Hillsborough and Gayfield

Talk of the Hillsborough disaster always has a slight personal resonance, and yesterday's controversy surrounding Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt - who suggested that hooliganism was a factor in the tragedy and was later forced to apologise - was no exception.

Not that I was at Hillsborough that day, nor indeed knew anyone who was there, but it reminds me of an incident at Gayfield Park, which is home to Arbroath Football Club.

When I was a young boy and Celtic supporter back in the 1970s, there were only two Scottish leagues, and for a couple of years Arbroath made it into the top flight. I lived in Angus at the time, thus my Dad took me to Gayfield a few times to see some of the bigger teams including, of course, my beloved Celtic.

However, while we were queuing at the turnstiles to get in the main gate was breached and many fans surged forward in a bid to enter the ground without paying the admission fee. As I recall it police on duty quickly formed a cordon to stop the surge, and after a few minutes of pushing the fans gave up and things returned to normal.

But I had been caught up in the surge, and as a small boy in the midst of dozens of burly, pushing fans I was absolutely terrified, but luckily otherwise unhurt.

However, not everyone was so fortunate, and as I recall it one fan caught up in the melee was left disabled. Indeed, the victim later sued Arbroath FC and the court case on the club's liability toward him is often cited as a minor authority in textbooks on the relevant law (Hosie v Arbroath Football Club).

Hillsborough stadium also has some personal significance, since I attended matches there on quite a few occasions in the handful of years leading up to the tragedy. Indeed, I recall that on my first visit we stood in the small terracing area in the ill-fated Leppings Lane end - that was the 'away' end, and my friend was a Derby County supporter, and the club were being entertained by Sheffield Wednesday in an evening match - and my first thought was that the ultimately infamous fence wasn't conducive to a good view of the pitch.

At that time the safety implications of this were not apparent, and it should be recalled that the fencing was required to keep fans off the pitch. However, that was my only time in the Leppings Lane end, and thereafter I went to the stadium fairly regularly to see Wednesday, and always stood in the Kop end.

Unlike the small piece of terracing at the Leppings Lane end - the main part of which was the seated upper area of a two-tier stand - the Kop end was huge and accommodated 22,000 fans, which made it the largest covered standing area in Europe at that time. But although there was adequate room for all these people, there was absolutely no segregation, and thus thousands of fans would congregate in their favourite area right at the top centre of the Kop. Thus because the centre of the stand was a very steep stairway rather than proper terracing, hundreds were squeezed into this area with no barriers to restrain them. I recall that during one crowd surge I was carried down numerous stairs, and it was obvious that the practice was dangerous, but of course youthful bravado trumped safety consideration. But when I first heard about the disaster a few months later I assumed that it had occurred in this stairway area in the Kop rather than what I considered to be the much more safe and sedate environment of the Leppings Lane end, thus an Ibrox-style disaster rather than what had actually transpired.

Therefore while I initially thought that the danger had been self-evident to all but officialdom, the reality of what had happened was very different.

But as regards my own mini-Hillsborough back in Arbroath, and irrespective of Arbroath FC's liability to the unfortunate fan, I know that the surging fans - many of whom self-evidently put their own desire to enter the ground without payment ahead of the safety of a small boy - should take their share of the blame for what occurred that day.

Salmond double whammy for SNP?

More disappointing news for fundamentalist Nationalists today in a Times interview with Alex Salmond. The newspaper says that for the first time the first minister has conceded that the "centre of gravity" in the debate on Scotland's future is substantial financial powers for Holyrood, rather than the dream of independence. He's quoted as saying:

You must campaign for what is good for Scotland as well as campaigning for independence. It is not a question of (independence) taking a back seat, it is a question of fulfilling your duty. I regard that as a duty. When the SNP was formed the second aim of the party was to further Scottish interests. I believe it is part of my obligation to further Scottish interests as well as to campaign for independence.

Of course, it's arguable that independence has been on the back burner for some time now, but this latest interview perhaps confirms that Mr Salmond knows independence won't happen during his tenure as first minister or even SNP leader, and clearly he sees some degree of further devolution of financial powers as a more realistic legacy.

Interesting also that the language used is "fiscal responsibility" rather than "fiscal autonomy". This, of course, partly reflects the nascent Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility, but also perhaps a realisation that, although voters don't want to think about the downside of public spending cuts, on the other hand they realise that the days of the spending spree are over, whether under the current settlement or a more fiscally independent Scotland. Mr Salmond says:

It is really important, in my view, to be able to say to people how we can change the circumstances and increase revenue as well as decreasing expenditure. It is my job to come up with some answers, along with others. If you jump up and down nihilistically saying ‘dreadful dreadful, dreadful, cuts, cuts, cuts’, then I would be failing in my duty to the people.

The last sentence is particularly interesting, because here the first minister seems to be criticising his own strategy hitherto, but whether this indicates a real change in emphasis remains to be seen; perhaps it's a mere superficial nod towards the CfFR.

But like the change in the centre of gravity away from independence, this shift in tenor towards a more fiscally conservative stance is unlikely to please the fundamentalist/progressive strand of Nationalist opinion, however well it may go down with Ben Thomson et al.

Smoking ban miscellany

Question: When can a pizza delivery driver smoke a cigarette in his vehicle, while a builder in his van can't? Answer at the end.

As regards the fag ends strewn outside pubs and clubs thanks to the smoking ban, an interesting development in Dundee is amenable to psychological, physiological and sociological analysis. I think.

Anyway, the development in question is the placing of a couple of metal pales outside a local hostelry which I have the dubious pleasure of regularly passing on foot. Having observed the matter a few years before the smoking ban became part of the general law, I had concluded that the presence or otherwise of a suitable receptacle had little relevance as to the destination of the fag end - it would almost invariably end up otherwise than in the receptacle provided.

Thus it might not have been expected that the two metal pales would make much of a difference as compared to a wall-mounted receptacle, but in fact it has, with most of the fag ends now ending up in the pales.

Why should this be? Well perhaps putting the fag end into the pale takes less physical effort than putting it into an ashtray on the wall.

But it seems that many smokers may litter the pavement as an act of defiance; a sort of civil disobedience in response to the ban, as one smoker put it on the internet. Thus why would the pale make any difference in this regard?

Well you can chuck a fag end into a pale with the sort of macho contempt that smokers often dispose of their waste with - fag ends are thrown rather than dropped - whereas placing this into an ashtray on the wall is, well, kind of wimpish. Thus by accommodating an element of macho contempt, the pale attracts more fag ends than something on the wall.

Any better explanations on a fag packet to the Scottish Government, please.

Another act of defiance relates to the flouting of the ban by smokers in vehicles - who are the most visible example - and I took this photo of a driver who was sitting alongside a queue of cars and self-evidently wasn't bothered who might be watching him. The signage indicates that this is a licensed private hire vehicle. Of course, officialdom sometimes tell us that because few tickets are handed out for this offence then compliance is virtually complete, whereas the reality is probably that there is little meaningful enforcement and thus little deterrent - as the photograph perhaps suggests - and that smokers have found ways of circumventing the rules.

As for the pizza delivery driver, the answer is that he/she can smoke if they're delivering the food in a car. Cars are exempt from the legislation unless the vehicle is a licensed taxi or private hire vehicle.

And not a lot of people know that. But I suspect not a lot of people wanted to know that anyway.

Yet more Dusky-gate perspective!

Did the political and media class suffer a bout of collective amnesia last week in their analysis of the Frank McAveety affair? Well I certainly completely forgot about SNP MP Angus MacNeil's drunken romp with two teenage girls while his heavily pregnant wife was at home. Never mind though, no few bodily fluids were exchanged and all expressed regret afterwards. But it didn't seem to affect his subsequent career, unlike Frank McAveety's.

But this perhaps explains why the SNP were a bit quieter than they might have been last week about McAveety's indiscretion, but presumably MSP Sandra White had forgotten about MacNeil as well. Indeed, it was probably Ms White's memory lapse which caused her to describe the recent revalations about Glasgow's black market in taxi licences as "very disturbing", but perhaps the less said about that the better, since clearly that would be an issue of substance and therefore of little interest, thus quite unlike the Frank McAveety affair.

But I've take the liberty of including a photo of the two girls who took part in Angus MacNeil's romp, since they weren't underage and also because they look rather, er, how should I put this, fetching? I wonder if that's politically correct enough, or does it make me a sexist pig?

(Thanks to contributor Alastair, who mentioned the MacNeil affair in a comment on yesterday's post.)

Dusky-gate in perspective

Frank McAveety's resignation/sacking from his two posts last week has attracted much adverse comment about what this says regarding the sense of perspective in Scottish politics. Of course, SNP MSP Sandra White suggested that his comments could amount to sexism and racism, but from reading the opinions of the political insiders, it seems that overall criticism wasn't exactly vehement, even from the Nationalists.

But some of the other criticism has been slightly ludicrous. For example, in Scotland on Sunday Emma Cowing quotes Lesley Riddoch as saying:

But the bit that was just a bit much was the 'very nice' comment, as if he was a fox licking his lips before he ate her. That just conjures up an unfortunate image, and once it's in your mind it's very hard to look at him again without seeing it. He was sitting there sounding like the wolf surveying little Red Riding Hood.

For Salmond's sake. The 'very nice' comment seemed to me the most innocuous of the lot, and even as a whole what he said amounted to little more than a bit of Parliamentary laddishness and, as many have commented, any punishment should have remained in the hands of his wife.

Never mind though, since the whole affair has provided us with some highly informative debate into the issue of the Scottish male psyche. For example, take this devastating insight from a behavioural psychologist, quoted in the newspaper piece:

I actually think his misdemeanour was that he said something out loud that was inappropriate. That's what he did wrong. You can't punish him for thinking it, but he was foolish in his candour.

Sound advice there - in future, if I decide not to say something out loud lest it causes offence, I'll know that my approach has the endorsement of a behavioural psychologist.

But perhaps McAveety's behaviour is best put in perspective by today's lead story in the News of the World about Lib Dem cabinet minister Chris Huhne, who is leaving his wife of 26 years after the exposure of a year-long affair. But no apparent suggestion that he might lose his post over this, and on the Andrew Marr Show this morning the story merited only a passing mention, during the review of the papers.

Thus while sections of the media are lamenting the Labour overreaction to Frank McAveety's remarks, it may have been the overreaction from other parts of the media that was instrumental in his dismissal.

But while he's doubt he's feeling a bit miffed this weekend, Frank's star is apparently rising in the Philippines, where he has attracted an army of female fans on the back of his remarks, no doubt much to the chagrin of his wife and the likes of Sandra White.

But the stance of the Filipinos is the subject of amusing comment of the day, from Emma Cowing's column:

You can see their point. Were the situation reversed, and a Filipino politician had been caught making remarks about an attractive woman with 'that pale and pasty Scottish look', there would probably have been a parade down Princes Street.

Edit: I thought that the relevance of the girl's age was so obvious as to not require to be explicitly stated, but since a contributor seems to consider it a significant issue then it's perhaps appropriate to clarify things.

It seems very unlikely that Frank McAveety was aware of the girl's age, and thus wouldn't have made the comments if he'd been aware of it. The girl's photo was published in at least two newspapers and even then there was no evidence that her age might be an issue until it became public knowledge. Having seen the photo briefly it certainly didn't strike me that her age would be an issue - except to the extent that the matter related to a forty-something's attraction to a woman significantly younger - but with hindsight and from my memory of the brief look at the photo I would say the girl looked ten years older than her actual fifteen.

Fiscal responsibility - be careful what we wish for?

Ben Thomson should be applauded for his role in the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility, but what is interesting about the ongoing debate is that the impetus for greater financial powers for Scotland seems to be coming from two largely incompatible strands.

The first seems based on the familiar tax, borrow and spend model, which relies on the Brown-esque delusion that unending economic growth means the bills can be deferred effectively indefinitely.

The second strand seems to assume full fiscal powers will somehow magically transform Scotland into a low-tax economy with greatly reduced public spending, with even talk of a tax haven and a strictly limited public sector.

However, the prevailing Holyrood mindset seems to centre around bragging rights over which of the two main parties can outspend the other, while at the same time seeking to blame others when the bills inevitably come in and the spending spree has to give way to a degree of restraint.

Which in turn undermines the hypothetical argument in relation to greater fiscal responsibility, and economies as diverse as the triple-A rated UK and the more obviously dubious Greece demonstrate that, even before the global economic meltdown, theories regarding accountability don't necessarily work in practice.

Indeed, in promoting the devolution of more fiscal powers, Mr Thomson states that Scotland's share of the public spending deficit has been no worse than the UK's as a whole, which to me seems to detract from his argument rather than reassure.

Perhaps Mr Thomson should be careful what he wishes for.

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

Regeneration meets reality?

Lochee High Street in Dundee was previously a busy suburban shopping centre. Over the years, however, the thoroughfare became less popular, shops struggled - two large superstores just off the High Street didn't help - and a particular bone of contention was the small Highgate shopping centre, a daytime haunt for drug addicts. At night the area became a magnet for anti-social behaviour, and the several pubs in the street weren't really of the wine bar genre.

The street was popular with the elderly and less mobile, however, and although there was pressure on parking space it was a lot easier to get close to the shops than hiking into the city centre, with less convenient parking there. However, the council stuck in some particularly vicious speed bumps, and other measures for pedestrians - such as those sticky-out bits and pedestrian crossings - provided a further deterrent to car drivers.

One of the supermarkets - which serviced the discount market - closed down and the other followed suit more recently. The latter was replaced by a new Tesco Extra over a mile away, hence further detracting from the area. The Woolworths store - the mainstay of many such shopping areas - went with the rest of the chain.

Hence the High Street managed to attract £2 million of funds as part of the Scottish Government's Town Centre Regeneration Fund and, after months of disruption to businesses and the predictable late finish, the road has finally been opened to traffic again and the main part of the work is almost complete.


So what are the prospects? As a driver as well as pedestrian - I walk several miles several times a week for shopping - one striking aspect of the new layout is the lack of parking space, primarily due to the trees now along much of the street, as evident in the early-morning photo above. The street is now one-way traffic only as a consequence. Also, it's now one of those areas where the demarcation between the road and the pavement has largely disappeared, thus no one knows where they're supposed to be and who has right of way, thus encouraging pedestrians to walk out in front of cars. And, as someone has pointed out in the local press, a child running out from behind the planters could be hidden from a driver's view. Thus the lack of convenient parking space - although there's ample a few minutes walk away - and the new layout is bound to deter those with mobility problems and others in a hurry who rely on cars. Of course, shifting the emphasis in favour of pedestrians is clearly the intention, but will this merely drive motorists to the retail parks or city centre?

And, predictably, the revamped street has attracted bad publicity before it's even finished. Some of the planters have been 'tagged' by graffiti 'artists' and are being used as litter bins. The Evening Telegraph last night reported the view of residents, who aren't entirely surprised by this. Even local councillor Tom Ferguson - who often seems admirably disposed to stating the facts rather than the more usual spin - says he could "see it coming".

Indeed, near my humble abode we've in the past had the months of noise and disruption with a view to prettifying the area with fancy pavements and small trees (not long after much of the greenery had been ripped out because it was causing a litter problem (sic)), only to soon have this blighted with fag ends and smokers standing around on the pavement courtesy of the smoking ban, which is likely to feature in Lochee High Street as well.

So there's more to regeneration than throwing money at things, but the Tele's story last night is neatly juxtaposed with a predictably upbeat and politically charged letter from SNP councillor Alan Ross, who attributes the changes to the SNP administration, and talks of past neglect. Er, but wasn't it the Tories who levered the regeneration fund monies out of the SNP at Holyrood? And wasn't it SNP council leader Ken Guild who accused Gordon Brown of trying to bankrupt Britain and SNP first minister Alex Salmond who last week accused Labour of wrecking the public finances?

Thus it's the usual political trick of taking the credit for spending the money and blaming others when the bills come in, but the SNP seems predicated on little else. Nothing new there then.

As for the future of Lochee High Street, it may well be that the time is up for shopping areas of this type, and no amount of money will reverse the trend towards retail parks and the chain stores and smaller niche stores in the likes of the city centre's Overgate shopping mall.

Indeed, the old Tesco store just off the High Street was part of a large retail/leisure complex built around a generation ago. As well as the supermarket there was a filling station, bingo hall, cinema, bowling alley, nightclub, pub, eateries etc. Within a couple of years these businesses started closing and now only a couple remain, and the park is effectively a huge, largely empty car park with several modern but sad-looking buildings.

I wonder what odds the betting shops on Lochee High Street would give on it ending up as a similar waste of money.

Ludicrous licensing leglislation

An article in this morning's Herald highlights inconsistencies in the approach of local authorities to enforcing the new liquor licensing legislation. Stores licensed by one council have been given slapped wrists for selling alcohol to underagers, while in another licensing area a shop was slapped with a two-month ban. So no change there then.

But this helps underline the criticisms of the 2005 licensing Act in this week's report by the Regulatory Review Group, a body set up by the Scottish Government to help "maximise regulatory efficiency", according to a report in last weekend's Sunday Herald. It says that the RRG's report is "likely to enrage council leaders" due to the shortcomings outlined, which include the ludicrously slow processing of applications, inconsistency and unfairness in the charging of fees, and poor guidance from the Scottish Government.

Interestingly, the part of the report apparently most likely to annoy local authorities seems to be a call for a more standardised process throughout Scotland: "In national issues driven centrally by Scottish Government but implemented by councils there is a strong argument to move to a standardised corporate approach."

Which reflects what I said recently about a national regulator for taxi licensing, and which it should be recalled was ignored by the Office of Fair Trading in its 2003 report on the cab trade, despite the advent of such a 'tsar' in Ireland, and which was previously advocated by John Fingleton as chairperson of that country's Competition Authority, but who is now ironically chief executive of the OFT.

And while on the subject of taxis, another article in today's Herald perhaps underlines the poor quality of the legislation emanating from Holyrood. It says that Strathclyde Police are having trouble with the new laws regulating taxi and private hire car radio despatch offices, because its provisions do not require disclosure of the directors of companies running these operations. This seems a strange omission in view of the fact that the perceived problem was that these businesses were being used as fronts for organised crime. Police are to lobby the Scottish Government for changes to the legislation, and Strathclyde's chief constable also wants hearings on such licence applications to be heard in public, another facet of the process that varies between councils.

However, since civil servants in Edinburgh have been grappling with this issue for perhaps ten to twenty years, then it's maybe understandable that they haven't been able to get things right first time round.

But handing more powers to Holyrood might be a better option - the politicians would be so busy with these that the past cock-ups could be conveniently forgotten.

Sexist, sleazy and racist?

Labour MSP Frank McAveety should perhaps be in cold water today, but is actually in hot water after being caught saying "the heat's getting to me" on spotting a hot dusky type...er...raven-haired babe...er...attractive young lady...er...someone sitting in the public gallery while chairing a Holyrood committee.

MSP Sandra White thinks Mr McAveety should consider resigning, and said: "I am shocked and disgusted at these remarks. The fact they were uttered by the convener of a committee which was considering extremely important and sensitive issues makes it even more sickening. His stupid comments were at best sexist and sleazy - and at worst sexist, sleazy and racist. He must consider his position in parliament."

Shocked and disgusted, sickening, sexist, sleazy, racist?

Of course, it's difficult to as much as describe the target of Mr McAveety's remarks without causing offence, it would seem, but he actually said:

There's a very attractive girl in the second row, dark . . . and dusky. We'll maybe put a wee word out for her. She's very attractive looking, nice, very nice, very slim. The heat's getting to me.

She looks kinda . . . she's got that Filipino look. You know . . . the kind you'd see in a Gauguin painting. There's a wee bit of culture.

While part of the problem seems to be the context in which Mr McAveety made his remarks, on the other hand Ms White's condemnation to an extent seems to suggest that comments like this can never be made, nor - presumably - thought.

Thus how far can two single males (say) go in chatting about a member of the opposite sex - or their own, depending on their sexuality - without it being considered offensive?

Or might Sandra White's remarks have something to do with the fact that Frank McAveety is a Labour MSP, and she isn't?

Never mind though. The Sun is on the case and has blurred pictures of the [...] and is appealing for information about her identity. Sounds like a nice little earner for someone. But this perhaps underlines the irony of the Sun's description of McAveety as "ogling", "leering" and "frisky"!

A victory for common sense (or criminals?)

A little postscript to last week's piece about taxi drivers and the bureaucracy of vetting procedures. In England and Wales it seems that councils can make do with standard police checks, but most insist on a Criminal Records Bureau procedure, with an enhanced CRB in certain cases. This can take several months. And, as last week's newspaper article revealed, even this failed to pick up an illegal immigrant who was working as a taxi driver on the south coast. The applicant's immigration status must be checked with the UK Borders Agency.

I also briefly mentioned another level of vetting, this time for those working with "vulnerable adults and children". However, this procedure was only due to come into effect next month, and it seems that today home secretary Theresa May will announce the postponement of the scheme and its probable scaling back, following complaints - from children's authors and school leaders amongst others - that the scheme was an over-reaction. The Independent Safeguarding Authority would have covered nine million people, including health and education workers, as well as those in the voluntary and charity sectors.

The scheme was a reaction to the Soham murders, and of course while today's news will please many, on the other hand it will just take one incident to cause an uproar.

But even if the ISA had been implemented in its originally proposed form, it and all the other vetting procedures would not have prevented a crazed taxi driver from possessing powerful firearms to pursue a pastime.

Times past...future...

As someone who tends not to buy newspapers these days (except for the locals) the decision of News International to erect a paywall for access to its online newspapers seems to mark something of a watershed. As a previous long time Times purchaser I've remained fairly loyal to its website, but with the old Times Online site now clearly being neglected in favour of the two new ones - the Sunday Times now has its own separate site - decision time is surely just around the corner.

But first impressions of the new daily site are unfavourable - although that's generally the case when publications of this type have a revamp - and the online Sunday Times conveys the impression of a glossy magazine, which on my usual netbook with limited processing power, a tiny little screen and sourced from often excruciatingly slow mobile broadband, doesn't look like a winner as regards persuading me to part with £2 per week. And with the Scottish section of the Sunday having more or less closed up shop, that's probably the clincher, particularly as someone who reads the national newspapers mainly for the opinion sections. Of course, the new sites are all free for a couple of weeks yet, but in view of the cumbersome logging in process I'm not sure I'll last even that long.

But the elephant in the room regarding the above is, of course, that there's still plenty of free stuff available online, so the reaction of the Telegraph, Independent and Guardian to News International's move is crucial. My bet is that the Times will lose a pile of readers to the other online newspapers - not the bravest of predictions! - and perhaps Rupert Murdoch is relying on the others replicating his move, thus maybe the writing is effectively already on the (pay)wall for free access.

And another interesting development in the Scottish context this morning, with much of Scotland on Sunday's opinion section now classed as premium content, and as far as I'm aware this has always been free. But this brings SoS in line with the Scotsman, so with Joan McAlpine, Jenny Hjul et al also disappearing, it's not a good time for those looking for free Sunday newspaper comment in Scotland.

The likes of Euan McColm in the News of the World will presumably be going the same way as the Times, and the Sunday Post's online content is strictly limited. Thus that just leaves HeraldScotland, but its online comment also seems to be limited - although perhaps this is also because it can be difficult to find - and by the time it goes online the next day's editions of the other papers are almost appearing! The Caledonian Mercury is also patchy and unpredictable, and whatever its merits, it certainly ain't a newspaper. Of course, the BBC website is great for news, but limited in scope as regards comment, its bloggers excepted.

But for those keen on current affairs it was always too good to last. Instead of being limited to one newspaper or spending a fortune on several, we could have it all for free, so it was always destined to end eventually.

Personally I would be willing to pay a few quid each week to access things as they were six months ago, but the more likely scenario is for the same money to be allowing access to perhaps two or three publications, so it's then a question of choosing which ones. Or perhaps just pay a couple of quid for one, and then it's essentially back to a few years ago, but online. Or maybe go the whole hog and return to the paper versions and abandon the online newspapers?

All that depends on what happens in the next few months, of course. But for the time being it looks like au revoir to the Times.

G in The Park

Earlier this week the Herald reported that organisers of the annual T in the Dump music shindig are asking festival-goers to take a more responsible approach to the disposal of their rubbish and tents (sic). To mark this new initiative a Scottish fashion designer made a dress out of discarded tents (sic) and this was modelled by a member of one of the bands appearing at this year's event. It's hoped that this initiative - called Citizen T - will encourage revellers to put their litter in the bin and take their tents home (sic).

Well it's not clear whether the organisers are being serious about this or whether it's a political-style gesture, but this has as much chance of being effective as, er, let's see.

Ah, yes. Dundee has a problem with illegal and dangerous parking outside schools - doesn't everywhere? - and last year, following much multi-agencying and suchlike, it was decided that putting a few posters up and a few cones down would sort it. Er, not quite.

Perhaps the point with many of these kinds of issues is that they are allowed to fester for many years and the problem - and particularly the behaviour of those causing it - becomes so ingrained that it's impossible to turn round without drastic action, and the authorities simply don't have the backbone for that.

Same with the alcohol problem, caused by light-touch policing and the neglect of existing licensing laws. And, like T in The Park's and Dundee City Council's gimmicks, the best the SNP Government could come up with was a proposal for minimum pricing, which would have been as effective as the legislation passed by the previous administration and only recently implemented. Thus, not very, it would seem, given that even the politicians don't seem to be trumpeting its success.

Never mind, though. At least it keeps them in a job.

NB The 'G' in the headline stands for 'Gimmick'. Or 'Gesture'. Or 'Garbage'.

Is this council 'fit and proper'?

Applicants for the likes of liquor and taxi licences must be considered 'fit and proper' by the the relevant local authority, and roughly speaking the principle of the process is much the same throughout the UK, although the minutiae can be very different, and ultimately it's up to councillors who they deem meets the test, although there's the usual redress to the courts.

One slightly bizarre recent example concerns a council on the south coast of England, which had licensed a taxi driver as fit and proper, only to discover - four years later - that the driver is an illegal immigrant. In its defence the council claims that its policy is "the same as the rest of the country", but most local authorities in England use a Criminal Records Bureau check (like our Disclosure Scotland) and this augments the normal police checks.

However, it seems that the UK Borders Agency now needs to be involved as well to check the immigration status of the applicant, so it would seem that three levels of vetting are required before their immigration status is ascertained. Indeed, I think there's also another check involved with yet another quango if the driver is to be involved in work with particularly vulnerable people, or suchlike.

Of course, perhaps the council is just spinning a line, because there's no mention of CRB checks in the newspaper article, and it's also stated that neighbouring authorities have been using the UK Borders Agency for some time.

But despite this stultifying bureaucracy involved in getting at the facts, there's no real obligation for any council to use the CRB or UK Borders Agency - all councillors have to do is to provide their subjective judgement on the applicant's fitness. And even if the various checks conducted did throw up some nasties, there's no obligation on councillors to take cognisance of them. Indeed, even where immigrants are in the country legally, there are severe limitations regarding how their criminal past (or otherwise) can be accurately ascertained.

Hence there are all kinds career criminals - anything from convicted killers downwards - driving taxis in the UK, while on the other hand at least one driver has recently had his licence suspended for the heinous crime of joining the back of a taxi queue in excess of the official rank.

Which relates back to yesterday's post about a national taxi regulator, more uniformity and less bureaucracy.

But, of course, local decision making is best.

Independent OFT?

The Office of Fair Trading recently suffered some adverse publicity regarding the salary of its chief executive, and a subsequent letter in the Herald mentioned some of the competition watchdog's failures, including flaws in a bus industry study. This reminded me of a similar market study into taxi services, which reported in 2003 and to which I made a lengthy submission. Although it seemed one of a herd of elephants in the room, I mentioned the creation of a taxi regulator in Ireland, and suggested that this would be a good idea in the UK context. However, the OFT's report failed to even mention the idea of the taxi 'tsar', thus I was not a little peeved and smelt a political rat, but later events perhaps slightly vindicated my viewpoint.

Of course, few were interested in the study at the time, but at the weekend I sent the following to the Herald as a letter, but it seems that interest is still somewhat lacking, so it is published below for the more discerning readership of this blog:

Following the recent revelation that John Fingleton, chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading, earns nearly double the salary of the prime minister, I was interested to read N J D Whittle's criticism (Letters, June 5) of the competition watchdog's costs, structure and performance, particularly in relation to his accusations of a flawed recent investigation into local bus services.

Among the many curious omissions from a 2003 report following a similar taxi market study was the advent of a taxi regulator in Ireland, which I suggested to the OFT would be preferable to the bureaucracy and confusion caused by having over 400 local licensing authorities - and rule books, fare structures, etc - in the UK.

The OFT's report and annexes ran to the best part of one thousand pages and the bibliography included papers on Ireland's taxi market, thus my suspicion was that the omission of any mention of the taxi regulator was for reasons of political expediency.

In particular, much of the legislation pertaining to England and Wales dates from when it was necessary to regulate horse-drawn carriages, but the Westminster Government clearly didn't think a legislative rewrite was a priority in the crowded parliamentary schedule, although at around the same time the Scottish Executive deemed our own legislation in need of review after only twenty years, never mind one hundred and fifty. Curiously, the OFT concluded that the only changes in the law considered necessary were those which the Westminster Government had already proposed by way of a fast-tracked parliamentary order process.

However, a prominent exponent of a taxi regulator for Ireland was the then "chairperson" of Ireland's Competition Authority, John Fingleton. It was therefore slightly ironic that Dr Fingleton was later appointed to head our own OFT.

But I suspect the organisation isn't quite as independent of government as we are led to believe.

The 'Big Society' and the 'House of Lairds' - government for the better off?

An interesting post on the Steamie* by David Maddox about a House of Lairds - a Holyrood House of Lords - and his argument for a revising chamber consisting of knowledgeable experts is compelling.

However, one argument that he employs is perhaps not so convincing: that a House of Lairds would cost little because members would be reimbursed for expenses only. To that extent membership would effectively be limited to the better off with a sufficient public service ethos to provide their time for nothing, although it might also appeal to pensioners and those on benefits (rules permitting).

This brings to mind one aspect of David Cameron's Big Society - possibly because no one knows precisely what it's all about - and that is the fact that (it seems) many of the functions currently undertaken by the state would instead by supplanted by the private sector and charities, with individual volunteers having a significant input.

So while on the one hand some argue that an MP's salary of £65k or so is inadequate to attract talented people because many couldn't afford a drop to an income of this parsimony, on the other we're expected to give up our spare time for nothing to run much of the country, presumably.

Therefore in effect the Big Society would also be skewed towards the better off, pensioners and benefit claimants, with the engine room of the country and its economic prosperity - those in work and on modest incomes - sidelined.

Of course, like the idea that people would find it difficult to get by on a meagre £65k, the 'expenses' provided to members of a House of Lairds would probably represent a nice little earner to a person currently in work and on a very modest income.

But without proper remuneration the ideas of the two Davids seem unlikely to represent much in the way of democratic progress for the mass of middle Britain, or even 'middle Scotland'.

*Is it just me or has the Scotsman not done a very good job in promoting the new-look Steamie, or perhaps not so new now.

Salmond, Scotland and the 'spree killer'

Was I the only one cringing slightly when Alex Salmond offered his condolences to the people of Cumbria at yesterday's FMQs? Of course, this was predictable and no one should quibble with proffering such sentiments. The only problem is that Mr Salmond seemed as concerned about telling everyone about Scotland's role in it rather than confining himself to the condolences bit - perhaps a briefer mention of the country's input would have been more appropriate.

But perhaps the more important question is whether the first minister did this merely to promote Scotland - and by implication his Scottish Government and Nationalism generally - or whether he was maybe trying to emphasise the 'good neighbour' aspect; certainly a far cry from the 'hanging Westminster by a Scottish rope' sort of rhetoric.

Talking of overblown language, one annoying cliché which always arises when anything even remotely like the Whitehaven tragedy occurs is the description "tight-knit community" to describe the locale. Precisely what this means is unclear, since it seems to apply to any settlement of people below a certain undefined level of population. But it certainly conveys the impression that the area in question is fairly civilised in nature. However, as the unravelling story of the killer's background reveals, this seems far from the case here, certain as regards his own milieu, and indeed seems unlikely to genuinely apply to anywhere. Perhaps it just means that everyone knows each other, but even this is more than a tad hyperbolic, although an area like Whitehaven would certainly be less anonymous than a big city.

And the word 'community' itself is of course another which seems more often than not to be applied to a location that is anything but. As in areas where the 'community safety wardens' operate (remember them?), where many ferocious looking people view it as de rigeur to have an equally ferocious looking dog at their side, smokers stand outside pubs glowering at passers-by (wow, thanks to Holyrood for that new dawn in civilisation) and visitors aren't always deemed welcome by the natives - I should know, I live in such an area!

The local government scrutiny/conflict paradox

Further to Tuesday's post about scrutiny and accountability in local government - and the possible implications of this for the pilot elections to NHS boards - Audit Scotland's Best Value report on Dundee City Council said:

Elected member scrutiny of decision-making and performance needs to improve. Some changes to scrutiny arrangements have recently been made, including the establishment of a scrutiny committee during 2009, but these have been limited, with little overall impact. There has been increasing challenge in public meetings, but this has generally been about testing the competency of the new [SNP] administration rather than effective scrutiny of policies and performance.

In effect, then, this seems to be saying that the scrutiny is mainly party political in nature rather than anything more substantive. Thus, in essence, the kind of knockabout politics born of party tribalism and self-interest, most ably demonstrated nationally at FMQs and PMQs.

However, my impression of the council - albeit largely garnered from the sedentary position of an armchair - has for some years been that its business is conducted in a fairly consensual manner, and that the spats which flare up in the press occasionally related mainly to fairly superficial politicking, particularly as regards the opposition blaming the ruling administration for any bad news, and to that extent making political capital. All very Holyrood and Westminster, then, but the fundamental difference is that it seems most council votes are unanimous, hence the politicking seems even more superficial than in our Parliaments. Thus, then, the impression of local government by officialdom, with the duty of elected members largely confined to rubber-stamping the recommendations of council officers. Meanwhile, who runs the council is more about power for the sake of it and personal advancement for councillors, with the extra remuneration from convenorships also probably acting as an additional motivation. This perhaps chimes with another observation by the Audit Commission:

Relationships between members and officers are good, and the administration meets regularly with senior officers to discuss and resolve current issues. Relationships between political groups are, however, poor following the change of administration, and little discussion now takes place outwith formal meetings. Committee discussion is often confrontational. The previous style of politics was very consensual, with party groups working more closely and agreement between them often facilitated by the chief executive.

Which can perhaps be (cynically) construed as saying that previously all the parties agreed with officers, but now only the administration councillors do and, reading both the above quotes together, the dissent from opposition councillors is merely crudely political in nature.

The view from an armchair is perhaps also superficial in nature, but I do not necessarily recognise the Audit Commission's dichotomy between the conduct of council business under the new SNP regime and that of the previous Labour/Lib Dem/Tory alliance, at least as portrayed in the press - there has always been the paradox between the more politically-motivated confrontation as reported and the more substantively consensual approach underneath.

However, to address the Audit Commission's criticism of a "poor relationship" between the political groups, a leading councillor has called for more co-operation and an all-party group of leaders to reach agreement on the financial challenges currently facing the council.

But this all points to a possible paradox - if there's a scrutiny problem identified then it seems unlikely that more co-operation will resolve anything other than perhaps toning down the more overtly political conflict. But this will not help the case of substantive scrutiny.

Of course, proper scrutiny will always involve an element of conflict, but ideally this should be achieved without the seemingly ever present political motivation.

However, perhaps the more fundamental problem in achieving proper scrutiny is that even the most able of councillors are dealing with a multitude of different issues that they cannot hope to properly appreciate and hence effectively scrutinise.

But addressing that issue and ridding local government of party politics seems a forlorn hope.

Healthy for democracy or a political placebo?

(Published as a letter in today's Courier.)

George McLennan justifies the forthcoming election of lay members to the NHS Fife Board on the basis that this will enhance public accountability, as compared to the current system largely comprising of health professionals and administrators.

Of course, the theory is commendable but what will happen in practice?

The most obvious comparison — councillors elected to local authorities — does not augur well.

Very often their function seems to consist largely of rubber stamping the decisions of officials, with any dissent confined to political bickering between the party tribes.

But when all is said and done, the party badge and ideological stance seem largely irrelevant.

Indeed, in recent months both Angus and Dundee City Councils have been criticised by Audit Scotland for the lack of scrutiny from councillors and Tayside Police Board also received adverse criticism from auditors, who claimed that members did not fully understand their role and that scrutiny was weak.

With some irony, board members responded by saying that the audit was not well done and Councillor Bob Myles said, “If things are going right, then why should we be criticising them.”

This seems to miss the point, which is that councillors performing their scrutiny role should not take things at face value.

Let us hope that the new health board members do more than provide a veneer of accountability and exist for something other than the personal kudos and remuneration.