It's do or die for Salmond

It seems that the Holyrood 2011 election campaign has started in earnest, with Alex Salmond's weekend interview in the Sunday Express presumably intended to kick start things before MSPs get back to their think pods after the summer break - well they certainly need something to occupy themselves with between now and next May.

And Mr Salmond has made it clear that he's putting independence for Scotland at the heart of his campaign. With support for going it alone faltering in the wake of the financial crisis, this is clearly a high-risk strategy. But given the SNP's failure to make headway with many of its flagship policies in this parliament, and the fact that the populist spending cupboard will be very definitely bare come next year, the first minister will be keenly aware that he'll need a big idea to persuade voters to decisively back the Nationalist cause.

Equally clear is that there will little in the way of big ideas other than independence, hence the gamble on the SNP's raison d'être - Salmond will not survive a defeat for his party, so it's do or die on the hope that a clarion call for independence will resonate with voters, particularly as the Westminster Coalition's cuts and reform programme is likely to most benefit one or other of the big two parties in Scotland.

And one particular facet of this gamble is outlined in this morning's Scotsman, where it's reported that Mr Salmond is using Australia as an exemplar for Scotland given its resilient economic performance during the world economic storm.

But in view of how two of his former role models in the 'arc of prosperity' were subsequently derided as the 'arc of insolvency', Mr Salmond himself invites ridicule. Perhaps he should have avoided comparisons with individual countries, since his past comparisons did little to enhance his reputation for picking winners, which was already tarnished by his lauding of the global influence of RBS and HBOS just months before they almost collapsed and had to be rescued by UK taxpayers. Picking out Australia ensures that the 'arc of insolvency' is re-exhumed.

Of course, Mr Salmond is well known as a gambling man, and while the odds may be stacked against the nag called independence, he knows it's his only hope, and if it does win the race then it will bankrupt the bookies.

Radio should kill some video stars

Video Killed the Radio Star, sang The Buggles around 30 years ago, alluding to the impact of television and video on the older medium. Of course, although the song's title grossly exaggerated the effect on radio at the time, even a generation on it's clear that reports of its death were greatly exaggerated.

Indeed, although well past the days of eagerly anticipating seeing the video accompaniment to my favourite tunes, I still have a fair idea of what the latest chart hits are, albeit through the relatively passive medium of the car radio and Tay FM or Kingdom FM.

But although I try not to watch too much TV - and thus have been happy enough with the five terrestrial channels - the digital switchover in Dundee has foisted the multi-channel wonders of Freeview onto the Planet Politics HQ, and one or two of these channels seem to play music videos all the time.

Perhaps it's because I grew up in the age when music videos were something of a novelty, but in those days they seemed to add to the enjoyment of the song. However, the videos currently being shown end to end on digital TV seem almost unremittingly awful, as do most of the accompanying tunes. Granted, the two local FM stations seem to play a broader range of music than that currently in the charts, but even the videos to the songs I like seemed to detract from the experience rather than enhance it. Three in particular stick in the mind - Katy Perry's California Gurls, Kylie's All The Lovers and Lady Gaga's Bad Romance - all good tracks, but awful videos in equal measure.

Of course, there's supposed to be a strong element of sexual provocation in those videos, but to me they seemed to titillation what the X Factor is to authenticity and spontaneity. OK, these videos are no doubt technically brilliant - and I suppose many of those from days of yore do seem a bit naff now; no doubt the Buggles video was considered a technical and artistic masterpiece at the time - but they just don't seem to do much to complement the song itself. Naturally we tend to get a bit nostalgic about such things as we get older, but do they still make videos like the Scorpions' Wind of Change, for example - fantastic song, great video, with the two complementing each other nicely, and the video looking unpretentious and inexpensive, by rock star standards at least. Unlike Katy Perry et al, who definitely have tunes tailor made for the radio.

Of course, there are still decent videos being made to accompany clever songs that even us oldies can appreciate, such as Britney's Piece of Me, although I suppose I'm more of an Oh-my-God-that-Britney's-shameless type of person nowadays, as per her mocking lyrics. (I much prefer this faster remix, but the video is slightly truncated.) Or, from a very different music/style/video perspective, what about KT Tunstall's If Only?

However, there was one gem amongst the almost wall-to-wall mediocrity offered by the video channels. That was a recent single from a fresh-faced chap called Professor Green, who teamed up with Lily Allen for a little ditty called Just Be Good To Green. The Professor strikes me as some kind of rapping parody of Eminem - although that's perhaps not the intention - and the track has a great hook, is funny and is defo enhanced by a great video. And although I'm not too keen on the in-yer-face Ms Allen, here she sounds great, looks fantastic* and just how cool is she? Makes Britney seem positively naff.

Of course, Professor Green's song is a rehash of another well known tune from a few years ago which everyone probably recognises, but I had to look it up to remember what it was called. It's Dub Be Good To Me by Beats International, which of course samples the highly distinctive bass line from The Clash's Guns of Brixton. Which was a tune I knew inside out 30 years ago, but Paul Simonon's bass line is lost in the synthesisers of Professors Green's rework, so I completely missed it. But it just goes to show that the old ones are still the best ones!

*In fact I can't believe it's the same person in the video as in the photo above - just shows what an awful hairstyle can do to you, which I wish I'd worked out twenty years ago when I still had a reasonable amount. Of hair, that is.

There's always something fishy going on...

Reading reports such as those about the blockade of a Faroese trawler by angry Scottish fishermen last week always invites a degree of cynicism, and the likes of this statement by a Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association representative often exhibits an air of the holier-than-thou:

Mackerel is Scotland's most valuable stock and as such it has been managed very sustainably. But Faroe have set a quota for themselves three times higher than they would normally receive. We have great concern not only for the stock, but Scottish fishermen are the biggest stakeholders in the mackerel fishery and we have great concern for our future.

Rather than take this kind of thing at face value, I usually tend to wonder what subsidy they're pulling in and what scam they're pulling off. What model of BMW do they drive, how many foreign holidays do they take each year and how much is their house worth?

Of course, more often than not that's probably grossly unfair on most of those involved, but experience very often dictates a very large pinch of salt. And so it's transpired in this particular case, because today's Scotsman reports on a quota-busting scam involving 'black' fish landings worth £15 million.

Granted, the reported case involves only a very small proportion of the fishing industry, but two of the six guilty skippers are directors of the aforementioned Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association - so much for the self-righteousness over quotas, sustainable management and "concern" for the stock.

Reminds me of a letter I had published in the Courier last weekend, which concerned an apparent attempt by a couple of road hauliers to initiate a price-fixing cartel via the pages of the newspaper:

Responding to a previous news article, your correspondent Jim Smith (August 18) seems to be endorsing some sort of price-fixing cartel for the road haulage industry, which would be illegal under competition law.

Indeed, given the fragmented and highly competitive nature of the sector, even if this practice was legal the chances of the industry getting together to form an effective cartel would seem remote. Either way, Mr Smith should perhaps bear in mind that such arrangements are generally concluded secretly, and not initiated by way of publication in the Press!

In any case, Mark Cessford's comments (August 12) about the standardisation of taxi fares - where there are good public interest reasons for government regulation - perhaps illustrate the ultimate futility of what they propose, because if the official tariff is set too high then this will merely lose the trade business, while at the same time attracting more drivers into the sector.

Many in the taxi trade seem to think that a 50% fare rise (say) would mean 50% more takings, but basic economics - if not mere common sense - dictates otherwise, and eventually a rise of that magnitude would just mean drivers spending significantly more time waiting for passengers.

Thus if haulage rates were standardised - officially or otherwise - then there's little to suggest that the industry would be more profitable in the long-term.

Nobel Prize winner states the obvious

It seems that the Nationalists are getting in a bit of a lather about an interview with Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, which was broadcast on an edition of Newsnicht earlier this week.

He was asked by interviewer Gordon Brewer about a footnote (literally) in one of his books, in which he contrasted Norway's oil fund with the UK's approach. Stiglitz claimed that much of the wealth of the Thatcher era was built upon income from North Sea oil revenues, thus in that respect attributing the economic success of that time to government economic policies was illusory. His opinion was that to that extent oil revenues had been squandered, and they should have been invested for the future rather than being spent on current consumption - oil is a finite resource and this asset should have been used to create other assets for future benefit rather than being effectively poured down the drain.

Of course, it's difficult to disagree with his essential point, particularly in view of the current state of the public finances. However, in effect Stiglitz did little more than restate the perennial spend/save conundrum - in this case coming down on the side of the latter - and his insight into this matter hardly seems as devastating as some are making out, apart from the fact that he's a Nobel Prize winner etc, which obviously plays well as far as crude politicking is concerned.

And it's also the case that Stiglitz certainly didn't use the point to provide any kind of nod towards an independent Scotland - he said no more than that the UK's oil revenues had been squandered, and that the SNP's idea of an oil fund was a good idea. If the inability of US senators to differentiate between Scotland and the UK vis-à-vis the Lockerbie bomber's release is anything to go by, then the fact that the SNP advocate an oil fund for Scotland would surely be lost on the American economist.

Moreover, one huge question mark always attaching to the concept of an oil fund is whether in fact an independent Scotland would have been prudent enough to accumulate such an asset. The dominant tax and spend ethos demonstrated by Holyrood - particularly in relation to Labour and the SNP - suggests that this would never have been a foregone conclusion.

Indeed, in an eminently predictable response to the interview, the SNP's Westminster treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie juxtaposed his view of Stiglitz's "devastating attack on the UK's handling of Scotland's oil wealth" and a call for an oil fund to be established "as soon as possible", with an attack on the Coalition's "wrong-headed cuts agenda". Surely a slight contradiction here - wouldn't an oil fund detract from current spending, or would the fund just mean more public borrowing, in effect robbing Peter to pay Paul?

But Gordon Brewer must be a bit miffed that he's not been included in Stiglitz's Nationalist paean - instead his jaw dropped in response to the economist's devastating retorts to his questions, apparently. But a more leading set of questions for the Nationalist cause is difficult to imagine; Brewer will clearly have to try a lot harder if he is to become a Nationalist icon à la Joseph Stiglitz.

New found nationalist icon, of course, because it seems that few - if any - of the Nationalist's now fêting Stiglitz have hitherto paid much attention to his books.

The preamble to Brewer's interview mentioned that the economist's Nobel Prize was awarded for his work on the topic of information asymmetries, but unfortunately his remarks on North Sea oil revenues seemed a bit more mundane than that.

Perhaps his views on asymmetric information in politics would have been more interesting, and certainly an area with copious material!

Vacuity for the future

As is no doubt the case in many local authority areas, in recent months the Dundee press has been full of stuff about the cuts in council budgets that will be required over the next few years.

Unfortunately the acres of newsprint devoted to the issue have generated little in the way of concrete information for the residents of Dundee. Instead there's been the usual fare of political rows, shifting the blame for the cuts to other parties and the predictable platitudes about putting partisan differences aside and working together for the benefit of the city, blah, blah.

But one of the main opposition themes has been trying to pin the ruling SNP administration down on where precisely the cuts will fall, but other than a slight shift away from the council's 'no compulsory redundancy' ethos, little in the way of substantive information has been forthcoming. The likes of this paragraph in the Courier is about as precise as it gets, but clearly it tells us absolutely nothing of import: "Councillor Willie Sawers said he and his colleagues were committed to providing social work and education services. But the council spokesman was unable to say if that meant spending in those departments would be protected from the cuts or not."

But what is equally self-evident is that it's difficult to recall any concrete proposals from opposition councillors as to where the axe might fall - in all likelihood there hasn't been any. Surely serving councillors with collective experience of well over one hundred years (presumably) should be able to proffer something tangible in the way of suggestions.

Of course, proposing specific cuts isn't easy, so instead it's largely been about opposition for the sake of it, with the odd 'feelgood' call for consensus and the likes of a plea for decision making "tempered with concern and compassion" thrown in for good measure. But it's all a bit vacuous, and if the opposition can't propose a credible course of action then it's slightly hypocritical of them to slate the SNP administration for a lack of anything specific. And, of course, the reaction when such measures are announced is eminently predictable.

Perhaps one small example of what they should be looking for can be found in the council logo, which was extended a few years ago to include the phrase "CHANGING FOR THE FUTURE". This addition looks ugly, sounds patronising and is undoubtedly vacuous. And it completely ruined the attractiveness of the existing design featuring the silhouette of the Law hill.

It's perhaps appropriate, then, that a new council body being set up to deal with the budget cuts is called the Changing for the Future board.

Hopefully the board's work will demonstrate more substance than its title, but the debate thus far has not been particularly encouraging.

Tax breaks and politicking

(Published as a letter in this morning's Herald.)

Alex Orr's effective claim (August 19) that a lack of tax breaks led to the demise of Dundee-based computer games company Realtime Worlds - and, indeed, that 3,550 UK jobs depend on their introduction - surely amounts to little more than crude partisanship.

Informed opinion suggests that the immediate cause of the business's demise was the failure of its latest games title APB, and that the future tax relief which had been introduced in the dying days of Westminster's Labour Government was of little relevance.

While tax breaks could of course be critical to the future of a company in a financially marginal position, and may help domestic firms compete with foreign competitors subject to more favourable fiscal regimes, on the other hand propping up fundamentally unsound businesses in this manner hardly seems the best way to encourage what is a highly competitive and entrepreneurial sector.

Thus Realtime Worlds' past success was essentially born of the commercial success of a handful of big-selling products, whereas its more recent problems were caused by the failure of a game critical to its financial future.

Mr Orr's letter seems symptomatic of the attempts by Labour and the SNP to outbid each other on tax breaks for the computer games industry in the run up to the Westminster elections in Dundee's marginal seats last May.

But when considering the decision of the Coalition Government to subsequently abandon the tax breaks, it's perhaps instructive that neither the Conservatives nor Lib Dems have much to gain from electoral bribes in Dundee.

(The newspaper made a few minor amendments to the above text, including the omission of the words "electoral bribe" in the final sentence. Indeed, that probably wasn't the best phrase to use, since it normally refers to something proffered directly to voters. However, the words were meant to convey the idea that the tax breaks were intended to help the fortunes of Dundee generally via the games sector in the city, and to that extent voters would view politicians as standing up for Dundee, hence the tax reliefs would represent an indirect electoral bribe.)

Megrahi - it's politics as usual

It's one year since the Lockerbie bomber returned to a hero's welcome in Tripoli, and I still don't have any strong views either way on the original decision to release al-Megrahi from prison on compassionate grounds, although the possibility of compelling him to stay in Scotland to see out his final days/weeks/months/years was one avenue which never seemed properly explored, despite the arguments to the contrary at the time.

Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing and all that, and to that extent al-Megrahi's continued survival until who-knows-when has certainly caused political difficulties for Kenny MacAskill and the SNP Government.

Which is perhaps the salient point - the whole thing is so wrapped up in politics that it's difficult to view the issue dispassionately, and it's only the political factor and the high profile nature of the case that's kept it in the headlines. Otherwise the case would represent nothing other than workaday politics, but one involving a difficult judgement call, and thus perhaps not a decision on which Kenny MacAskill's abilities should be judged definitively. If the compassionate release had involved any of the vast majority of other convicted criminals then it would no doubt have been largely forgotten about by now.

Thus this extraordinary case has in essence always involved little more than ordinary politics to ensure its high profile. First off, of course, was Kenny MacAskill's geopolitical grandstanding - in what was supposedly a quasi-judicial decision - and his portrayal of Scotland as the world epicentre of some kind of superior moral order. All of which, of course, was underlined by the more recent claim that the justice secretary was bound by precedent on the matter and thus had no option but to release al-Megrahi, effectively rendering the whole thing a charade.

Then there's the distinctly imprecise and opaque nature of the supposed expert evidence relied upon by Mr MacAskill in reaching his decision, and also that pertaining to the subsequent ludicrous 'supervision' by a Scottish local authority, neither of which has been released by the Scottish Government. This decision is usually defended on the grounds of patient confidentiality, which in the context is, of course, laughable. And criticism regarding al-Megrahi's life expectancy is often countered by claiming that being at home with his family would probably lengthen his life, thus shouldn't this factor have been included in the expert foresight rather than being used to defend against attacks based on hindsight?

Subsequent to the decision itself, of course, the kneejerk largely political opposition has kept the issue at the forefront of Scottish politics, with the largely partisan nature of the whole debacle neatly encapsulated by a Holyrood justice committee report which split along party lines.

All of which is, naturally, dutifully reported by a cynical media, ever keen to pick holes and find division, which may be conducive to selling newspapers, but also helps perpetuate and exacerbate the equally cynical political process.

Which in turn was neatly demonstrated yesterday by the release of an SNP poll that clearly asked the questions which it knew would engender a favourable response - whether the Scottish Government should have decided the question of al-Megrahi's release rather than Westminster, and whether Scottish ministers should have complied with the US Senate Foreign Affairs Committee's request to travel to the USA to answer questions - while conveniently sidestepping public opinion on al-Megrahi's release per se.

Of course, those supposedly outside crude party politics have also had their say on the matter as well, and Cardinal Keith O'Brien's lecturing of American politicians on justice and compassion is a prominent case in point. But as Courier columnist John J Marshall ironically points out, the cardinal is merely being consistent, because his church's "interpretation of justice is to ignore the victims while showing pathological concern for the perpetrators of certain evil acts", namely the "countless numbers of children across the world" who were routinely "raped, abused and generally terrorised by depraved people posing as servants of God". And to that extent JJM also points out the irony of Mr O'Brien's exhortation to the Senate committee to "direct their gaze inwards" and consider the failings of their own country rather than scrutinising the working of the Scottish justice system.

Indeed, and while the ludicrous posturings of the senators have provided an easy target for anyone on this side of the Atlantic aside from the most partisan, the copious criticism emanating from Scotland in the other direction perhaps represents the greatest irony of all - are the slightly comical senators any more partisan, cynical and ill-informed than our own domestic politicians?

The hypocrisy, grandstanding and politicking surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber would suggest not. This, together with the general air of cynicism surrounding the decision and the one year aftermath confirm that the al-Megrahi affair represents little more than politics as usual, a difficult decision made nigh near impossible by self-evident shortcomings in so many spheres of public life.

Picking winners...or losers?

My vague understanding of government industrial policy is that intervention in markets is undertaken to support struggling businesses, or perhaps nascent, developing ones, but not those which are comercially successful. Thus the pejorative phrase often used by critics of interventionist governments in this context - "picking winners" - should perhaps be more accurately replaced by "propping up losers".

However, to that extent a media and political campaign in Dundee to secure tax breaks for the computer games industry seemed slightly misplaced. Why would this sector - posited as a huge success story for the city - require particular government assistance? Of course, one significant activity of private sector businesses is to lobby politicians and governments for favourable treatment, whether or not there may be any objective case for this - simple profit maximisation is, of course, the implicit if not explicit rationale - therefore the Dundee campaign was unremarkable. And the business lobby will always be able to point to reasons - such as government support offered to competitors in overseas jurisdictions - as to why they should be treated favourably, with a view to creating a level playing field.

What was perhaps noteworthy locally, however, was the support of local politicians and also the media insofar as it provided plenty of publicity for the cause. Equally, the campaign was also bound up in local political rivalries, with both the SNP and Labour competing to make the case for tax breaks, and the finely balanced Dundee battlegrounds in the Westminster elections earlier this year provided the obvious political imperative to be seen to be supporting jobs and investment in the city. And although Labour no doubt secured a few votes by virtue of its Westminster Government promising tax breaks in the run up to the election, the coalition which took the reins of power in May decided not to go ahead with this support, but of course neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems have much to gain in terms of electoral bribes in Dundee.

However, the puzzle regarding why the computer games success story should require particular help was partly answered with yesterday's news that this 'winner' in Dundee is in fact a bit of a loser. Realtime Worlds, a major player in the sector, has gone into administration, with hundreds of jobs under threat. And while its difficulties are no doubt to a large extent related to the relative failure of its latest All Points Bulletin games title, it seems obvious that the line the public were being fed about the strength of the sector in Dundee was slightly misleading.

Thus were politicians lobbying on behalf of the sector while being kept in the dark about the fact that Realtime Worlds was teetering on the brink financially? Or, on the other hand, were the politicians aware of this and to that extent misleading the public generally and taxpayers in particular about what they were proposing on our behalf?

Of course, the reaction of both Labour and the SNP is eminently predictable, but what is equally predictable - in these days of the triumph of political and corporate spin over substance - is that we the public won't be told all the facts, and will instead be afforded the usual mushroom treatment.

So no change there then.

Stuff your silly socialist posters!

Some silly socialists in Dundee have festooned parts of my neighbourhood with lots of those little posters that are often most people’s only contact with the hard left. These particular ones are typical of the genre – “RIGHT TO WORK”, “STUFF YOUR TORY CUTS”; you get the idea.

Twenty years ago I would have been sympathetic to such a cause. Although never one to attend meetings or march on demonstrations, I was certainly with them in spirit, if not in body.

Of course, like most civilised people I don’t relish the idea of spending cuts or job losses, but these days the main resonance of such posters for me is that they’ve made an already down at heel area look even more unattractive. Perhaps the people who plastered these posters here, there and everywhere are likes pigs in pooh with this kind of thing, or after defacing the selected area they retire to their nice middle class estates. These areas look pretty awful as it is, so a few more tatty posters won’t make much difference, is perhaps what they think.

By coincidence the posters appeared at about the same time as the death of Jimmy Reid was announced. This also brought back memories, for at one time Reid was my political hero: hugely principled, highly articulate and with a charisma and character that other left wing giants of that era – such as the rather austere and unsmiling Arthur Scargill – couldn’t hope to match. And Jimmy Reid did something that other union supremos could only dream of – he led a principled and disciplined fight against the proposed Upper Clyde Shipbuilders closure, and actually won!

Reading the panegyrics to Reid and being reacquainted with the likes of his legendary rectorial address to Glasgow University stirred my latent humanitarian, philanthropic and egalitarian idealism, but such thoughts were, as usual, soon dissipated by my now more pragmatic and unfortunately cynical worldview.

Of course, Reid himself compromised and adopted a more realistic stance, abandoning the Communist Party of Great Britain in favour of Labour, and subsequently defecting to the SNP cause in response to the rightward swing of Blair and new Labour.

Which to some extent is to be admired; realism and compromise are perhaps preferable to unachievable dogma-based ideals.

But Reid’s shift in position also underlines the hopelessness of much of the grand rhetoric of the likes of his Glasgow University address. Of course, to a large extent even the background to the UCS confrontation – as outlined by Scotland on Sunday’s Gerald Warner – reveals Scotland’s communitarianism to be something of a myth; the unions can revert to shafting their fellow workers in the labour market just as businesses in supposedly free markets will at times collude to screw the public, if it suits their purpose.

And, as Alan Cochrane pointed out in the Telegraph last week, Jimmy Reid’s conversion to the Scottish Nationalist cause was somewhat apostatical for someone professing to be an internationalist. Moreover, although the SNP is probably ideologically nearer to his socialist ideal than recent incarnations of the Labour party, on the other hand the Nationalists are a political hotchpotch which gets in hock to Brian Souter to help smooth the path to power, while the realpolitik of office means cosying up to the likes of Donald Trump.

Indeed, it should be recalled that the sometimes Reid-esque SNP leader spoke on behalf of the Scottish people when he said that we “didn’t mind” the economics of Thatcherism.

Thus Scottish people seem almost as likely as the English to be mortgaged up to the hilt to acquire their own little piece of real estate, to flash the plastic for that iPod or holiday in the sun, or splash the cash for a shiny new car or kitchen. Capitalism and free markets are fine when it suits, and while perhaps as a nation we’re slightly more sympathetic to Jimmy Reid’s ideals than the uncompassionate Americans, let’s not kid ourselves.

Surely we are sceptical about unalloyed capitalism and free markets, but on the other hand history demonstrates that perhaps Scots consider that both socialist and nationalist utopias would merely replace the parcel of rogues shafting the multitudes.

Thus the proof of the political pudding is in the eating, and these days my personal experience of progressive politics is often more about the couldn’t care less attitude of the flyposters in Dundee. Or the shouting and swearing, fag ends and blocked pavements associated with the smoking ban which, of course, wouldn’t be tolerated by its middle-class architects if it was foisted onto their doorsteps, but is instead posited as a huge advance in civilisation.

Of course, idealism will not die with Jimmy Reid, but as is so often the case the mere stay of exectution represented by the UCS victory, subsequent political history and his own personal compromises all ably demonstrate the ultimate futility of idealism and, as a corollary, the imperative of realism.

(With some irony the ‘Right to Work’ posters in the photograph have been plastered over another unsightly gift to Dundonians from people who very probably wouldn’t tolerate it if on their doorsteps – the City Council’s illuminated roadside advertising hoardings, here shown near a slightly misty early morning Dens Park.)

No strict dichotomy between compassion and retribution

The continuing debate on the Megrahi affair - sure to intensify this week in view of Friday's anniversary of his release - seems to assume that punishment in the criminal justice system comes down to a choice between retribution and vengeance (portrayed by many as the rationale behind the US approach) on the one hand, and mercy and compassion on the other (very often posited as the cornerstone of Scotland's system).

These crude alternatives may suit those with a political agenda of denigrating the USA while at the same time elevating Scotland to the status of some kind of world moral superpower, but the dichotomy is surely a false one. Of course, in recent days this kind of evaluation of the two country's justice systems has been most prominently proffered by Cardinal O'Brien, but a letter in today's Herald says:

I very much doubt if lay Catholics stand four-square behind the Cardinal on the Megrahi affair or the quality of Scottish justice. Most are lower-income citizens in communities sometimes scarred by violent crime. Opinion polls regularly show this section of the community feels the scales are tilted too much on behalf of the violent offender rather than his or her victims.

Indeed, and in particular the concept of punishment can extend to ideas of deterrence and even rehabilitation without encompassing superficial notions of retribution, and there's also justice for the victim to consider, which needn't be grounded in vengeance per se.

That's not to say that it was wrong to release Megrahi - although the suggested choice between compassion and retribution in his particular case seems confused by the widespread assumption that at best his conviction was unsafe, or at worst he's wholly innocent - but reductionist portrayals of complex principles of crime and justice emanating from crude political and national animosities do nothing to illuminate the debate.

DC Thomson's newspapers now partly 'offline'?

For those interested in the online newspaper paywall debate and News International's decision to charge for access to the Times and Sunday Times, recent developments in the DC Thomson stable do not augur well for free content in the Scottish context.

Although the online content of DCT's more long-standing newspapers has always been fairly limited - generally half a dozen or so of the major news articles and the letters page - two of its titles have more or less totally discontinued their internet presence. Today the Sunday Post has been reduced to brief 'tasters' of the major news and sport pieces, and the rest of the site is essentially permanent information about the title such as contact details.

Likewise, Dundee's Evening Telegraph has for the past week or two carried only brief tasters for its major stories. Thus two of DCT's three newspaper titles have effectively disappeared from the internet.

Interestingly, however, the Courier has recently launched a shiny new website, and although its content is still fairly limited it certainly seems to have more material overall, but since it can take well over a minute to load the frontpage on my netbook to that extent it represents a retrograde step for me. And the archive from the old site seems to have disappeared as well, which is not good news for a Dundee-based blogger!

Thus for web watchers DCT's recent online moves represent something of a paradox, but in the round it doesn't seem encouraging news for those seeking free online content. And there's not even a sniff of a paywall, so for two of DCT's titles at least it seems to be a case of buying the newspaper or nothing.

Of course, the publishing group's online presence had always seemed very tentative even compared to many very small and local newspaper titles, and thus its recent retreat may not be particularly instructive as regards Scotland as a whole. But perhaps internet history will judge DCT's online strategy to have been more commercially astute than newspaper publishing generally.

My fridge magnet shame!

It was with increasing horror that I read the latest offering from Courier columnist Jim Crumley. Clearly perturbed by the recent media approach to the news that an adult puffin in Shetland had been caught on webcam inflicting GBH on a wee fluffy baby one - and was thus at the very least deserving of having an ASBO slapped on it - the paper's long serving nature/conservation writer excoriated the "Senseless thuggery among puffins is latest horror story of reality TV"-ness of it all.

Nature should neither be for the elite nor dumbed down excessively, so I can see both sides of the argument, but then Mr Crumley seemed to get personal. "Bloggers are going ballistic, the way bloggers do," he said. Ouch.

But there was worse to come. He continued critically, "Puffins after all, are supposed to be cute, clownish, and safe for children to have as cuddly toys and adults to magnetise to their fridge doors."

I have one such magnet, which has adorned my fridge door for so long - the best part of twenty years - that I never really think about it now. But I thought about it last week because, as the photo shows, my fridge magnet depicts the aforementioned puffin, self-evidently in a clownish and caricatured manner which would probably not find favour with Mr Crumley!

Which is clearly an approach to wildlife anathema to him, and he equates "society's bizarre preoccupation with public mourning" to the "world of wildlife celebrity" and the ASBO puffin, not to mention the "bout of frenzied internet mourning" attaching to the news earlier this summer that one of the Loch of the Lowes ospreys looked like it had popped its clogs.

The comparison with the celebrity culture is certainly valid and interesting. Moreover, it's also a legitimate perspective from which to criticise our contemporary relationship with nature. But as someone who enjoys wildlife primarily from an armchair - a bit like my politics - I also take issue with some of the more specific points raised by Mr Crumley.

Of course, there's the usual element of, ahem, blogger paranoia on my part: "Bloggers are going ballistic, the way bloggers do", indeed! But in view of his discriminating approach to the way we enjoy nature, it's perhaps surprising that Mr Crumley needs the dangers of stereotyping pointed out to him. And what's this, where he sets out his stall, for example?

...the fad among sundry pillars of the conservation establishment for thrusting cameras into the nests of unsuspecting birds plumbs the depths of the lowest common denominator to be found among the gawping classes, and transports blameless creatures like ospreys, sea eagles, peregrine falcons and puffins into the flaky world of Big Brother.

Thus I wonder what Mr Crumley thinks qualifies as "going ballistic"? And are the birds the victims that he seems to portray them as (gosh, isn't this victimhood thing yet another of "society's bizarre preoccupations"?) assuming that the human intrusion does them no harm? What's worse, those with a casual interest in nature watching birds via a webcam, ringers trapping birds for scientific research or even twitchers harassing rare migrants?

Mr Crumley clearly likes his nature "red in tooth and claw", and those engaging with it should also experience it in its rawest form as well: "Why do some of us watch webcam footage of a puffin on a computer screen from dawn till dusk instead of walking a clifftop somewhere and watching real puffins be real puffins?"

Well perhaps for the same reason that the author writes about subjects such as football and politics rather than kicking a ball round the park or standing for elected office. Indeed, it would be great to live in the middle of nowhere making a living out of writing about nature and experiencing it at first hand - as Mr Crumley seems to do - but people like myself live in the middle of towns and cities and have to earn a living in a less agreeable occupation. Does that disqualify us from engaging with wildlife on a casual basis, or should we confine ourselves to the ubiquitous herring gulls and feral pigeons in central Dundee, and get excited with the occasional lesser black-backed gull or have a wander up the Law for the odd glimpse of more exotic species such as the willow warbler or jay?

He also belittles the "highly selective nature of our webcam obsessions", but from someone who tends to write articles about more exciting birds such as eagles, ospreys and swans rather than the likes of the diminutive dunnock or the boring blackbird, this seems a bit rich. And it surely ill behoves someone who writes such specialist books as "Waters of the Wild Swan" and "Badgers on the Highland Edge" to criticise others as obsessives.

All this, together with "the whole people-are-too-stupid-for-words approach of Springwatch Syndrome", Mr Crumley says is "symptomatic of a conservation industry that has lost touch with nature".

Or perhaps it's just a case of utilising modern technology to bring nature closer to people who would otherwise be unable or even unwilling to engage with it, and doing so on various levels that might not appeal to experts like Mr Crumley.

Of course, if he wants to crawl around on his hands and knees on some freezing winter afternoon trying to glimpse wildfowl on a Highland loch, then if that cooks his goose it's fine by me. But surely that shouldn't stop others experiencing wildlife by way of other, less ascetic approaches, and with different levels of knowledge.

And I suspect that if his slightly elitist approach to appreciating nature was taken to its logical conclusion then Mr Crumley would be selling significantly fewer books, and his Courier column would certainly have to go!

As a political cynic I can certainly sympathise with his criticism of Scottish National Heritage as the "ponderous bureaucracy that professional conservation has become", but there's surely a certain irony in Mr Crumley slamming the organisation for "breathtaking arrogance"? And while there's clearly an element of dumbing down in play here, there's presumably a difference between that and making nature widely accessible?

But the fridge magnet is staying. I can just be thankful that Jim Crumley will never see the pictures of the mallards in my bathroom!

The myth of zero tolerance

It appears that the 'travellers' who were illegally encamped in Dundee have upped sticks, leaving behind "huge mounds of rubbish, dog faeces and rubble", although where they might reappear next is anyone's guess.

Both the Courier and the Evening Telegraph have carried uncharacteristically strong-worded leader columns on the subject this week; if not uncharacteristic in relation to the actions of the travellers then perhaps so regarding the reaction of the authorities to the issue. Dundee's morning paper suggests the powers that be may just be hoping that the problem will dissipate along with the summer weather, but slams their "rather spineless attitude". Meanwhile, the city's evening paper says: "They cower in the corner, paralysed by political correctness, and do nothing. Absolutely nothing." Well said those newspapers!

On a slightly different tack, both papers claim that the whole thing is characterised by double standards. The Courier asks, "Would any other group in society be treated so leniently?" The Evening Telegraph says: "This is nothing short of rank hypocrisy given the fact that anyone else who dumped a pile of mess outside their front door, or parked on double yellow lines, would feel the force of the law."

Well perhaps this is the case in the world inhabited by newspaper leader writers, but the reality for others is perhaps slightly different, and the suggested ethos of zero tolerance is largely a myth; indeed, perhaps a bit like the oft-heard claim that while thieves and burglars are getting off scot-free, you only have to drive at 32 mph in a 30 mph zone and a hefty fine will soon be troubling your letterbox.

Of course, the reality is that the chances of a speeding motorist being penalised are remote, and indeed the authorities seem to tacitly endorse speeding, for example by highlighting that 'safety' cameras are only located on roads with a history of accidents.

As for parking on double yellow lines, again motorists have to be unfortunate to be ticketed for this; indeed, in Dundee and probably the vast majority of other towns and cities, motorists are only very exceptionally brought to book outside the working hours of parking attendants.

And, in particular, the dumping of a pile of mess outside someone's front door isn't that unusual in certain areas, and the chances of anyone being taken to task for this are probably pretty remote, although no doubt things are different in the worlds inhabited by politicians, senior police officers and indeed newspaper leader writers.

As stated here in Tuesday's post on the subject of travellers and on numerous other occasions, their attitude surely isn't too dissimilar to that of T in the Park 'revellers', but all three of the groups mentioned in the previous paragraph are usually full of praise for the Balado rabble, so why pick on the travellers? Well, to repeat what I said previously, it's just another facet of nimbyism - different standards for different areas and their inhabitants.

Indeed, right on cue and in a further development in NHS Tayside's blur the boundaries crusade against smoking, it seems that Dundee City Council enforcement officers have handed out one fixed-penalty notice to someone who dropped a cigarette end at Ninewells Hospital.

The Courier's headline is the nicely ironic "Ninewells anti-smoking officers kick butt", with a nice pun to boot. But, on a more serious note, this again highlights the hypocrisy of the authorities in view of the thousands of fag ends deposited outside Dundee pubs every weekend.

But whether this is due to gesture politics/policing, the pet priorities of councillors and politicians or simple middle-class nimbyism, there's no doubting the double standards, and this kind of thing only fosters the myth of zero tolerance, whereas the reality is nearer to zero enforcement.

You can just hear them now: you only have to drop a fag end and you're slapped with a £50 fine.

We can butt hope!

It's déjà vu all over again...and again etc

A touch of the 'déjà vu all over again' tautology from Dundee councillor (and blogger!) Fraser Macpherson regarding the problem of illegal encampments set up by, er, 'travellers'* in the city, with the inevitable complaints and mess providing acres of copy for the Dundee press in recent weeks. Mr Macpherson says, regarding the fact that once the travellers are evicted from one site they just move on elsewhere and the whole rigmarole begins again: "Clearly there is a degree of déjà vu here as it is like the Riverside Business Park all over again."

Indeed. And that's not the only element of déjà vu surrounding the matter, because the same issues arise in different regional editions of the Courier. For example, in recent weeks its website has carried similar articles from Glenrothes in Fife, Fetteresso in the Mearns, and Montrose and Barry in Angus. Last night's STV News also featured a news item about the problem in Stonehaven.

The third aspect of déjà vu is that these issues come up every summer and then fade away again as the colder months arrive. Last but not least, the response from councillors and the powers that be seems to be the same every time the issue comes round. They'll see what can be done to move them on, they'll get the council's 'rapid response team' out to clean up the mess, the travellers should really use the official sites provided, blah, blah.

Of course, the cumbersome legal process involved in moving the travellers on seems to be an issue which could be addressed nationally, as is the fact that they will merely move on elsewhere and leave a similar mess because of a lack of deterrent.

Equally self-evident, however, is that this issue has huge implications in terms of political correctness, thus the likelihood of any sort of consensus to deal with it seems highly unlikely. Indeed, the dominant ethos is perhaps summed up nicely by one of the latest Courier articles about the Dundee situation, which tells how an "outreach group" took some doughnuts to the city's much maligned travellers, saying: "We felt bad for them and decided to go down to show some solidarity and some love, and basically welcome them to Dundee to show them that we care. Part of the job is to contact those who have been socially excluded."

Doughnuts indeed. But perhaps if the travellers showed a bit more concern for their surroundings then they wouldn't be socially excluded.

And, of course, the mess left by the travellers is little more than a version of that which can be witnessed in the aftermath of large entertainment events such as T in the Park. Thus since the politicians and officialdom are usually full of praise for the behaviour of revellers in such circumstances, then it's a bit hypocritical to target the travellers, but presumably this is just another facet of political nimbyism rather than any wider concern for the environment.

*It's interesting to compare some of the reporting and comments with the examples in this council planning document of what is considered racist under the Race Relations Act 1976 (see the second of the three headings at the bottom of page two - 'applying pressure to discriminate').

Legitimate point, insensitive timing

Last weekend's Sunday Post splashed with a story about a "furious political row" concerning the deaths of the three Riggi children in Edinburgh. Labour MSP Duncan McNeil claimed that the children's home schooling had left them vulnerable, and he slammed the Scottish Government for inaction on this issue. Although the home schooling aspect of the Riggi family was probably something of an elephant in the room in terms of their undoubtedly unusual circumstances, McNeil's intervention so soon after the deaths and the charge of murder levelled at the children's mother seemed so obviously crass I didn't even read past the first handful of paragraphs in the Post's article.

And, of course, politically the MSP's statement was an open goal for SNP Government. Cue accusations of point scoring and making political capital out of the tragedy, and a spokesman for education secretary Mike Russell said: "At such an early stage of this very distressing case, Mr McNeil’s remarks seeking to make wider points about home-schooling are inappropriate and unacceptable."

However, having now read the full story it does seem that Duncan McNeil had a point of sorts. Six months ago he had raised the issue of home schooling with schools minister Keith Brown, and a review in England and Wales resulted in steps being taken currently to tighten up regulation on fears that children being taught at home may be vulnerable because they are hidden from the authorities and their parents largely unaccountable. The Post's report says: The review found home-schooled children in England were twice as likely to be known by social services, and four times more likely as young adults to be out of work, education or training.

Therefore it's perhaps understandable that Duncan McNeil was quick of the blocks when he realised that the Riggi children had been home-schooled, but it's now the case that in athletics even one false start results in disqualification. His point is legitimate, but his timing insensitive, and a more timeous and measured intervention would have raised his stock, as opposed to last weekend's political faux pas.

Hypocritcal attitude to speeding hypocrisy

In an interview with the Telegraph, one of the UK's longest-serving chief constables accuses middle class motorists of "hypocrisy", and says: "Speeding is middle-class anti-social behaviour. People think we should be able to get away with it. They wouldn’t tolerate lawbreaking by somebody else but they do it themselves without thinking."

While there is some merit in that view, on the other hand policing is all about exercising discretion as regards the enforcement of minor lawbreaking. Perhaps the phrase 'turning a blind eye' can be viewed as slightly critical of that approach, and 'a nod and a wink' is more pejorative still, but the fact is that the vast majority of minor motoring offences go unpunished. And it's probably also true to say that police ignore the vast majority of such offences that they witness - it's not just about lack of resources - so the charge of hypocrisy from Julie Spence, outgoing chief of Cambridgeshire Police, is a bit rich.

Also, with the advent of more automated - and thus hugely more effective - methods of speed limit enforcement, the culture of turning a blind eye has become more institutionalised. In response to the complaints from these middle class "hypocrites" about being 'caught out' by speed cameras, the authorities have gone out of their way to accommodate them. Thus a whole industry has grown up with the aim of avoiding speed enforcement, from brightly coloured cameras to the official publication of their locations, with the latter extended by the private sector in the form of things like road atlases and electronic navigation equipment.

Of course, the superficial aim of all this is to get drivers to slow down for the speed cameras - and from the speeding drivers' perspective, to avoid being 'caught out' - and to an extent that's clearly laudable. But this ignores the bigger picture and the consequence of the ethos created, which is essentially selective speed enforcement, and tacit endorsement of speeding as corollary.

As argued here previously, if the official approach to speed enforcement was applied to other aspects of criminality then there would be a public and political outcry. Hence the official stance on speeding is hypocritical, and any official criticism of driver hypocrisy merely underlines that.

Health authority's unhealthy attitude to rules

While we're all familiar with the idea of a more regulated society, one particular aspect of the issue is that the rules in question are often more honoured in the breach than the observance.

For example, NHS Tayside introduced a total ban on smoking at all of its sites, and NHS Grampian is currently seeking to implement a similar scheme. However, despite the fact that the Tayside ban has been in place for over four years, the prohibition is still routinely ignored, and this week a Dundee woman celebrated her 50th birthday by being photographed by the local press flouting the ban. The problem is that the measure isn't really a ban at all, because there are no enforcement options available, hence it's a mere aspiration or policy, the latter perhaps sounding more official. And while disciplinary action can be taken against staff for ignoring the ban, management say that this hasn't been necessary, but the Evening Telegraph says that it observed several members of staff smoking while visiting Ninewells Hospital.

Thus this practice of having rules which aren't really rules at all surely doesn't help encourage an ethos of adhering to the law, which is perhaps one reason why we have in general become a more rules-based society while at the same time a less law-abiding one.

Of course, the 'ban' outlined above only refers to open spaces - such as car parks - in the health authority's grounds, because enclosed public spaces are covered by the Scottish Government's smoking ban. Hence NHS Tayside is launching a 12-month pilot with Dundee City Council and bringing enforcement officers to Ninewells. The Courier says:

They will use persuasion and the threat of spot fines, with NHS Tayside saying their "key role" is to remind all site users that smoking is not permitted in the grounds. Officers will encourage those wishing to stop smoking and direct them to NHS Tayside smoking cessation services.

But the first sentence above merely further confuses the issue, because the spot fines won't apply to the grounds per se, only to enclosed spaces, where there's no suggestion that smoking is a particular problem. Thus the main relevance relates to the second sentence above, and therefore the role of the council's enforcement officers seems largely to replace the so-called smoking "clipe" employed by the health authority, who left and apparently can't be replaced because no one wants the job. But who can't really have been much of a "clipe" anyway, in view of the foregoing.

Meanwhile, and on a slightly more serious note, the Courier also reports that "less than five [sic] of a staggering 2667 assaults on NHS staff in Tayside have been reported to police in the last three years", this despite a "very strict zero tolerance policy to any kind of violence, both physical and verbal, against any member of our staff, patients or visitors which we vigorously enforce".

Thus clearly this vigorously enforced zero tolerance policy in reality seems more like one of zero enforcement, and hence there is effectively no real law against assaulting NHS staff. Which is probably one of the issues that should have been addressed rather than the Scottish Government's proposal for minimum alcohol prices, which would avoid these more direct issues and would be of only marginal benefit.

But the idea of a more regulated society is to some extent a myth, because existing rules are often largely ignored, new rules can represent little more than aspirational posturing, while the likes of NHS Tayside's approach serves to further cloud the issue and ultimately undermine the efficacy of rules generally.

Salmond in the rough, but not out of bounds

Alex Salmond is in trouble for telling golf magazine Bunkered that he took the Scottish Government's cabinet to the Highlands so he could play the world-famous Royal Dornoch golf course. The first minister has been taking his ministers on a Scotland-wide tour to bring democracy closer to the people and all that malarkey, but after the standard political spiel justifying the visit to the town of Dornoch, Mr Salmond added: "Having said all that, the fact that I've never played Royal Dornoch crept into the equation! As someone who has played hundreds of Scottish courses, I'll be putting that right."

The opposition overreaction is as usual eminently predictable, and Highlands and Islands MSP Peter Peacock describes the disclosure as an "extraordinary admission".

It's surely nothing of the kind. Instead it perhaps demonstrates that Mr Salmond is human after all, is on this occasion refreshingly honest and that he also has a sense of humour.

What is perhaps more worthy of criticism is the wasteful and gimmicky nature of the cabinet's tour - does it really make any difference to the vast majority of the population where the cabinet meets?

But, by the same token, if the meeting had taken place in a Highland village other than Dornoch then the democratic ideal would have neither been enhanced nor defeated, so why not take advantage of the situation to get in a round of golf?

This silly season story may not represent a straight drive up the fairway for the first minister, but it surely doesn't even put him in the political bunker, never mind out of bounds.

Spot the politics...

...is often an interesting game, particularly when the person under scrutiny proffers extreme or unconventional views. Thus to a recent letter in the Courier, which isn't perhaps over-radical by internet standards, but is probably so in the context of that newspaper's correspondence section:

When history writes about the worst crime in Scotland, our kids and grandchildren will be able to say, "I was there!"

Foreign nationals and our own collaborating Scottish Government are setting out to do what even Adolf Hitler was unable to fulfil — the subjugation of the Scottish people and rape of the Scottish countryside, all under the name of green energy. [...]

At the end of the day we have foreign-owned companies, raping our landscape with foreign-owned turbines, taking Scottish-generated power away through foreign-owned cables. [...]

Thus it's probably not sticking your neck out to conclude that the writer isn't a Green Party supporter, nor indeed particularly sympathetic to the environmental lobby generally.

And the pejorative reference to the Scottish Government presumably rules out the SNP as well.

There's little evidence to suggest that the writer might support any of the other main parties in Scotland, but the early reference to "foreign nationals" and the three negative references in the final paragraph to "foreign-owned" might suggest something other than the SNP's form of 'civic-nationalism', despite the writer's obvious nationalist sympathies.

Thus perhaps leaning towards UKIP or even the BNP? Of course, the emphasis on Scotland would seem to rule that out as well.

Indeed, the references to the "worst crime in Scotland", "subjugation of the Scottish people" and "rape of the Scottish countryside" are perhaps redolent of the kind of more radical nationalism espoused on the internet by those popularly termed 'cybernats', as is the description "taking Scottish-generated power away".

Of course, the problem with the cybernat - or the non-digital equivalent! - theory is that that particular group tends to support the SNP, whereas the letter writer refers to the "collaborating Scottish Government", which sounds like he would perhaps characterise even Salmond & Co as 'Quislings' and 'traitors'.

Thus my conclusion is that the Courier's correspondent is some kind of extreme Scottish nationalist, who probably views the contemporary SNP as having sold out.

Of course, the politics of individual people quite often doesn't lend itself to crude characterisations and party labels, thus my analysis above is quite possibly totally off beam, but I'll be very brave and reiterate that he's surely not a green!

PPP - Never, Never Gonna Give You Up

The Scottish Futures Trust was the SNP's intended route to the Holy Grail of low cost public infrastructure investment funding in the wake of the costly PFI and PPP disasters utilised by previous administrations.

Of course, the SFT has long been the public financing dog that didn't bark, and as a result investment in infrastructure building such as schools has largely dried up, while the SFT's initial aims seemed rooted in Nationalist idealism rather than financial realism.

And today the Herald reports that Barry White, chief executive of the SFT, has admitted that PPP shouldn't be ruled out and said:

We are absolutely ecumenical about the funding mechanisms that are used and it is not our role to have an ideological opposition to particular schemes. PPP schemes brought a number of benefits by transferring risk to the private sector and by allowing more schools to be built quicker than would otherwise have been the case.

And while Mr White slammed the profit margins on previous examples of PPP projects, his latest statement underlines that the SNP's delusional pursuit of public funding idealism coupled with a doctrinaire opposition to anything resembling Labour's preferred mechanism has cost the Scottish construction sector dearly, not to mention end users of public services such as school children.

Ultra-cheap finance for public sector investment simply doesn't exist, any more than there's such a thing as a free (school) lunch.

But Barry White's real problem is perhaps getting Salmond and Swinney et al to sing from the same song sheet: "It's Ecstasy When You Lay Down Next to PPP."

The false dichotomy of good versus bad

There's nothing black and white about political and moral issues, and those who treat them as such irritate me ever so slightly. A prime example of this appeared as a letter in yesterday's Courier, which was about recent bad publicity for the NHS. The writer opines:

The students, both medical and nursing, are dedicated people who want to help patients, not make their lives worse. They are trained by highly skilled and motivated staff whose aim in life is improvement of care. Not the opposite.[...]

If there are shortfalls then I would suggest that investigation would reveal that the underlying cause is down to management (or lack of it) and bad administration which I know frustrates good medical and non-medical staff and drives them away from promising careers.

Oh for crying out loud. OK, I wouldn't question a claim that the average NHS clinician is a more selfless and competent person than the average human being, and that NHS management is bloated and can be incompetent, but to portray the former as an unremitting good and the latter as an unqualified bad is surely ludicrous. You don't have to go to the extremes of Harold Shipman to disprove the former, and the NHS simply wouldn't function without management, and it surely can't all be unnecessary and incompetent.

Indeed, and off the top of my head, the most recent episode of Holby City featured:

- The director of surgery and a senior surgeon playing oneupmanship while trying to diagnose a patient, and the former was also flirting with the patient and/or her relative, and/or the patient and/or her relative were flirting with him. The director of surgery also had a bit of a fling with a senior administrator.

- Two senior surgeons similarly played oneupmanship while operating on a patient, the source of this being a female nurse who is pregnant by one of them, while the other is now in a relationship with her, and they intend getting married. Both this and the above example appeared to influence the, er, clinical outcome.

- A senior surgeon played pass the buck to a slightly more junior doctor in relation to attending an important administrative meeting, and in turn the latter buck-passed to an unprepared junior doctor, rendering his attendance at the meeting pointless.

- A junior doctor sunbathed on the roof of the hospital, and as a result missed being paged.

And that's even without considering those naughty nurses!

Ah, but there's a catch, of course. You see, Holby is just TV drama, it isn't real life at all. And even I've known that for some time.

But if Holby is a caricature of what really goes on in hospitals, then surely the Courier letter-writer's view is the polar opposite.

Another current example is a series in the Evening Telegraph called "Proud of our city", which is eminently predictable and slightly irritating in equal measure. For example, broadcaster and commentator Lesley Riddoch says:

There is no other city in the world quite like Dundee where you can go from a cow to a traffic light in half a mile [sic]. And being so close to the water is so exciting [sic]. I live on the Fife side of the water [sic] and one of the greatest experiences in life has to be cycling across the Tay Bridge to work [sic].

The number of ways to experience water in Dundee is tremendous [sic], it's so arresting [sic] and the different directions you see the sun set on the Tay are to die for [sic]. Blah, blah, blah.

Pass the sick bag, please. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those featured in the "Proud of our city" feature are "Dundee's Ambassadors...inspirational individuals who represent the city's many faces, and who share a passion and pride in the city", which paraphrased might mean "people associated with Dundee who have highly successful careers and businesses, and can afford to live in a salubrious area - perhaps not even in Dundee, like quite a few of them - but who aren't OAPs who feel trapped in their tower block flats because the junkies urinate and shoot up on the stairs, intimidate passers-by and occasionally set fire to the place (say)".

All of which brings to mind the false dichotomy often presented by politicians in relation to officialdom, as argued here several times in the past: "And while it often seems that, in the view of politicians, public servants can do no wrong, on the other hand their political opponents can absolutely do no right. But the reality of the situation is surely that the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes of above reproach officialdom and beneath contempt political adversaries."*

However, I would have to admit to being here before myself. For example, twenty years ago I wouldn't have a bad thing said about Dundee, but these days I get annoyed at people of a similar disposition. While there are many things about the city I still like, experience has cultivated a (un?)healthy degree of scepticism.

By the same token, my politics were previously left (good) versus right (bad) whereas now it's all something of an ideological melting pot.

However, these black and white portrayals not only obscure the facts, but are more importantly part of the problem rather than proffering a solution.

*This was part of a letter sent to the Sunday Herald in response to an article about the unlawful killing of Dundee toddler Brandon Muir, which I'm sure was published, but isn't online (even on this blog, perhaps because much of the letter was a rehash of other posts).

Misleading headline of the week...

...was possibly that attached to the grandly described "Essay of the week" in yesterday's Sunday Herald, which was titled and subtitled as follows:

Who are the Scots?

Is Scotland less Scottish as part of the Union?

Well no doubt I missed something, and admittedly never really engaged with this lengthy article, but the direct relevance of the above to the subject matter of the essay is largely lost on me.

Indeed, quite what it's really about is difficult to put my finger on, but it's perhaps a bit of historiography on the relevance of historical fiction to historical fact - focusing in particular on Sir Walter Scott and later the author's own writings - but if my perspective on this is incorrect then, hey, I don't even reach the status of amateur as far as history is concerned!

Granted, there is a some stuff about Scotland's place in the Union, but this seemed to be incidental to the primary subject matter, and not worthy of the headline.

But the essay culminates in the author using his thesis to point out the value of his new novel, which just happens to be out this week.

And which is perhaps where the subject matter alluded to in the essay's title can actually be found. Or maybe not.