Labour's twin 'living wage' hypocrisy

My post earlier this year questioning why in principle any Unionist party would favour different policies north and south of the border - other than as a justification for more abstract notions concerning the concept of devolution - was brought into focus again this week when Labour's leader in Scotland announced the party's aim to implement a 'living wage' of over £7 an hour.

But before looking at that particular policy, the Unionist devolution double standard and lack of convincing rationale was brought into focus this week on Newsnicht, when former first minister Henry McLeish proffered the following waffle in relation to interference from Westminster Labour into the party's policies at Holyrood:

I [had a meeting with Iain Gray] only a week ago...and I was very impressed by the desire on [Scottish Labour's] part to be looking at policies...which are in tune with the needs of Scotland but in a way reflect what is happening throughout the United Kingdom, so in that sense I remain very positive that they are thinking, that there are ideas developing, but what is really important here...is that we need the two - Scotland and Westminster - to be working in tandem. I can see more potential coming from Ed Miliband in relation to that, and if that happens then that would be a significant step forward.

All of which sounds a bit like Iain Gray's 'same but different' approach to Westminster/Holyrood interaction last time round. And dual MP/MSP Margaret Curran made similarly unconvincing noises on this week's Newsnicht item in relation to why she dumped Holyrood to stand for Westminster.

Thus when Westminster Labour pokes its nose into Holyrood business that undermines the case for devolution, and when Holyrood Labour is allowed to do its own thing then this undermines the rationale for a UK-wide Labour movement. And the Labour turf wars help to disguise the fact that Unionism and devolution are fundamentally incompatible, and thus Holyrood smacks more of empire building, jobs for political pals, and as an electoral sop to head off the independence impetus (albeit perhaps misfiring, but that's another debate) and exploit the different electoral demographic north of the border.

And this week's living wage proposal - like Calman's proposed devolution of national speed limits and recent tensions concerning policies to tackle excessive alcohol consumption - underlines the hypocrisy. Why does the Labour Party think Scottish workers should enjoy better basic rights than those south of the border, particularly when the cost of living up here is no doubt less on average than it is down there, particularly as regards London and the south east of England.

After all, Labour admirably implemented the National Minimum Wage across the UK and increased it during its term of office, but if a further augmentation - which I wholly agree with - is deemed necessary for Scotland, then why didn't Labour just significantly increase the NMW across the UK when in power? What's peculiar about the workers of Scotland that they deserve more favourable basic rights than workers of the UK as a whole?

And, of course, the second hypocrisy in relation to Iain Gray's proposal is that the living wage would only apply to public sector workers, since the NMW is a reserved power, thus Holyrood has no say over conditions of employment in the private sector (and I can't recall Calman proposing to devolve such powers), and his hope that pressure could be exerted to extend this more widely in the Scottish economy is unconvincing.

Thus to that extent the living wage would be a bit like the St Andrews Day holiday - which as I recall was only to apply to the public sector - and will therefore seem a further kick in the teeth for people employed in the private sector, particularly in view of the increasing perception that the public sector seems featherbedded in comparison with those more exposed to the rigours of the labour market.

Of course, this characterisation often seems unfair - the best rewards can be found in private enterprise, while the need for a living wage in the public sector demonstrates the often paltry recompense for those working there - but Scottish Labour's proposal represents self-evident hypocrisy at two levels, and would also exacerbate the perception of an increasing public/private divide in terms of conditions of employment, and would additionally aggravate the English perspective of Scotland as a whole being pampered by its subsidised reliance on the public sector.

Holyrood was never going to be conducive to UK or Unionist party cohesion, and the further devolution of powers would merely underline that. Which has always, of course, been to the SNP's benefit.

On the other hand, with Holyrood's PR system proven to have delivered a succession of weak governments unable to implement much in the way of distinctive Scottish policies, then to that extent the Unionist fissure is probably not as obvious as it could be, which was perhaps the rationale for the voting system.

But at a very basic Unionist level, and in view of the havering McLeish and Curran et al, the very point of devolution seems hard to fathom.

'Retreating' police theory disproved by numbers?

Commenter Indy has taken issue with a section of Monday's post on policing and the alcohol problem. OK, it would not be difficult to raise questions about the following paragraph, but Indy's point was sufficiently dismissive that it's perhaps appropriate to address their response in this separate post. The disputed words are as follows:

Another major problem was recently highlighted by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary in England and Wales, who says that rowdy and abusive behaviour is a "disease" which has been allowed to "fester" because police have retreated from the streets in the last two decades, and there's surely little to suggest that Scotland is greatly different in this regard.

Indy's response is as follows:

Scotland and England have in fact been going in completely different directions on policing. Police numbers are falling in England - they have increased in Scotland and there has been a much greater emphasis on frontline policing since 2007. That has been very well commented on and analysed. How did you miss it?

First, it's perhaps instructive that in the wake of last week's story two thirds of the Sunday Post's 'email jury' agreed with the Chief Inspector of Constabulary's words. Granted, the newspaper's poll isn't particularly scientific - the Post has a lot of readers living outside Scotland for a start - but its conclusion surely supports the fact that my own analysis is hardly exceptional.

Second, Indy's primary point concerns police numbers, but the argument isn't just about force strength in terms of personnel; it encompasses a whole host of other issues such as policing style, bureaucracy, priorities, attitudes etc, previously addressed in numerous posts on this blog.

Indeed, Indy's response brings to mind an extended discussion we had last year on those very matters. Of course, the numbers question isn't unrelated to many of the wider issues, but merely increasing numbers doesn't mean that these problems are addressed.

Granted, Indy does refer to a "greater emphasis on frontline policing", but police in many parts of England have made similar points - and regarding other changes in direction such as community policing - but precisely what this means and whether it's effective is another matter. Indeed, in our earlier discussion Indy seemed quite blasé about police effectively ignoring the likes of drunk and disorderly behaviour, which is exactly the point that the Chief Inspector is portraying as a fundamental problem.

Fourth, what is the evidence to support Indy's point? Well I daresay they would refer to favourable crime statistics and the like, but as regards what's happened since 2007 it's self-evident that the long-term trend has been downward for some years, so the more recent figures prove nothing. (And, interestingly, Tayside Police's latest instalment in the good news states: "A "significant reduction" — 75% to 58% — was recorded in the percentage of people who had recently seen an officer patrol their neighbourhood.")

Moreover, as I've argued previously in relation to crime statistics, while it may now be considerably more difficult for a teenager with a screwdriver to TWOC a car - thus less recorded crime - on the other hand the ASB-type behaviour now perhaps indulged in as an alternative isn't really recorded as crime in the conventional sense, hence rendering the statistics meaningless in that regard, and also underlining last week's argument from the Chief Inspector.

Another interesting example is perhaps provided by the recent story about Fife Council attempting to remove a troublesome venue's liquor license - with the action misfiring due to a procedural wrangle - after it had called police out 45 times in one year. This will very probably represent the mere tip of the iceberg, because the case underlines that pubs and clubs will only involve police as a last resort, because they won't want to draw the attention of the authorities to their premises. And a related point is that much policing has in recent times been 'privatised' in the form of the private security industry, thus skewing any official figures. Moreover, if police are eventually involved they may be reluctant to press charges, because after all it's in their interest to minimise recorded crime; indeed, some senior officers are awarded bonuses on the basis of the official figures...QED?

Lastly, Indy's perspective fundamentally undermines the minimum pricing rationale - if a simple increase in police numbers is sorting things out, then why bother worrying about the price of booze? It's not all about health, surely?

Things may well be better in Scotland than south of the border, but on the other hand there's surely little to suggest that the relevance of last week's report to north of the border can be wholly dismissed.

Pandering to drunkenness and profiteering

Minimum pricing probably would have marginally improved the myriad problems associated with alcohol consumption. By the same token, however, Fife Council's extension of licensing hours ('Licensing row after 45 police call-outs', The Scotsman, September 20) has no doubt marginally increased consumption, not only for the most obvious reason but also by encouraging revellers to 'hit the town' later in the evening and thus increasingly 'front-load' on cheap supermarket purchases.

And I know from personal experience that some of these Fife outlets pay little heed to their licensing responsibilities, thus by extending their hours and also in some cases affording them local monopolies in that regard, councillors are rewarding irresponsibility by inflating pub profits from two different angles.

Another major problem was recently highlighted by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary in England and Wales, who says that rowdy and abusive behaviour is a "disease" which has been allowed to "fester" because police have retreated from the streets in the last two decades, and there's surely little to suggest that Scotland is greatly different in this regard.

Thus the politicians closest to the coal face - local councillors - won't take on the licensed trade - preferring 'partnerships' and other window dressing - and won't take on the police, who in turn won't take on the drunks.

Instead, out dominant 'progressive' ethos considers law enforcement as authoritarian, thinks wrongdoers shouldn't be stigmatised, deems drunks victims and heaps the blame onto those nasty supermarkets.

Minimum pricing would have merely detracted attention from these issues and a generation of political neglect, and it's perhaps tempting to think that the effective end of the proposal would concentrate the minds of politicians.

However, the Scottish political mindset will no doubt prove too weak and politically correct to take the bull by the horns, and will instead retreat into the usual partisan points scoring and blame shifting. Also, any measures actually implemented are likely to amount to little more than ineffectual tokenism.

(The above was sent as a letter to the Scotsman last week in the wake of the effective end of the minimum pricing proposal, but was not published. Boo hoo. Perhaps a bit too close to the bone?)

SNP spin's got its mojo back

"The SNP's got its mojo back", declares Nationalist Duncan Hamilton in his regular Scotland on Sunday column. It seems that Salmond & Co have in the past few days completely turned around the fortunes of the SNP Government, but it would perhaps be more appropriate to describe the article as a classic triumph of spin over substance, and that it's the former that's been revitalised by Mr Hamilton at the expense of the latter. He says:

"First, there was the announcement by the Scottish Government that the target of having 50 per cent of energy in Scotland coming from wind and wave power by 2020 was to be raised to a hugely ambitious target of 80 per cent."

I can also announce that I've raised my target for a lottery win from £1 million to £5 million. And Planet Politics just won't be in the Top 10 in the Scottish section of next year's Total Politics poll, it'll be numero uno. And I don't just hope to date that nice looking girl who works in Tesco, she'll have to at least have had a Top 10 single or featured in a TV soap opera. 'Hugely ambitious', aren't I?

"That shift followed a report by Scottish Renewables which showed the potential for massive further expansion in the Scottish renewables sector."

Scottish Renewables is an industry representative body and thus what it says should be treated with similar scepticism to the Turkeys' Union claiming massive potential to abolish Christmas.

"It isn't often that you see a government voluntarily making its own targets even harder to achieve."

Oh go on then. My target is to win £20 million on the lottery, usurp Iain Dale as the blogfather and date Cheryl Cole. Perhaps Mr Hamilton's point would have some substance if it could be evaluated within a reasonable time period rather than in ten year's time. Thus as it stands - as a target to be met sometime in the future - it has even less credence than a manifesto commitment.

"It sends a message that the SNP sees Scotland as a potential world leader, that it has big ambitions for the nation."

Indeed, and I'm also a potential blogosphere leader, blah, blah. In fact, why stop at that, what about a newspaper column and a book deal for moi? Thus rather than the SNP having "big ambitions for the nation", like yours truly it's maybe bigger still on delusion and dishonesty.

Mr Hamilton has also by some miracle found merit in the SNP's decision to dump the independence referendum Bill rather than put it to a vote in the Scottish Parliament. But tellingly, he says of the SNP's raison d'être: "If the election campaign to come is about independence, the SNP will lose", and indeed "the power to deliver the key SNP objective is not now, and under PR will never be, solely in the hands of the SNP".

The latter point in particular seems to be saying that an independence referendum will never take place unless an SNP Government wins power at Holyrood under a FPTP electoral system. Which perhaps tells us all we need to know about the SNP's prospects of winning an independence referendum.

Surely if the Scottish people were sufficiently enthusiastic about independence then a majority SNP Government would be attainable under a proportional voting system. As it is, Duncan Hamilton seems to suggest otherwise, thus what's the point of having a referendum? He seems to think it would be lost. Perhaps a bit more than rhetoric about "positive ambition, international leadership on one of the big global issues of the age, nation before party, cross-party consensus and a desire to address the key issues of daily life for ordinary Scots" is required.

Bridging the public finance gap - not!

Yesterday the Courier published a letter I sent them, and this was about the computer games industry and the impact of profligacy on the public finances. By coincidence (or not!) my missive is neatly juxtaposed with a letter which is arguably symptomatic of the kind of public spending incontinence I was criticising.

The subject matter is the building of a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the River Tay at Perth, which will cost Perth & Kinross Council £1.4 million. Despite previously saying that there was"nothing off limits" as regards the council's spending review, administration leader Ian Miller has since said that the decision to build the bridge was set in "tablets of stone". A "community engagement plan" (aka consultation) on the bridge will proceed in several stages, and this will include public involvement in the naming of the bridge.

But a couple of weeks ago a letter in the Courier claimed: "I, and the majority of residents in Perth, know perfectly well what it should be called - a complete and utter waste of public money." And after fulminating about uncut municipal grass, spiralling council salaries and the public having to pay for extra wheelie bins, the correspondent ups the ante to "an obscene and immoral use of public money".

But yesterday's letter in defence of the proposed bridge says: "The cost of £1.38 million appears a good investment given that Scotland is often seen as the sick man of Europe with high death rates from heart disease and strokes. Anything that enables us to improve our lifestyle by reducing the burden on our health services must be money well spent and the council should be applauded."

Oh for pity's sake. In effect this is saying that if one person uses the bridge, and this makes them a wee bit healthier, then the money is well spent. OK, the bridge will no doubt be slightly better utilised than that, but how precisely are the health and financial benefits quantified and compared against the cost of the bridge? Indeed, perhaps the most obvious question is whether the new bridge would actually encourage more cycling or walking at all, or would it just mean the same level of activity but on a shiny new bridge instead of elsewhere?

The bridge's defender pithily slams the criticism of the cost of the bridge in the following terms: "How very Scottish." But perhaps this would be better aimed at his own crude and platitudinous defence of the bridge, particularly when the public spending squeeze is likely to be detrimental to people and causes a lot more self-evidently deserving than the Connect2 bridge (name subject to future community engagement plan, obviously).


For the record, below is my letter on tax breaks and the computer games industry:

I am not sure if Steve Bargeton was being tongue-in-cheek in his recent diary column but his opinion on the computer games industry was neatly juxtaposed with an article on the opposite page about the collapse of Dundee firm Realtime Worlds.

Your political editor says that providing £40 million of tax breaks per year to the sector would provide the public purse with a net gain of £400 million in tax receipts and create 3,500 graduate-level jobs. And presumably eradicate world poverty and reverse global warming at the same time.

If only life was that simple. The figures provided sound like typical industry/political spiel.

Meanwhile, back in the real(time) world, your other article quoted an industry expert as saying that the firm's pivotal APB game attracted sales of only one ninth of that necessary for its survival.

It seems unlikely that tax breaks would have somehow enhanced the game sufficiently to increase its sales nine-fold.

As history has shown time and time again, throwing public funds at fundamentally uncompetitive products and businesses is just taxpayers' money down the drain.

Of course, taxpayer-funded assistance and a favourable regulatory environment can help industry in appropriate circumstances, but the Scottish political mindset seems dominated by the need to find a deserving home for as much public money as possible - and there's always a queue of willing recipients, whether in the private or public sector.

And while the bills for the profligacy have to be paid eventually, both Labour and the SNP seem preoccupied with trying to deny their part in the spending spree, while the Tories and Lib Dems are being accused of threatening the economic recovery by being over-zealous in trying to turn off the tap.

Any chance of a MacDale?

Scottish blogs understandably have a limited impact on the UK scene as a whole, thus Iain Dale's analysis of his Total Politics poll results effectively ignores the MacBlogosphere (Tom Harris gets a mention, but his blog is Westminster-oriented, whereas the MacBlogosphere gravitates towards Holyrood; indeed, perhaps that's a de facto condition of membership!).

Of course, I knew that Iain had written articles in the press, appeared fairly regularly on TV and indeed now has his own radio show, and that the likes of Guido Fawkes also made the news occasionally, but I was struck by the following two paragraphs in his analysis:

Newspapers, radio and TV are all now using bloggers as regular commentators on political affairs. The breakthrough was really brought home to me on the evening of David Laws' resignation. Who did BBC News have as their studio guests for 90 minutes? Mark Pack from Lib Dem Voice and myself. This seemed completely natural to them. There was a time when they would have instantly called on a newspaper political editor. They still do of course, but they now regard bloggers as suitable equivalents.

Bloggers have left the subs bench and are now playing on the main pitch. You can probably name or recognise just as many bloggers who now perform on TV and radio as newspaper reporters or columnists. Go through the list of the top 20 and virtually all the bloggers listed now appear regularly.

My surprise at this indicates that my knowledge of the UK-wide political MSM is limited. And while my knowledge of the Scottish equivalent is also modest - I don't really listen to politics on the radio at all, while the TV equivalent tends to be more in the background while I'm doing other things rather than something I watch avidly - my impression is that the MacBlogosphere's impact on the MSM up here is effectively non-existent, and that Iain Dale's upbeat assessment of the UK scenario represents the complete antithesis of the specifically Scottish context.

Granted, Scotland per se doesn't have the spread of newspapers, radio shows and the likes of the 24-hour Sky and BBC news coverage enjoyed down south. But there's still a distinctively Scottish MSM. Daily newspaper-wise there's the Herald, Scotsman, and Daily Record. And the Courier and Press & Journal also enjoy circulations greater than the two qualities. Most of the UK nationals produce Scottish editions. On television there's the BBC's Newsnicht, Holyrood Live, the Scottish section of the Politics Show, and also STV's Politics Now. On radio there are several hours of news and current affairs broadcasting daily.

And yet I'm not aware of any of these outlets ever calling upon the services of bloggers in the way that Iain Dale describes in the UK context, if at all. Of course, bloggers have often featured in the Scottish MSM, but this has generally been when blogging per se has been the subject matter, and indeed most obviously when it's related to something wholly negative for the MacBlogosphere, most obviously the Wardog and Universality of Cheese scandals from last year.

Indeed, even Jeff Breslin, formerly of SNP Tactical Voting fame and now part of the Better Nation collaborative effort - and who has probably been the nearest thing to a MacDale - does not seem to have enjoyed a happy relationship with the MSM during his few brushes with it. In fact perhaps Jeff himself best summed up the status of the MacBlogosphere in the wider world when he said: "Let’s face it, blogging is enjoyable but irrelevant, self-indulgent but inconsequential."

Which certainly seems to contrast with Iain Dale's London-based perspective. Of course, there are numerous bloggers in the Total Politics Scottish Top 50 who appear regularly in the MSM - Brian Taylor, Gerry Hassan, Joan Macalpine and Iain Macwhirter, most obviously - but they are established journalists for whom blogging is primarily an adjunct to their main activity, and who appear in the MSM qua journalist rather than qua blogger. Indeed, a couple of these blogs seem to consist wholly or mainly of articles originally published elsewhere. (By the same token, in a small way I'm probably the only grassroots member of the MacBlogosphere Top 50 who regularly features in the Scottish MSM by virtue of my fairly regular letters in the press, but these are published qua letter-writer rather than qua blogger.)

Which perhaps begs the question, what is a blogger, and does it really matter? For example, the Total Politics UK-wide poll results include people like Norman Tebbit, who is part of the Telegraph's small legion of bloggers. But is the newspaper merely taking advantage of the online environment to expand on its paper edition, and thus Tebbit is substantially another Telegraph columnist rather than the citizen journalist-type author who perhaps started the blogging phenomenon?

And, of course, to the extent that the bloggers have any real influence outside the blogosphere bubble then this generally requires the involvement of the MSM, thus in many ways it's back to square one, and to paraphrase that oft-quoted passage from Animal Farm: "The grassroots bloggers looked from MSM journalist to Iain Dale, and from Iain Dale to MSM journalist, and from MSM journalist to Iain Dale again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Of course, the definition of blogger does matter, because grassroots bloggers see themselves as in opposition to the MSM, and indeed as a threat to it - and the grassroots blogosphere perspective, real or imagined, is that this view is reciprocated - so while Iain Dale's words quoted at the outset perhaps confirm that bloggers want to be part of the MSM or indeed effectively become the MSM, on the other hand the blogosphere as an entity needs to define itself apart from the MSM. Clearly this represents a paradox, and reflects the realisation that our medium's influence outside its introverted bubble remains limited, and that it won't be usurping the MSM anytime soon.

However, as alluded earlier the respectively positive (over-egged?) and negative (too pessimistic?) assessments proffered by Iain Dale down there and Jeff Breslin up here underline the more limited impact of the MacBlogosphere as compared to the Westminster-oriented scene.

And on a personal note, I started this blog not with the expectation that I would transpire to be a MacDale, but in the hope of building a more limited profile with a view to then using that as a springboard for my more specialist hobby horses. But I'm now wondering if this was a mistake; my perception is often that the word 'blogger' is regarded in polite political company like 'communist' or 'fascist' - best not to admit to it. Remember Iain Macwhirter's perspective on blogging "sociopaths" who "don't write, they ejaculate"?

Of course, with good reason similar criticism of the blogosphere is hardly unknown in the London-based media, but perhaps the problem in the Scottish context is that there's little upside outwith blogging per se. Thus as regards Iain Dale's metaphor, MacBloggers are still on the subs bench and should perhaps pack up and try another team if they want to make an impact.

Any chance of a MacDale? Probably not, in the medium term at least.

(A related point is my thesis about the decline of the MacBlogosphere; a dearth of external interest and a hostile MSM creates a downward spiral of disillusioned established bloggers and a lack of incentive for new blood.)

Scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Last week's post on the smoking ban was sent to the Herald as a letter, and the newspaper published an abridged version of it (missing out the bits about minimum pricing for alcohol). A response was published shortly thereafter, and my reply was published today:

I’m not sure precisely how Richard McHarg (Letters, September 18) “gathers” that I’m a smoker, but I can assure him that I’ve not smoked since my unexceptional short bout of teenage experimentation 30 years or so ago.

Equally, he lambasts the conduct of smokers standing outside pubs – which, although usually ignored, recently led councillors to suspend a Fife pub’s licence – but then characterises such concerns as “scraping the bottom of the barrel” for arguments against the smoking ban. And he sidesteps my question regarding whether supporters of the ban would feel the same if this consequence of the measure was foisted on to their own doorsteps.

Mr McHarg also accuses me of being “in complete denial” over smoking-related problems but, since my smoking father suffered both a heart attack and lung cancer when he was about my current age and when I was a boy, I can assure him that this is far from the case.

Indeed, to that extent he ignores a central premise of my letter, which was that because the smoking ban has had no discernible impact on the long-term trend in the amount of people smoking then perhaps the posited health benefits are overdone.

And I doubt if anyone has ever questioned Mr McHarg’s “human right” to enjoy his leisure time in a smoke-free environment. But, equally, I suspect many would take issue with this characterisation regarding smoking on private business premises. Indeed, if there was demand for a smoke-free environment on the scale he suggests, then it’s surprising that the market did not cater for it.

However, Mr McHarg’s position does seem extreme, even by the standards of the dominant ethos on the subject. For example, he says the closure of pubs is immaterial when even ASH Scotland seems defensive on this issue and, indeed, denies any link between commercial failure and the smoking ban.

He also says long-term health is more important than the right to smoke or consume excessive alcohol. Thus he would presumably like to ban smoking completely, and close all pubs, because I doubt if any in Scotland refrain from selling customers more than the recommended healthy levels.

As an anti-smoking teetotaller who rarely ventures into licensed premises, I’m probably not the best person to comment on the rights of smokers and drinkers, but as well as my human right to avoid these vices there surely has to be a degree of tolerance towards those who enjoy them on private property without harm to others or in the company of consenting adults.

The unacceptable face of nationalism

It seems that one or two nationalist blogs/websites have spotted an opportunity in relation to recent allegations concerning a Glasgow Labour councillor's involvement in a private hire taxi* firm in the city called Network. The business has attracted some adverse publicity because Strathclyde Police objected to the renewal of its licences due to alleged links with a convicted criminal, which of course is consistent with long-term allegations about links between Glasgow's private hire trade and organised crime. However, in the past few days police have dropped their objections because the individual about whom they had concerns has severed all ties with Network.

But the black cab/hackney trade in the city are protesting because Network has recently been awarded several lucrative public sector contracts, and the spotlight has turned to a senior Labour councillor who works as a driver for Network, and this has resulted in accusations of undue influence. It's not clear what evidence there is for this other than the fact that the councillor drives under Network's umbrella - where he's presumably self-employed - and indeed the Herald's latest instalment in the saga discloses that the SNP councillor who made the allegations has effectively been cut loose by the party, and the accused Labour councillor has been consulting defamation lawyers about the claims.

Anyway, as stated at the outset some SNP supporters on the internet are viewing the disgruntlement of Glasgow's hackney cab trade as an opportunity to co-opt them to campaign against the Labour-controlled city council.

Which perhaps smacks of wishful thinking, at least as far as any significant campaign is concerned, but in any case there's perhaps one big fly in the ointment.

That's the fact that the Glasgow hackney trade benefits from a closed market operated between itself and the city council, highlighted earlier this year in the press and on this blog. And indeed at that time SNP MSP Sandra White described the profiteering in licence plates resulting from the cartel as a "very disturbing problem".

Of course, the black cab trade is unhappy about the loss of the public sector contracts to the private hire sector, but do they really want to campaign against a council which affords it a closed market and thus monopoly profits?

And indeed this could potentially open up a whole can of worms for all concerned. For example, Network Private Hire countered the black cab trade's allegations by accusing it of being involved in "the illegal black market in licence plates which, as everyone knows, is a magnet for money-laundering".

Indeed, this market is murky enough as it is without the possibility of money laundering, and as stated here previously it seems that even justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is either largely clueless about it all or would prefer that the facts remain obfuscated.

It should also be recalled that a senior SNP councillor who was involved with Festival City private hire in Edinburgh faced similar questions regarding Glasgow's Network Private Hire - and thus allegations involving organised crime - when a director of Network took control of Festival. And in response to the claims the SNP's chair of Edinburgh's regulatory committee seemed all over the place as regards one particular licensing issue.

Of course, all the above is largely the usual allegations and muckraking - with at worst some regulatory incompetence born of cronyism and vested interests - so what of the "unacceptable face of nationalism"?

This relates to one blogger who thinks that the SNP should exploit the anger of the Glasgow black cab trade to add to the campaign against Glasgow City Council. To help rationalise this he outlines why black cab drivers "detest" the private hire trade - essentially because they are in competition with each other! - and also relates a little anecdote about how a black cab driver responded to being boxed in by two mischievously parked minibuses by petrol-bombing them, at their home address to boot. This, the good blogger opines, demonstrates their "resourcefulness" and that they're a "formidable" enemy, thus just the job for the SNP!

Perhaps anyone with any sense of decency would conclude that the black cab driver in question is a dangerous criminal and unfit to drive members of the public around instead of suggesting that his actions demonstrate that the black cab trade could be utilised to campaign for the SNP.

With friends like these...

*Technically speaking "private hire taxi" is incorrect and an oxymoron, because the Scottish legislation used the terms "taxi" for a public hire cabs and "private hire vehicle" for anything else. The term "hackney carriage" derives from the legislation in force south of the border.

However, since the word "taxi" is commonly used generically to refer to both the public and private hire sides of the trade, it's used similarly above to aid clarity. Or to confuse pedants!

Cochers, cuts and cops

An interesting brace of articles from Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph about the reaction of police representatives to the impending public spending cuts and their impact on policing. A fortnight ago he accused them of using exaggerated language, irresponsible scaremongering, acting in a militant trade unionist manner and generally doing their case for special treatment more harm than good. Now he's accusing them of using exaggerated language, irresponsible scaremongering, acting in a militant trade unionist manner and generally doing their case for special treatment more harm than good. Eh?

Of course, the difference is that the first article relates to Scotland, whereas the second addresses the situation south of the border. Either way, more power to his elbow.

But given the similarity between the two scenarios it might have been expected that Cochers would have mentioned the Scottish situation in his second article. But perhaps in doing so he would have drawn attention to the largely identical case he makes in both pieces, which might not be in his journalistic interest.

Or maybe Cochers' carbon copies are intended to convey some sort of subliminal message demonstrating the coppers' canteen culture convergence north and south of the border, hence supporting the Union.

Or maybe it just provides an excuse for me to indulge in some silly alliteration.

I'm not picking on Ted or rubbing his nose in it, but...

It seems that a couple of journalists have highlighted that nose-picking incident at last week's FMQs, when MSP Ted Brocklebank decided to have a fly howk at his nasal passage just when Annabel Goldie was asking a question, and unfortunately he just happened to be sitting behind her in full view of the TV cameras.

Of course, it might not be considered good form to highlight this in polite blogosphere company, but since it's now featured in both the News of the World and the Caledonian Mercury then mentioning it on this blog won't make a lot of difference.

However, the reason for rehashing the story here is to point out that Mr Brocklebank has in fact got form for this kind of thing. During the 2007 Holyrood campaign the Courier featured an incident in which he, ahem, expurgated some unpleasant matter from his mouth while out campaigning, and unfortunately at that moment he just happened to be in the garden of a voter, who presumably had transpired to be a Lib Dem (that's a comment on the politics of NE Fife rather than a particular slur against the party). The precise nature of the matter expelled wasn't made clear at the time, but I suspect it wasn't dissimilar to what Mr Brocklebank was trying to extricate from his nose last Thursday, but just from a different orifice.

So who says bloggers haven't got a nose for picking a good story?!

Smoking and mirrors

Ash Scotland is presumably using the recently published Scottish Household Survey data to conclude that "significant progress had been made in cutting overall smoking rates" during the last decade, which is all well and good.

However, the same figures surely demonstrate that the smoking ban has had little discernible effect on the long-term downward trend, thus contradicting a claim by the anti-smoking campaign group's chief executive Sheila Duffy, who had earlier said "there is plenty of evidence that Scotland is a healthier nation for having introduced smoke-free public places".

Thus rather than being fundamentally beneficial to health, the smoking ban has maybe merely rearranged the smoking deckchairs, with perhaps one unintended consequence being an increase in alcohol consumption - at least if the Scottish Government's rationale for its alcohol minimum pricing proposal is to be believed - due to more drinking at home.

Indeed, since the posited health benefits from the smoking ban are often cited in support of minimum pricing, this casts doubt upon the efficacy of the so-called 'sunset clause' that Nicola Sturgeon has proposed to ensure the alcohol proposals would only remain in force if effective - the health secretary has been citing the smoking ban at the same time as her own government's figures cast doubt on the health benefits, thus can we really expect an honest appraisal of minimum pricing, which of course would always be a questionable assumption where politicians are concerned anyway.

Another unintended - or perhaps ignored - consequence of the smoking ban is the loss of amenity to those living near or passing by pubs and clubs, with noise, litter, obstruction and a generally unpleasant atmosphere in attendance for perhaps in excess of 12 hours per day.

And the recent suspension of a pub's licence in the village of Falkland due to "astonishing" levels of noise and "boisterous behaviour" from smokers congregating outside also slightly contradicts Sheila Duffy's other claim that there is "absolutely no evidence" the smoking ban has been responsible for pub closures, albeit perhaps due to a cause not usually considered in this regard.

But I wonder if the liberal chatterati who were the main proponents of the ban would have been so keen on it if the detriment to amenity had been on their own doorsteps instead of those further down the social ladder, what with the effect on property prices and the like.

Indeed, I had always assumed that the smoking ban's impact on the right to "peaceful enjoyment of property" enshrined in the human rights legislation had been overridden by the usual exceptions on the grounds of public health. But if the health benefits are perhaps not all they are claimed to be then perhaps it's time to consult a lawyer!

SNP hypocrisy or journalistic licence?

Interesting story in this morning's Herald about the possibility of the SNP Government reinstating state aid to Scotland's airline industry in the form of the Route Development Fund, which was banned under EU rules forbidding state subsidies*. Of course, subsidising this sector of the economy would contradict the SNP's green agenda and emphasis on renewables, recently demonstrated by a discussion paper on road-tolling and workplace parking levies. Also, there's something of a debate going on at the moment about savage public spending cuts, and although commercially the airline industry has had a torrid time of late, it might not be readily thought of as the most deserving recipient of increased public spending, despite the more general benefits that might accrue to Scotland in the form of tourism and suchlike.

However, although the article is entitled 'SNP moves to reinstate direct aid for airlines' and begins "The Scottish Government is to re-examine the case for directly supporting airlines to ensure that they develop more flights to the country’s airports", there is nothing else in the text to link the issue to the SNP, and instead it's quango Transport Scotland that will be lobbying the EU for a change in the rules to allow state aid to the industry. And of course the industry itself is heavily involved in the pitch, thus much of the story is saying little more than that the turkeys are asking for Christmas to be postponed.

Of course, Transport Scotland could well be doing the SNP Government's bidding for it, thus the Herald's headline may be entirely merited, and thus the SNP stance on this issue is at odds with its approach to climate change. After all, they do keep banging on about North Sea oil...

*The article doesn't use the nasty s-word, and instead employs euphemistic phrases such as "direct support" and "direct aid", which sound more appropriate for government help in relation to some kind of third world disaster.

The Westminster factor will decide Holyrood 2011

Alex Salmond's decision to make the independence referendum the centrepiece of the SNP's pitch for next year's Holyrood elections surely demonstrates that the party's manifesto is unlikely to feature any radical new ideas. Instead, the Nationalists will rely on the unpopularity of the Westminster coalition and the imposition of its "London cuts", and will use that negative image to promote a more positive message of independence and financial powers for Scotland.

Yesterday's announcement of the Scottish Parliament's legislative programme underpins this; little of real import, and certainly nothing to set the heather alight or change the fabric of the nation, but instead a largely anodyne Bill of fare designed to pave the way for the election campaign generally and the independence aspect in particular.

Of course, as stated here previously this is a high stakes gamble for Mr Salmond. The public must be sufficiently disenchanted with the Westminster Coalition to buy it and at least make him the leader of the largest party in Holyrood next May. Otherwise, Alex Salmond is finished.

Thus the big question is, will the public buy it? No doubt they will be disenchanted with cuts in public spending, but whether this translates into votes for the SNP is another matter. The party's part in the spending spree, the failure of the Scottish Futures Trust, the collapse of the "arc of prosperity" and several other matters calling into question Alex Salmond's economic judgement will all sow doubts in the minds of voters, undermining his emphasis on financial powers for Scotland as part of the independence pitch; in particular, his vision seems to be predicated on more public borrowing to avoid the necessity of spending cuts, which won't necessarily play well with a financially chastened "people of Scotland". And, more generally, although attempting to exploit the financial crisis for Nationalist advantage, the accepted wisdom in the last couple of years has been that the global economic meltdown has spiked the independence movement's guns - better the safe and proven haven of the Union than the unknown risk of Scotland going it alone, however precarious the UK's own financial position might be. The Scottish electorate seems more risk averse than our gambling first minister.

Of course, Scottish Labour - the other main protagonist next May - will similarly hope to exploit the unpopularity of the Westminster coalition in Scotland, however ludicrous its position might be in view of its even more proximate involvement in the spending profligacy that propelled the UK's national debt to stratospheric proportions. And the likelihood of Iain Gray's team proffering a positive and radical platform likely to appeal to the electorate seems even more remote than that of the SNP.

Thus both Labour and the SNP will be hoping the Westminster Coalition's unpopularity in Scotland will detract from a lack of substantive policies likely to attract voters, and thus propel them to power at Holyrood, with the additional goal of a stepping stone towards independence in the case of the Nationalists.

But to realise their aspirations both parties seem likely to rely on negativity towards Westminster rather than a positive programme of government for Scotland. And without substantive policies with electoral appeal, independence remains rooted in abstraction and rhetoric rather than a real vision. The likes of the 2007 carrot of bridge toll abolition may have helped secure votes at a populist level, but the possible 2011 stick of road-tolling and workplace parking levies seems unlikely to be a vote-winner, however much the SNP tries to rationalise the contradiction in terms of fairness and environmental ideals.

Speeding between the lines

Several previous posts on this blog have suggested an official tacit acceptance of a degree of speeding, with of course the proviso that drivers slow down for the speed cameras and other enforcement measures.

As a corollary, it's become mainstream for drivers to effectively admit to speeding. Which although perhaps hardly noteworthy in a Clarksonite context, on the other hand this even seems accepted in more conservative or 'respectable' environments.

Of course, in a public forum drivers don't generally openly say that they speed, but it's perhaps obvious from reading between the lines. In particular - and as a corollary to the tacit official position that the primary aim of enforcement policy is to get drivers to slow down in the vicinity of speed cameras - any remorse from the drivers themselves often seems to relate to the fact of being 'caught out' rather than regarding the act of exceeding the speed limit per se.

A couple of possible examples appeared in the Scottish press this week. In the Herald columnist Harry Reid said: "Twice in the past few years I have been caught speeding, each time by a camera I had not noticed..."

Thus the implication here is that if he'd seen the camera then he would have slowed to below the limit and thus avoided being penalised - instead of trying to keep below the limit the driver is looking out for the cameras, and very probably more than aware that they're speeding.

By the same token, a regular correspondent to the Courier's letters page, who has also notched up a couple of speeding offences, says: "Like many law-abiding citizens, it took me a little while to adjust to the new speed-camera regime..."

But if he had historically been driving within the limit then what was there to "adjust" to? Again the implication seems to be that the adjustment is simply to drive within the speed limit.

Both drivers - who seem to be of a similarly, er, mature age and perhaps demonstrate the kind of "middle class hypocrisy" on speeding criticised recently by a retiring chief constable - also trot out the "otherwise law-abiding citizens"-type of excuse, and predictably make the point that a couple of minor speeding convictions hardly makes them hardened criminals, or suchlike.

And that a couple of speeding fines in an otherwise unblemished zillion-year driving record isn't bad going. Which of course, in accordance with the earlier analysis, is meaningless, because lots of drivers speed lots of the time and never fall foul of enforcement measures. Again, therefore, the blemish on the driving record seems to be the fact of being caught out rather than breaking the law per se.

Indeed, I would have to admit that I've once or twice exceeded the speed limit by a small margin, but by some miracle managed to avoid a fine, and my twenty-odd year clean driving licence remains intact! Which of course must mean I'm a significantly more law-abiding driver than the aforementioned gentlemen, surely?!?

The inconvenience of accountability

Hot on the heels of last week's post about the attempts by Dundee City Council's ruling administration to have cross-party discussions on the forthcoming budget cuts thrashed out in private comes another local attempt to avoid proper scrutiny, this time in the form of the Tayside Police Joint Board.

Convener Ian Mackintosh said that, in an effort to save money in anticipation of the forthcoming financial stringency, Tayside Police might have to refuse to entertain government police inspectors and the box-ticking of performance monitoring because of the heavy demands that these processes put on manpower. The force might also have to refuse freedom of information requests, according to Councillor Mackintosh.

Naturally, Courier journalist Stefan Morkis takes issue with this, pointing out that Tayside Police is obliged by law to comply with FoI enquiries, and that the appeals process would ensure any request was granted, ultimately at greater cost to the taxpayer than if the enquiry had been dealt with in the first place as required by law. He also says that if the force opted out of the inspection and review process then that would make Tayside Police "entirely unaccountable".

Thus Stefan clearly thinks little of the joint board's scrutiny role, although he doesn't say that directly. But the board has form on this type of thing, and it's not that long since Audit Scotland criticised its councillor members, claiming scrutiny was weak and that they did not fully understand their role, thus essentially the same criticism made regarding Dundee City Council. And, as pointed out here in the past, joint board members perhaps vindicated Audit Scotland's criticisms by indignantly claiming that if things are going well then there's no need for challenges from councillors, which in effect means the board is relying on others and the force itself to perform the scrutiny role.

Thus it's perhaps no surprise that its convener now seems to consider that aspects of pesky accountability should be jettisoned because they're financially inconvenient. Maybe a better idea would be to abolish the board itself, and the money saved could be allocated to maintaining what element of scrutiny actually exists, because it's self-evident that councillors perform no useful function in this regard.

Daybreak dumbing down?

Managed to catch a glimpse of ITV's Daybreak this daybreak, which of course is the channel's much-hyped replacement for GMTV. Naturally, fans of Adrian Chiles and Christine Bleakley from the BBC's One Show will no doubt like the new format, but other than that the programme seems much like a rehash of the old GMTV meshed with the Chiles/Bleakley aspect.

However, (half) watching the first hour or so left the following impressions. First, perhaps the programme should be called Commercialbreak in view of the frequent adverts and the annoying sponsorship of the weather etc, but perhaps that's just repeating one aspect of GMTV that was as familiar as their old sofa.

Second, of the several female presenters, reporters and weathergirl on show Bleakley herself was probably the least attractive of the bunch, thus the show seems to have increased the 'telly totty' factor as compared to GMTV, which is self-evidently saying something. Indeed, old hand Kate Garraway - who has a certain appeal to grey and balding late forty-ites like myself - appeared just after 7 am, but the fact that in context she looked a bit dated perhaps says says it all about the ethos of the show. Third, the fact that the show has retained that ludicrous phone-in quiz with a ridiculously simple question designed to maximise revenue from inflated call charges isn't encouraging either, and today's teaser is the following:

How long is a century?

A 100 years
B 50 years
C 25 years

Calls cost...blah, blah.

And the only obvious innovation appears to be a feature called Daybreaker, which seems to entail viewers choosing which item of several that they want to see in more detail. The three choices this morning - with realtime results from the show's website as I write - are a skateboarding bulldog (64%), a mobility scooter formation team (22%) and a That's Life-esque Buzz Lightyear carrot (14%).

Which perhaps says it all - again! Of course, the show has a shiny new studio, and the weather co-operated and provided Daybreak's hosts with an attractive 6 am St Paul's Cathedral-silhouetted backdrop, but other than that I suspect that if watching breakfast TV at all I'll be flicking between the new show, BBC Breakfast and Sky News, and as usual not really watching any of them. Indeed, presumably anyone who would have the time to actually watch any of these shows at this time is probably still asleep anyway!

Secrecy and accountability in local government

While some of the work of government - such as aspects of national security - must of necessity be conducted away from the public gaze, to what extent should this apply to the day-to-day business of running the country?

Over the past few weeks there's been a fair bit in the Dundee press about the City Council's impending budget cuts, but as regards where the axe will fall there's no more meat on the bones than when I posted on the subject last week.

However, a debate of some substance has been taking place, but rather than the cuts per se it involves whether the ad hoc cross-party board being set up to discuss the budget - the vacuously titled Changing for the Future board - should meet in public, or whether its debates should take place behind closed doors, as the ruling SNP administration desire.

Council leader Ken Guild makes the compelling point that in the past the opposition parties haven't even been involved in the budget deliberations. But his main concern seems to be that holding the CftF meetings in public will result in political posturing and points scoring rather than the more constructive discussions that could be held in private - the dynamic between public and private meetings is entirely different, says Mr Guild.

And in a lengthy interview with the Evening Telegraph it's interesting how often the council leader reiterates his point about the potentially detrimental influence of party politics in an open forum, and his basic point is endorsed by Professor Nicholas Terry, who is a public finance expert at Abertay University.

Naturally, opposition councillors disagree with the principle of meeting in private. Labour's Kevin Keenan says his "conscience would bother him", the Conservative's Rod Wallace disagrees with the idea of a board, preferring discussions to be held openly in the normal council committee environment, while the Lib Dem's Fraser Macpherson has branded the CftF board a "secret cabal" and said his group won't attend the meetings.

Clearly there are compelling arguments on both sides of the debate, but it seems unlikely that anyone would dispute the different dynamic between public and private meetings, which neatly demonstrates the unsatisfactory effect of party politics on good government. And, indeed, there's obviously an irony in the fact that the debate over whether to hold the meetings in public has given rise to the sort of crude administration v opposition bickering that the council leader seeks to avoid.

And while the CftF board meetings were to be held under the Chatham House Rule to avoid public disclosures of the content of the talks, Councillor Wallace points out that the rule in fact only relates to disclosure of the identity of the source of information, and not the information per se. Thus a specific rationale for secrecy outlined by Mr Guild - that talk of cuts which might not go ahead could cause unnecessary public panic - would not be relevant, because the information could be disclosed anyway, and the precise identity of the person making the suggestion would be of no real consequence in that respect.

But if a format could be devised such that no information from the CftF meetings could be disclosed - 'Chatham House plus', say - then the public would be presented with a fait accompli and would never know how the various parties and councillors concluded the budget. Presumably the normal public council meetings would merely rubber stamp what's decided by the secret board.

Of course, private meeting have been held in relation to past budgets - a point made by Mr Guild - but ultimately the decisions were taken in public meetings with a proper opposition and debate. How can voters evaluate the various parties and councillors if business is conducted in private?

It's not that long since Audit Scotland was criticising the council for a lack of scrutiny and accountability. The proposed budget process would gravely compound this problem.

But it's not difficult to imagine that if the positions were reversed then the current opposition groups would be making the same argument as Mr Guild if they held the reins in City Square, and the SNP would be arguing for a public debate. But as things stand, a defensive SNP administration clearly considers that a more public discussion would be detrimental to it, while the opposition equally clearly views private meetings as militating against being able to make political capital out of the situation.

The public v private debate may ostensibly be one of principle, but ultimately it's more about party political advantage.

Good and bad news for Planet Politics

The good news is that Planet Politics has risen ten places in the Scottish section of the annual Total Politics blog poll, and has just made it into the Top 20. Hurrah. The bad news is that this is two places down on the inaugural Scotblog awards earlier this year. Boo hoo.

It would presumably be a bit self-absorbed to further compare the minutiae of the two polls and perhaps try to rationalise this difference, so it's perhaps appropriate to console myself by pointing out that Planet Politics is probably the highest placed blog that doesn't beat the drum for any political party. And which doesn't have any other obvious constituency. And which isn't penned by a professional journalist. And isn't Mr Eugenides. Or Malc. Or...OK, it seemed a good point before I really thought about it.

But thanks to all who voted for me, and to Malc in particular, who is the only Planet Politics voter I'm aware of.

As for the poll generally - and ignoring the more 'professional' blogs - SNP Tactical Voting swaps second place with the libertarian Underdogs Bite Upwards, which was placed third last year. Which seems even more bizarre than last year, since whatever the intrinsic merits of the latter blog, it certainly doesn't give the impression that it has anything like the same profile and impact on the Scottish blogging scene as Jeff's site. Indeed, it didn't feature at all in the Scotblogs Top 25, thus it probably benefits from the more UK-wide ambit of the Total Politics vote. Similarly, while Tom Harris once again tops the TP vote, he didn't make the SB 25.

Apart from that there are no particularly huge stories at the top end of the poll, since Subrosa - as the highest new entry - exempted herself last year. But in view of the unpopularity of the Lib Dems in Scotland at the moment the party's bloggers have done remarkably well, with Caron's Musings, Stephen's Liberal Journal, Andrew Reeves and Fraser Macpherson all making healthy progress.

Elsewhere, James Kelly is a well deserved new entry at 23, but otherwise it's not been a good poll for Nationalist sympathisers outwith the Top 10 - redoubtable bloggers Lallands Peat Worrier and J Arthur MacNumpty drop a couple of places, while Scots and Independent, Calum Cashley and Indygal all drop a dozen or spots. On the bright side for the SNP, Bellgrove Belle jumps 21 places to scrape into the Top 25.

Of course, most of the Nationalist fallers can no doubt blame a lack of output over the last few months, and this has presumably also been a significant factor in falls for other heavyweight stalwarts such as Two Doctors, Malc in the Burgh, Kezia Dugdale and Ideas of Civilisation.

I'm slightly ashamed to say that I've never even heard of many of the new entrants in the Top 50, but one highly deserving of a place is Not a Village in Westminster. Although perhaps benefiting votes-wise from the retiral of Yapping Yousuf, Jamie could well be a Labourite Jeff Breslin in view of his erudite and ecumenical style, but alas he seems unable to devote sufficient time to be other than a very occasional blogger.

And three other previous big hitters who have stopped blogging and fallen out of the Top 50 are Scottish Unionist (9 last year), Grumpy Spindoctor (14) and Scottish Tory Boy (21). And this also underlines the distinct lack of Labour/Tory/Unionist blogs in the top flight.

As for the politics professionals, Alex Massie streaks in at 11 (why didn't he feature last year?), Go Lassie Go appears at 17, Gerry Hassan comes in at 24, while Bright Green Scotland tops the lot with its first appearance in sixth place.

Meanwhile, Iain Dale has taken a very dim view of Guido Fawkes's involvement in the affair which culminated in yesterday's personal statement from foreign secretary William Hague, describing it as a "bleak day for political blogging" and also saying on radio that there is a part of him that is "ashamed" to call himself a political blogger.

Naturally, even those unsympathetic to Guido Fawkes have taken issue with Iain Dale, saying that newspapers as a genre shouldn't be judged by what appears in the gutter press, for example, which is an argument I've used myself.

But perhaps the problem is that apart from the perspective of the blogosphere itself and political anoraks, the blogosphere tends to be viewed as a homogeneous medium and not the heterogeneous one of different approaches, tones and viewpoints that we'd like. And this is particularly so from the perspective of the wider public, who generally only interact with the blogosphere via the MSM, which of course doesn't tend to do bloggers favours and generally portrays them only in a negative light.

Edit: Yesterday's poll results have been completely overshadowed by today's news that surely ranks as a MacBlogosphere earthquake. Jeff Breslin (SNP Tactical Voting), Malcom Harvey (Malc in the Burgh) and James Mackenzie (Two Doctors) have mothballed their individual blogs and started a new Green-leaning collective effort called Better Nation.

The latter two seem to have lacked enthusiasm for blogging over the past few months, while Jeff has joined the Greens and has also been a bit less productive of late, so their new venture will hopefully get their creative juices flowing again.

It should go without saying that all three are highly intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable and also very fair and civilised, and thus deserve the best of luck with their new venture.

Also, since Jeff Breslin is the nearest thing to a MacDale, and in view of the obviously considerable effort and enthusiasm he's put into his blogging over the years, his risk in mothballing SNP Tactical Voting is particularly laudable.

Publican profiteering v public interest

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

It’s hardly reassuring that Glasgow’s alcohol experts have somehow managed to discern a correlation between the number of licensed premises in an area and the amount of crime and anti-social behaviour (“Licensing crackdown on Scotland’s booze culture”, The Herald, August 26).

Stating the obvious is one thing but refusing new liquor licences on the grounds of so-called over-provision would surely only serve the interests of publicans, rather than the public.

Excepting the unlikely scenario of current under-capacity – which in itself seems antithetical to the concept of over-provision – granting new licences would merely take custom from existing outlets, thus making it difficult to see how associated crime would be affected.

And even if a scenario of under-provision could be engineered, new businesses would just open in other areas, thus shifting the associated problems elsewhere.

Only if consumption was severely reduced by having permanent Soviet-style queues outside alcohol outlets would any real impact be made but such a scenario seems highly unlikely. Thus, instead of the best-run businesses staying open while others folded, the measures would protect all current licensees and allow them to earn excess profits regardless of merit.

Like the Scottish Government’s minimum pricing proposals, at best the Glasgow City Council suggestion would be of only marginal benefit, and would merely serve to further distract attention from the current lamentable lack of law enforcement.

The proposed policy is as crude and illusory as the approach of local authorities to limiting black cabs’ numbers. This doesn’t really affect supply in the market of for-hire vehicles, since all it does is compel multi-driver black cabs and increase the size of the private hire sector.

But, like the black cab controls, crudely limiting the number of alcohol outlets would create a profiteering vested interest group, with very little accruing in terms of the public interest.