, who asks if Salmond and Sturgeon might do better by putting on fish suppers!

In turn this reminded me of the youthful SNP councillor elected to Aberdeen City Council in 2007, who hit the headlines as the youngest ever person elected to a Scottish local authority.

His name?


Wait for it.


John West!


Boom boom! Clearly destined to go far in the SNP. Unlike my career as a comedian.

Making a meal of it?

Yes - there are myriad other issues that the press and opposition parties should be addressing rather than the SNP's dubious use of a Holyrood restaurant for party fund-raising purposes. Indeed, the sums involved are not particularly significant, the rules are not clear cut as regards using the restaurant per se, the furore means the lunches won't now take place and a future recurrence looks unlikely. From a personal perspective I've become a bit blasé over this kind of nitpicking and the way these things seem to drag on for far longer than the gravity of the matter should reasonably dictate, not to mention the predictably hyperbolic responses and synthetic outrage from the opposition parties. Indeed, even the Westminster expenses scandal hasn't really changed my view of politics significantly.

So a slapped wrist for Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon and move on? Not quite; the problem is that if the boot had been on the other foot then it would have been the SNP making a meal of Labour's or any of the other parties' woes, so it ill behoves the Nationalists to complain about an anti-SNP agenda, a manufactured issue etc.

Of course, it's difficult to compare different scenarios - particularly while being slightly alienated by the minutiae of these things - but it was irregularities in fundraising that eventually led to the demise of former Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander. A more patent case of illegality there, perhaps, but the sum involved was a paltry £950. Thus the SNP can hardly cry foul now if the party's leader and deputy leader are hounded over the current issue, as I argued in relation to a previous matter involving Mr Salmond.

Moreover, while in the grand scheme of things the issue is insignificant and the SNP has taken steps to disclose the full facts relating to fundraising of the type in question, the lack of contrition and attempts to deny the accusations compound the offence rather than detract from it. Attempts to draw a line under the matter by virtue of the fact that the lunches won't now take place is as plausible as saying that Roseanna Cunningham shouldn't have been held to account over her deliberations on the Royal paths dispute because she (eventually) came to the right conclusion. Unedifying as well is the attempt to exploit the fact that the current dispute might adversely affect future charity fundraising at Holyrood - in most people's book political parties are hardly 'good causes'.

Thus while the "cash for access" charge may be overdone - there may be cash, but access is perhaps overegging the pudding in relation to a meal with one of the fishy twosome - the issue is nonetheless worth pursuing, and since the Herald has been leading the charge it's perhaps appropriate to quote from a compelling leader column refuting charges that the newspaper's stance makes it anti-SNP:

We are an independent newspaper that scrutinises each party on its record in a disinterested way. A party that is in government comes under the greatest scrutiny because it holds the levers of power and is held to account because voters have put their trust in it to act on their behalf. Holding government to account is a tenet of democracy. Principle must be put into practice in a responsible way, without fear or favour.

Since the advent of devolution, The Herald has reported, opinionised and editorialised extensively on Henry McLeish and his mishaps, David McLetchie and his limitations, Jack McConnell and his lack of vision and Wendy Alexander on her lack of judgment. Was any of them an SNP MSP or member of an SNP administration? No.

I commend this to the blogosphere!

One split leads to another...

The Caledonian Mercury has enjoyed something of a honeymoon period with the so-called cybernats, no doubt on the assumption that Scotland's "first truly online newspaper" will eschew the pro-Unionist bias (perceived or otherwise) of the Scotsman and Herald.

Whether the Merc intended some sort of entente with the cybernats, or whether this was just wishful thinking on the part of the latter, the wheels seem to have come off slightly with an article by ex-Scotsman journalist Hamish Macdonell, in which he suggest a top-level ideological split in the SNP. In a television interview following the successful passage of the Scottish Government's Budget, finance secretary John Swinney stated that it was less important how public services were delivered than their actual delivery, thus the ends were the priority rather than the means.

Mr Macdonell interpreted this as alluding to private sector involvement in delivering public services, and contrasted this with Nicola Sturgeon's stand against private sector involvement in the health service, thus suggesting a "Left-Right split" between the health secretary and Mr Swinney. Cue complaints in the comments section about a "manufactured anti-SNP story", etc.

That would seem to suggest that the press never publish articles about splits in the other parties, which, of course, is nonsense. For example, a couple of examples in the last few weeks regarding the not unrelated subject of the budget deficit, both from the Scotsman:

Gordon Brown denies rift with chancellor, 12 December 2009

Gordon Brown was yesterday forced to deny reports of a damaging rift with Chancellor Alistair Darling over the Pre-Budget Report. The Prime Minister insisted claims he had overruled Mr Darling over his package to tackle Britain's ballooning £178billion deficit were "completely wrong".

Cameron contradicts Osborne, 1 February 2010

The Conservative leader insisted the party would make "a start" this year on reducing the burden of borrowing, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats said he was backing away from previous promises of rapid action. His comments also seemed to contradict those by Shadow Chancellor George Osborne who said that severe cuts would be necessary.

Of course, such splits may be more imagined than real, and no doubt there's often an element of hyperbole, but to suggest that the SNP are being singled out in this regard is nonsense - stuff of that ilk is meat and drink to the press. Indeed, in view of the fact that it's primarily the aim of independence for Scotland that holds the SNP together, it's arguably more surprising that more hasn't been made of divisions on substantive policy, but perhaps they've been kept under wraps and dissent quelled by the party's recent successes at the ballot box, as was the case when Tony Blair moved the Labour party to the centre-right, but to subsequent victory over the Tories at Westminster.

While all this may seem like stating the obvious, the important point is that it was a foregone conclusion that SNP splits would appear as the party's honeymoon at Holyrood wore off and the job of government inevitably hit hurdles. And perhaps the most surprising thing about the inherent contradictions in aspects of the SNP's stance - and I highlighted tensions in the party's perspective towards business and the economy at the time of the Diageo dispute - is that they've received so little coverage and are perhaps only now beginning to surface.

It's often said that voters don't like party splits, thus unity fosters electoral success, and being in power helps cement unity, therefore a virtuous circle develops. However, when the going gets tough party splits develop, the public get wind of this and popularity dwindles and infighting develops, thus a vicious circle begins to dominate.

Of course, luckily for the SNP in Scotland the dynamic is complicated by the Westminster factor, and the weak opposition in Holyrood combined with Alex Salmond as a strong and thus unifying leader combine to give the Nationalists an easy ride.

The forthcoming general election will help distract attention from the Scottish Government's unspectacular administration at Holyrood, and the result of that contest may well assist the SNP in 2011, despite their record in power per se.

Sturgeon sanitises, desanitises, resanitises?

A fortnight ago I blogged regarding a Healthcare Environment Inspectorate report on Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, which curiously failed to mention an outbreak of the superbug Clostridium difficile there which killed five people, despite inspectors visiting the hospital while the incident was ongoing.

Similarly, health secretary Nicola Sturgeon's response, while mentioning the C. diff outbreak, didn't mention the fatalities.

Officialdom perhaps redeemed itself, however, with the news a few days later that the public inquiry into the C. diff outbreak at the Vale of Leven Hospital in West Dumbartonshire - which directly or indirectly killed 18 people - would be widened to include the Ninewells deaths.

All well and good, but the small print reveals that the terms of reference do not allow the inquiry to look into the causes of the Ninewells outbreak. Lord MacLean, who is chairing the inquiry which starts formal proceedings in the summer, said:

I will not look at the causes of that outbreak or the circumstances of deaths at Ninewells, but rather at the way in which the outbreak was handled.

In defence of the more restrictive remit, Dundee MSP Joe Fitzpatrick says: "Unlike Vale of Leven, the outbreak (at Ninewells) was identified very quickly. There was no mystery about what it was."

Which surely misses the point slightly - the cause of the outbreak and the circumstances surrounding the deaths isn't quite the same as the identity of the infection and how quickly identification occurred, presumably?

And the Evening Telegraph reported:

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said that, although Lord MacLean stated he would not be taking an “in depth” look at other C.diff outbreaks, it is possible the inquiry will answer some of the questions posed in the past about the deaths at Ninewells. However, as it is an independent inquiry, she was unable to make any further comment about the remit.

An independent inquiry, perhaps, but did Lord MacLean set the inquiry's remit unilaterally? Presumably not, so why does the Scottish Government's spokeswoman use the excuse of independence to avoid any further comment about the scope of the inquiry? The remit was presumably the responsibility of health secretary Nicola Sturgeon, so shouldn't the Scottish Government be held accountable for it rather than passing the buck to Lord MacLean, who in turn makes the perfectly valid point that he is bound by the terms of the remit?

Similarly, Dundee MSP and public health minister Shona Robison said: "It is a matter for Lord MacLean, to decide how he wishes to progress the inquiry." The Evening Telegraph also stated: "A Government spokesperson told the Tele the MSP would be unable to comment any further because of her ministerial responsibilities."

At yesterday's FMQs Alex Salmond also deflected a question on the issue from Dundee-based MSP Marlyn Glen by referring to Lord MacLean's "distinction" and to that extent the efficacy of allowing him discretion in how he conducts the inquiry, which again ignores the Government's involvement in setting the remit.

In a nutshell, therefore, it seems the inquiry's terms of reference were agreed between the Scottish Government and Lord MacLean, Lord MacLean is bound by the terms of the remit thus can't comment on them, and ministers can't comment and instead refer to the inquiry's remit?

'New politics', same old sh...enanigans!

To continue a theme from yesterday, Gordon Brown's characterisation of his alternative vote proposal for Westminster elections as the 'new politics' takes some beating for opportunism. Of course, the move seems a sop towards the Lib Dems in view of the prospect of a hung parliament, and if it's voted through before the general election it will be dumped by a Tory Government, thus enabling Labour to portray Dave and friends as anti-change. Not to mention that a Newsnight analysis on Tuesday night suggested that Labour would benefit electorally from AV. Moreover, the prime minister's attempts to suggest that such a new voting system might offer some redemption for the Westminster expenses scandal is surely wishful thinking, and equally delusional is his claim that contriving a vote in excess of 50% for successful candidates might confer a greater legitimacy on MPs.

Not to worry though. We've already got our 'new politics' north of the border, with devolution and Holyrood characterised by consensus, constructive criticism and an absence of cynicism, right?

Well perhaps that was the idea behind the heady idealism and rhetoric ('Wisdom. Justice. Compassion. Integrity.' Timeless values. Honourable aspirations for this new forum of democracy, born on the cusp of a new century.) surrounding the opening of the Scottish Parliament, but surely a decade of devolution has disabused all but the most starry-eyed of such notions.

Today's weekly spin and shouting match (aka FMQs) is of course symptomatic of the often unedifying nature of our new politics, but a couple of other less obvious examples feature in this week's media.

First, Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph outlined how the justice committee's investigation into Kenny MacAskill's controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber split along crude Unionist v Nationalist lines, with the former's majority ensuring that the report will be critical of the justice secretary:

It is sadly obvious that this is a report produced not by dispassionate observers of the scene, but by political animals acting primarily for reasons of party advantage.

A few hours later and the Caledonian Mercury 's Hamish Macdonell writes about how the Unionists have once again contrived to exploit the committee system to thwart the passage of the SNP's forthcoming bill for a referendum on independence, with Margo MacDonald's assisted suicide bill losing out from these machinations:

It is usual, it is typical, but it is so unedifying. Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are no doubt rubbing their hands in delight at the small success they have secured today over the Scottish Government and the Nats are complaining and cursing in equal measure.

But they should all stop and consider how this appears out there in the real world where people want a proper debate about assisted suicide and, more than that, they want their democratic representatives to discuss it properly, seriously and in the absence of party politics too.

Alan Cochrane says that David Steel described the committee system as Holyrood's "jewel in the crown". Yesterday the Herald described Gordon Brown's voting reform move as "shenanigans", which it says comes from Irish Gaelic meaning "I play tricks".

Thus surely as apposite for Holyrood as Westminster.

The Herald also points out that voting reform north of the border - in both council and Holyrood elections - has hardly enthused the public. And the Holyrood 'Punch & Judy' politics and machinations ably demonstrate why.

This morning's Scotsman quotes Margo MacDonald as saying:

This is a matter of trust with the public. The Scottish Parliament's reputation is on the line here. We have to be seen to be acting properly and treating issues with seriousness they deserve. Playing musical chairs with the committees in the hope the right party ends up chairing the referendum bill is disgraceful.

They need to be mindful of some of the voices that are coming out of Westminster, challenging how much money we get in Holyrood and our powers. If we hope to get further powers, we need to show that we can use them properly.

That the public generally support the tranfer of more powers from Westminster to Holyrood is perhaps because the latter is considered to be the lesser of two evils, and not because of any profound liking for the idea of devolution.

Thanks to some...while others can naff off!

A big thanks to all those who voted for me in the Scotblogs Awards, where Planet Politics came number 18 in the politics section, ahead of some of the MacBlogosphere's big hitters such as Stephen Glenn, Kezia Dugdale and Yousuf Hamid. This is up from 30th place in Iain Dale's Total Politics Scottish section, and thus represents a pleasant surprise for yours truly.

Indeed, the Scotblogs rankings seem a lot more representative of the MacBlogosphere than Iain Dale's Scottish section, which featured some unexpected blogs which seem to have disappeared from the latest list. In their place the MSM bloggers seem to feature a lot more strongly.

Meanwhile, there are some surprising omissions such as Tom Harris, James of Two Doctors (the former features in the Labour rankings, while perhaps the latter opted out?), and sadly some of the less overtly partisan blogs - such as Doctor Vee, Scottish Unionist and Ideas of Civilisation - don't feature, presumably due to dormancy or lack of activity.

On a slightly sour note, following a recent smear campaign (perhaps it was just me and my defamers who noticed!) it's been my policy not to blog about other bloggers or the MacBlogosphere generally, or to leave comments on other blogs (don't know if anyone noticed that either!), but this rule isn't absolute, particularly when it's something positive!

But to my detractors, I just laugh off abuse and namecalling, and while lies and distortions of a more sinister nature can be damaging and hurtful - which is the idea, I suppose - it'll take a lot more than that to shut me up, even if Planet Politics doesn't continue in its current form, and notwithstanding that it's just a hobbyist blog read by a relatively minuscule number of people.

Last but not least, a big thank you to Duncan for the obvious effort expended in organising the Scotblog awards, not to mention the other members of his team.

Haggis politicised?

Top Labour blogger and MP Tom Harris mentions a party news release stating that a Scottish Labour MEP "lobbies Congress to lift ban on haggis".

And, indeed, icRenfrewshire reveals Catherine Stihler is hopeful that haggis could be put back on the menu in the US, where it was banned over 20 years ago in the wake of Britain's BSE meat scare.

However, the day before last month's Burns nicht the BBC reported that the US was already planning to lift the ban on imported meats which prevents the sale of haggis. And yesterday an Associated Press article stated that the US review was prompted by a letter from Scottish Government minister Richard Lockhead to the US Agriculture Secretary.

Thus perhaps Ms Stihler is trying to hijack the haggis for political purposes? Indeed, her statement manages to mention the release of the Lockerbie bomber, saying that reinstating sales of haggis in America would be a "great way of improving relations" between Scotland and the US.

I suspect, however, that for the average US citizen it would be more likely to prompt a diplomatic incident!

A tale of three referendums

This morning's Telegraph asks why Labour broke its promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, while last night's Newsnicht questioned why the party won't support a referendum on independence for Scotland.

Of course, the context is Gordon Brown's proposal to hold a referendum on a change to the first-past-the-post voting system used in general elections in favour of the alternative vote, which should appeal to the Lib Dems in the event of a hung parliament.

Thus while the prime minister may call his vision of constitutional change the 'new politics', the reality is the same old spin and cynicism.

Cocktail for responsible drinking?

Fife councillor David Mogg hit the Sunday Post headlines at the weekend with his suggestion that 16-year-olds should be allowed to drink in pubs, while alcohol sales from off-licenses should be restricted to those aged at least 21, with the aim of Fostering a more "responsible attitude to drinking". The licensing board member says:

Personally, I would allow anyone over 16 to be served in pubs. This would remove most of the underage drinkers from the streets and allow them to socialise in a controlled, well managed and safer environment. At least in a pub, trained staff can tell them when they’ve had enough. We have to reach a situation where responsible drinking is encouraged and irresponsible drinking in the street is discouraged and I think there’s logic in this idea.

Anyone regularly reading this blog will be aware that I'm a bit dubious or even cynical...OK, it would be hilarious if it wasn't so funny...regarding the so-called "controlled environment" of pubs - perhaps as someone responsible for regulating the conduct of landlords it suits Councillor Mogg to portray them as always adhering to their legal obligation to act responsibly - but even if bar staff "can tell [drinkers] when they've had enough", the problem is perhaps not so much what takes place in the pub as what happens in the street afterwards, whether the revellers are stopped from buying further alcohol, leave of their own accord or are thrown out at closing time.

Thus perhaps Mr Mogg misses the point a bit, as seemed to be the case recently with Wetherspoons drinks mogul Tim Martin, when I said:

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.

Therefore it would be back to square one as regards the problems caused by drinking in the street that Councillor Mogg seeks to eradicate.

Unsurprisingly, though, Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Traders Association is supportive of the idea. With a couple of caveats, however, one of which is that: "It only be allowed in suitable establishments which would have to apply for a special licence to ensure they adopted a responsible attitude."

Ergo, current licensees don't necessarily adopt a responsible attitude? Well said that man!

It's perhaps also worth noting that last year Fife Licensing Board pandered to late night drinking by extending opening hours in some parts of the Kingdom. Although fairly limited in scope, this surely sent out the wrong message, particularly as Scotland's liberalisation of the licensing laws a generation ago (I was a bit too young for the pubs when they closed at 10pm!) has hardly encouraged sensible drinking, and the more recent attempt by the Labour Government to create a continental-style cafe culture (sic!) south of the border has turned out to be the waste of time that a quick glance northwards would have predicted.

Thus Councillor Mogg's blueprint hardly seems the perfect cocktail for responsible drinking - more drunks spilling out of pubs even later at night seems as much the problem than the solution.

Flames of democracy doused

Further to my recent post about the politics of the Tayside Fire Joint Board, the Dundee press has reported some interesting comments from Christina Roberts, who is vice convenor of the board and a Dundee City councillor.

It should be recalled that Tayside Fire & Rescue chiefs have proposed transferring resources from the Balmossie fire station in the east end of Dundee to the town of Forfar in Angus on the basis that the latter facility is the busier of the two stations, yet is currently manned by part-time/retained firefighters. The move would ensure parity of full-time dayshift cover between Balmossie and Forfar, but firefighters, many residents and most politicians in Dundee have opposed the move. However, the board convenor and two vice convenors - including Ms Roberts - have generally supported the proposed change.

Last week Dundee City Council voted unanimously against the move, but Ms Roberts is reported as saying:

I just sat there and listened to it. I was in the room, but when they all said they agreed with the motion I said nothing. It was 28 against — I didn’t see the point of doing or saying anything. It wouldn’t have changed anything anyway. They had already made the decision that they were going with the motion.

This seems bizarre, since surely as a point of principle and to ensure the vote was more representative of true opinion then the councillor's dissent should have been noted?

Perhaps, as alluded to in her quote, Ms Roberts felt so overwhelmed by the opposition against the plan that she felt she had no other choice but to fall into line? Indeed, regarding last year's fire board meeting to consider the proposal first time round, the Evening Telegraph says:

Ms Roberts also claimed fire board members had been “intimidated” by the presence of so many FBU members at last year’s vote on the Balmossie plan.“We have had some councillors saying they went along with the vote because they knew it was going to fail,” she said. “They felt intimidated when they went to the meeting.”

Thus might Ms Roberts have felt intimidated by the strength of opposition at the more recent Dundee City Council vote, hence her failure to register her dissent?

But she also points out that the city council doesn't constitute the whole fire board - which also comprises representatives from Angus and Perth & Kinross councils - and opines:

When you go into a fire board meeting you don't take political baggage with you - you are there to do the best you can for the whole of Tayside.

But let's recall what fellow Dundee City councillor and fire board member Rod Wallace said:

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 seems to completely contradict what Ms Roberts says regarding the duties of fire board members. It should also be recalled that MSP Shona Robison said: "It would be wrong for Fire Board members to vote along party political or geographical lines."

But as I pointed out last time round, Ms Robison then seemed to contradict this ethos by emphasising the needs of the people of Dundee, while Ms Roberts says, "They [the Fire Brigades Union] have not mentioned Forfar at all. This is not just about Dundee, but about Forfar and the area around Forfar, too. Sometimes they can't get a full crew out. What about them?"

Of course, as I said previously, despite the overtly political nature of the stance of most of the politicians, the issue is certainly not causing partisan division. Instead, the dispute is largely geographical and born of crude electoral advantage based on the (perceived?) wishes of voters.

Which is all very well for Ms Robison et al, since they are not members of the fire board, but how she/they expect members of that body to decide the issue on a pan-Tayside basis rather than on the needs of Dundee per se when her/their own opinion is so crudely swayed is fundamental to the self-evident democratic deficit here.

Of course, we all know that democracy is imperfect, but this relatively minor issue serves to underline the undemocratic nature of much of the country's decision making process, hidden as it is behind the usual fine words and phrases such as "consultation", "accountability" and "transparency".