Would anyone notice?

I could almost be bothered reading an article in yesterday's Scotland on Sunday, which I think may have been about a delay in the count for the Holyrood elections in May, this to be caused by the extra workload necessitated by having Westminster's AV referendum on the same day (or at least it was the last time I was paying attention).

Anyway, in a nutshell this seems to mean that instead of the traditional count after the polls close on Thursday through to the early hours of Friday, the count will be delayed until..um..a later date.

Well I would have to admit that I'll be slightly disappointed if not able to stay up until the early hours and have a bit of a cringe as the results come in while devouring a few munchies from Tesco, but apart from the politicos, the journalists and the more anoraky tendency like myself (although not part of the ultra-anoraky faction) would anyone else really notice or, more to the point, would it really bother them? Probably not.

All the same, I'd much prefer the conventional set up rather than have the AV vote get in the way, but perhaps that's more to do with antipathy towards the referendum than eager anticipation regarding the Holyrood poll. And since I'm on a permanent healthy eating regimen these days - in other words, a normal diet - the Friday morning snack-fest won't be happening anyway, spoiling the fun slightly.

I'm sure I also read that the SNP and Labour are actually at one on this issue and are lobbying for a rethink.

Aye, it's good to see that when they actually agree on something it's an issue that's sure to have the voters just desperate to get into those polling booths.

WTF do Palin and Goldie have in common?

Most obviously that they're both conservatives, both aspire to lead their countries and both are women in the male-dominated world of politics.

Clearly important parallels, but beyond those they probably don't have much in common at all. However, I couldn't help thinking about Annabel Goldie on reading of Sarah Palin's unstates(wo)manlike reaction to President Obama's State of the Union address. Appearing on Fox News (where else?) the presidential hopeful (or whatever) said: "His theme last night in the State of the Union was the “WTF,” you know, “Winning the Future.” And I thought, “OK, that acronym, spot on.” There were a lot of “WTF” moments throughout that speech."

Well I'm not sure if WTF is technically an acronym in its purest sense (you can't say it as a word) but clearly she was alluding to that well known abbreviation used primarily online and of course a euphemism for something a bit naughty, and obviously not the kind of thing Auntie Annabel would use.

Ah, but that would be to forget Ms Goldie's "bullshitter" moment the other week, which of course is still reverberating throughout Scottish politics and beyond.

Unsurprising, however, that she came in for a bit of stick for her slightly industrial language, and this was just one minor example of how some people push at the boundaries of what another group calls appropriate behaviour, with the boundaries shifting over time, in one direction or the other.

Of course, since this post is being ever so slightly critical of Goldie and Palin I should add the usual caveat that I don't want to be too poh-faced about this issue (even if, ahem, I rarely swear myself) but personally I find the increasing acceptability of bad language over recent years slightly tiresome, if not simple gratuitous offensiveness or bad manners, depending on context. For example when passing a group of smokers in the street, thus one consequence of that new dawn in civilised living a few years ago.

As someone admitting to using bad language, er, very occasionally some might regard my stance as hypocritical, but it's perhaps a bit like other things you do in private which you wouldn't do in front of people you don't know, particularly in a public place. (Was going to include an example there, but didn't want to lower the tone too far!)

Thus it's perhaps unfortunate that Ms Goldie considers it appropriate to herself to push the boundaries slightly, and even though she's hardly the only politician to do so (David Cameron's "too many Twits might make a twat" [ironically while making a point about politicians having to think and watch what they say in the immediacy of the Twitter environment] being a case in point), the state of Scotland's political discourse is surely bad enough without pushing it further into the gutter.

On the other hand, the substantive point Ms Goldie was making about such discourse was bang on the button, and indeed it's difficult to think of a more descriptive word she could have used to convey what she was saying. Sarah Palin, on the other hand...FFS!

Tommy the political martyr. Again.

He's been imprisoned before, of course. First in relation to the poll tax, then over nuclear weapons. Irrespective of your opinion on those issues, there's surely something to be admired about going to jail for your principles. Only to the extent, perhaps, that such a course of action doesn't descend into the worst kind of self-indulgent political martyrdom.

Again, however, if there are principles involved then such hubris can perhaps be excused, at least partially. But the following reaction to Tommy Sheridan's incarceration for perjury wrongly ignores dishonesty and criminality, and instead portrays the whole affair as being about something else entirely: "Tommy has dedicated his life to helping others. The real reason why he's been imprisoned today is because he has fought injustice and inequality with every beat of his heart."

Hence it's all about politics and principle once again, and nothing to do with lies and infidelity. Of course, his whole relationship with the News of the World is rooted in politics, and no doubt if he'd been a lowly and anonymous member of the public the perjury case might not have happened. Thus there's perhaps some justification for the politics angle, but on the other hand there's no apology, no regret and certainly no humility as regards the rest.

Worse still, the defence quoted above came from the mouth of betrayed wife Gail, who is also playing the victim, ironically not in relation to her husband's lies and betrayal, but instead with regard to his unending and selfless fight against injustice and inequality.

Thus the Sheridans are to an extent revelling in it: Tommy in his political martyrdom, Gail in her victimhood as the wife wronged and deprived of her husband by ruthless and shameless political foes.

But from Tommy Sheridan's perspective his moral principles (aka political self-righteousness) excuse his other foibles. His wife agrees. She's right about being a victim, of course, but she's got the wrong perpetrator.

The car question driving even more shops out of business?

I've babbled on before about the questionable impact of so-called 'regeneration' projects, and perhaps another candidate for cynicism is one of the latest in the Scottish Government's Town Centre Regeneration Fund projects. The 'improvements' in the Perthshire town of Coupar Angus have attracted some adverse comment in the press, and the complaints seem not unlike those outlined in my previous post about Lochee in Dundee.

In essence the problem seems to be that both schemes act as a deterrent to car drivers. Of course, many of those without access to a car will welcome the changes, but whether in the round they are beneficial or detrimental to the shopping areas concerned is a moot point, as per the letter below sent to the Courier. In short, can the competitive attractions of out-of-town retail parks be tempered by throwing money at environmental improvements in areas inhabited by the longer-established part of the shopping sector? A different but not unrelated current issue is the SNP's "Tesco tax" proposal, which in the grand scheme of things would probably do next-to-nothing to help smaller retailers, although perhaps it's a case of "every little helps" in reverse.

But it's often said that left-leaning politicians in particular will wastefully spray public money about in a rather scattergun manner without really thinking through whether or not the funds are used effectively - and, indeed this can look like money spent for the sake of it - but of course in this particular case it was the Tories who were instrumental in securing the Fund, levering it out of the SNP Government in return for supporting its Budget.

Slightly ironic, then, that the Angus Alliance (aka Unionist/Tory) has managed not to spend a significant part of its allocation of Fund monies, with accusations of bumbling and incompetence, and cross-party calls for an investigation. Politicians failing to spend money? Whatever next!




Since it seems generally accepted that car-friendly retail parks and superstores have been instrumental in the decline of town centres and smaller shops, it's surely ironic that 'improvements' intended to 'revitalise' such areas seem to be fundamentally pro-pedestrian and anti-car.

Thus recent correspondence regarding parking difficulties and the detrimental effect this has had on shopping in Coupar Angus seems to reflect similar concerns following comparable work done on Dundee's Lochee High Street.

Of course, many people without access to a car welcome such improvements - although the blurring of the road/pavement divide and the consequent tendency of some of those on foot to treat such areas as a pedestrian precinct is one reason I avoid driving in them if at all possible - but, from the wider perspective, it seems arguable that this 'regeneration' is detrimental to rather than of assistance to adjacent shops.

No doubt many will dismiss the above as the typical car driver's perspective. However, even living in an area with plenty of smaller shops - and indeed less than a mile from Dundee city centre - I actually walk several miles several times per week to out-of-town superstores to do most of my shopping.

Which perhaps underlines that the market trends responsible for the problems besetting the more traditional retail sector won't be turned round merely by throwing money at so-called regeneration schemes, and irrespective of the car issue.

(The latest Courier news article on Coupar Angus doesn't seem to be online, but see this story for earlier complaints regarding the 'improvement' works while they were still ongoing.)

Drama queens

Regular readers will probably be aware that I know a bit more about EastEnders than is probably good for me, but one soap opera that I gave up on some time ago is The Sheridans, starring Tommy and Gail as Scotland's Den and Angie (or Zak and Lisa, depending on taste), with a supporting cast largely from the socialist left. However, I am vaguely aware of a couple of court cases involving the Sheridans, the first under civil law and seeing Tommy and Gail emerge victorious, but the consequent second in the criminal courts, with Mr Sheridan facing a period in jail as a result.

Mrs Sheridan was of course acquitted on all charges, but as a result of the whole carry on has decided to seek election as an MSP in May's Holyrood vote. And in true soap opera style Gorgeous George Galloway has come back from the dead (it was all a dream, honest!) and will now be a regular in The Sheridans until May at least, because he'll be up against Gail and will thus split the socialist vote, probably guaranteeing a spat for a few months worthy of the best that the Queen Vic, Rovers Return and Woolpack can offer.

Naturally, therefore, some are accusing Gail Sheridan of being a bit of a drama queen about it all, and, equally naturally, I would tend to agree. Nonetheless, few who saw the police video of Mrs Sheridan being interviewed - in which she was accused of adopting techniques employed by terrorist suspects while being interrogated - can fail to have been slightly discomfited by it all, not to mention other matters pertaining to her treatment in the case which have formed the basis of a formal complaint about police conduct.

And the prize of a year's subscription to Planet Politics for anyone who sees where this is going, but I couldn't help notice another news article in the Herald this week about people getting a bit uppity about what they regard as unfair questioning.

Of course, I refer to our two distinguished professor friends, who reacted to Wendy Alexander's questioning on the Scotland Bill committee in the same way that a human rights lawyer might respond in relation to their client's detention at Guantanamo Bay, or if they had found themselves partaking of beer and sandwiches with the Emmerdale's Dingles rather than their expectation of a graduation garden party on the Lower College Hall lawn, St Salvator's Quad, St Andrews.

It's the reaction of the professors to the committee chairperson's attempt at a Paxoing that's most baffling, irrespective of whether there may have been an element of unfairness about her approach. Not to mention that of some of their supporters, such as the Scotsman correspondent who compare Ms Alexander's questioning to her stance on school bullying, or another one who mentions the treatment of David Kelly.

Couldn't the academics have appeared less petulant? Couldn't they have turned things to their advantage by doing so?

And to say they are "utterly schocked" by the Presiding Officer's dismissal of their formal complaint surely demonstrates a slight lack of proportion, particularly when compared with Gail Sheridan's grievance.

Of course, as I said in my previous post and as per this earlier effort called "Red rubber band relativism", the problem for some perhaps comes down to the difference between the professors' normal otherworldliness of their ivory towers and the environment of arrests, questioning and show trials experienced by Gail Sheridan, not to mention the less than rarefied world inhabited by many of the rest of us. If the academics and their supporters think their treatment warrants a parliamentary inquiry and accusations of intimidation then they must have a very rose-tinted view of our political process and, indeed, lead very sheltered lives generally. And in a letter to the Herald, another professor - who on his website cites Newsnet Scotland's and Joan McAlpine's perspectives on the episode as evidence of unfairness ('nuff said) - seems to think the events reduce Scotland's democracy to the status of a banana republic. This characterisation may have some merit, but in the grand scheme of things Professorgate (groan!) seems to me like the mere tip of the iceberg and to that extent of little real consequence beyond the narrow confines of the ivory towers.

Thus while Gail Sheridan may be something of a drama queen in relation to her Holyrood candidature, there is surely legitimate concern over her treatment leading up to her acquittal. As for the esteemed professors, methinks they doth protest too much.

(For the avoidance of doubt, and for what it's worth, please note that I have a lot more respect for academics than politicians, but this cannot be unqualified. Of course, and as usual, to an extent respect has to be earned rather than proffered unconditionally, with increasing cynicism underlining this!)

Grow Scotland's economy, or cripple it?

As a lowly member of the public rather than a politician, businessman or (so-called) expert, I remain unconvinced either way about the various arguments for and against fiscal autonomy.

Pragmatism rather than dry theory is probably more instructive. Thus those in favour of greater financial powers for Scotland are advocating lower corporation tax, VAT and fuel duty to stimulate growth, while the tartan tax debacle and the council tax freeze demonstrate that some politicians are unwilling to raise other taxes. At the same time they are offering various costly policies such as free medical prescriptions and heavily subsidised further education.

Therefore perhaps the key is in borrowing powers, yet we all know what happened to economies as varied as the G8's UK and the small independent state of Ireland when rapid growth is fuelled by public sector debt. The whole creaking edifice eventually comes tumbling down when the reality dawns that boom is still followed by bust. Likewise, what does this say about academic theories regarding fiscal accountability?

Indeed, Scotland has enjoyed its fair share of debt-fuelled growth based to a large extent on public spending, but the long-term effects of this are arguably detrimental rather than beneficial to the nation's wealth.

Moreover, the devolution experiment thus far inspires little confidence. An addiction to spending to the benefit of their subsidy-junkie cronies seems to represent the zeitgeist of Holyrood's denizens, with those promoting financial autonomy to encourage "fiscal responsibility" surely employing an oxymoron.

Neither do I find convincing abstract and emotional arguments about ideas like "personal honour and self-respect", not to mention the concomitant "shameful" notion of being "governed by another country".

Personally I couldn't care less who runs the country, but none of our current tiers of government - local authorities, Holyrood, Westminster and Brussels - inspire much in the way of confidence.

Indeed, isn't it ironic that many of those currently promoting the soundbite of greater financial powers for Holyrood to "grow Scotland's economy" are the selfsame people advocating ceding monetary policy to Frankfurt via the euro, a move which has helped cripple the economies of several member states?

On the other hand, things have perhaps gone a bit quiet as regards that particular Holy Grail.

(Published slightly abridged and edited as a letter in today's Scotsman.)

Ivory towers meets partisan politics

Irrespective of the procedural niceties, I'm surprised at the reaction of the two academics in relation to what's described as their "ambush" by "impolite and discourteous" MSPs at Holyrood.

Here was a committee meeting set up to discuss the proposed legislation to devolve more financial powers to the Scottish Parliament. The academics were asked to attend on that basis, but have cried foul because they were questioned about fiscal autonomy.

And not just scrutinised about any old aspect of fiscal autonomy, but a paper the academics themselves authored relatively recently. Given their reaction you would think they'd been asked about particle physics or restorative justice, or whatever.

Suppose the SNP Government set up a committee to examine a Bill on local income tax. A professor has authored a paper advocating a property tax. He's asked to attend, and throws his toys out of the pram when asked about his property tax paper. Er, hello?

Indeed, imagine if the good professors had turned up to the Scotland Bill committee and been asked a few supportive questions: would they have considered fiscal autonomy off-limits? Of course not. If they were confident of their case then presumably they could have turned last week's events to their advantage on the basis of substantive argument. On the other hand, given the likes of Ireland's sovereign debt problems since they wrote their paper then perhaps their confidence has taken something of a dent, irrespective of the minutiae of the paper per se.

Moreover, it's surely a bit rich of them to get involved in a facet of economics so politically charged, court publicity in the process, accept the plaudits from one side of the debate when it suits, but react so vehemently when the dirty world of partisan politics blows up in their faces.

The public generally don't trust politicians because they're viewed as detached from reality and consider themselves above criticism. In that regard this latest episode surely does academia few favours.

But if their partisan supporters think a bit of procedural nitpicking and a handful of supposedly discourteous politicians warrants accusations of "intimidation" and a call for a parliamentary inquiry, then they must lead sheltered lives indeed. A letter in today's Scotsman compares Wendy Alexander's "hectoring approach" to scrutiny to her stance on school bullying. For crying out loud. Perhaps Alex "kicking puppies" Salmond should be sectioned.

Indeed, to those who think this all damages the reputation of the Scottish Parliament then perhaps they should consider that the dominant public image is probably one of politicians shouting soundbites at each other, with a baying mob screaming encouragement. If this episode has damaged Holyrood's reputation then it's presumably only vis-à-vis an extremely rarefied part of the political-academic milieu. In actual fact, for 'rarefied' read 'partisan'.

If academics can't stand the heat of the political kitchen then perhaps they should stay safely ensconced in their ivory towers.

Compo culture or cheats' charter?

An article in today's Scotland on Sunday partly blames rocketing insurance premiums on the compensation culture encouraged by claims handling firms, not to mention inclement weather conditions, and accusations of collusion and price fixing by insurance providers.

But is the compo culture exacerbated by a slightly more invidious aspect of the claims business? By coincidence, last night I was talking to someone who had had the screen of her shiny new iPhone-type gizmo smashed by some drunken students in a pub, who had knocked her handbag off the table, damaging the phone inside.

Since this was a two hundred quid phone this person was clearly annoyed by it all - particularly as she claimed that the students hadn't even apologised - but never mind, she said, she would just take out an insurance policy on the phone and make a claim in a couple of weeks or so.

Thus it's not just a compo culture that's to blame, it's one of cheating as well, and we all know that this kind of thing is the tip of the iceberg. And since I'd only just met the person she was obviously of the opinion that this kind of thing is so ingrained in society that we're all at it, and to that extent I wouldn't bat an eyelid about it. Of course, I just smiled politely, but paying out perhaps a grand per annum on car, buildings and contents insurance - and also phone insurance as well at one point - I was a tad annoyed, particularly since I've only made a couple of small claims in the last twenty years or so, and both entirely honestly.

Indeed this reminded me of someone else at work with whom I was barely acquainted, but who was proudly relating how he had thrown his laptop down the stairs in order that he could get a shiny new one by virtue of his, ahem, accidental damage policy, the only fly in the ointment being how difficult it was to break the thing!

And no doubt even the most honest of people know others who have tried to claim more than they're entitled to after a car accident or burglary at home, for example.

Perhaps some of us are just too honest for today's culture, but unfortunately we're all paying the higher premiums because of the cheats.

Nothing to see in Albert Square...move along now...

...or at least switch channels!!

The recent furore over the EastEnders baby-swap plot is perplexing. Not because the subject matter shouldn't be expected to cause offence - that's surely a given, rightly or wrongly, with many soap opera storylines - but because of the magnitude of the reaction and the consequent extent of the media coverage.

The point, surely, is not the context of the plot per se, but the context of soap opera-land generally, and Albert Square in particular. Thus from a philistine who watches the programme to those of a more sno...er...highbrow persuasion who look down their noses at the Mitchells, Slaters et al, a brief overview of some of the goings on.

For a start, what have Ronnie (Veronica) Branning (the baby swapper) and Kat (Kathleen) Slater (the swapped baby's mother) got in common? Well they've both worked behind the bar of the Queen Vic for a start.

Of course, half the residents of Albert Square have done likewise, but when you think about it - and off the top of my head - the whole thing is characterised by dynastical dysfunction and interconnectedness, sort of thing.

Thus both Ronnie and Kat gave birth at a very young age. Ronnie's baby was taken from her by her nasty father, who was consequently permanently estranged from her. Not to worry, though, because her daughter was reunited with her when a teenager, but unfortunately was run over and killed by a car soon after, with Ronnie witnessing it all. Oops. Kat's daughter, meanwhile, was brought up as her sister, and only realised this when asking the following supposedly rhetorical question during a spat with her ostensible sibling Kat: "Who do you think you are, me muvver?" An emotional Kat answered in the affirmative. What a tearjerker!

Anyway, Kat's cousin(?) Stacey was raped by Ronnie's horrible father, and later murdered him in the Queen Vic, leaving her husband Bradley Branning to take the blame after he had died following a fall from the roof of the pub. And Stacey left the Square recently after the facts of the matter became know, much to the disappointment of Bradley's father Max - whose brother Jack recently married Ronnie, after bizarrely making a full recovery from being paraplegic after being shot - who was having an affair with his daughter-in-law for a considerable period, which is probably why his barely teenage daughter tried to kill him. I think.

But although Stacey initially claimed to be carrying Ronnie's father's child, she later said it was Ryan's, who started an affair with Stacey as a consequence, culminating in Ryan's wife Janine drugging him and trying to kill him, but because of this Janine stabbed herself and tried to claim it was Stacey who did it, not only because of the affair with Ryan, but also because she was married to Ronnie's nasty father (remember him?), who was about 40 years her senior, and found out that it was Stacey wot done for him, because Max's daughter (who tried to kill him, remember? Keep up!) managed to record her confessing to it and wanted revenge on Stacey because of her affair with her father and because she left her half-brother(?) Bradley to take the rap for the murder, but fortunately he was dead anyway.

Of course, Stacey's bipolar disorder provided some credence to Janine's murder accusation, but she was found out anyway, and Ryan tried to kill her by pulling out a tube from her life support machine, although disaster was averted, but Janine's a nasty piece of work who had already killed at least one husband and has perpetrated all kinds of dastardly deeds. Anyway, Stacey's departure led her bipolar mother to attempt to drown herself in the bath, but once again death was narrowly averted.

Oh, aye, the link between Kat and Ronnie - apart from both working at the Queen Vic, remember? - is that the former's de facto sister Stacey was raped by Ronnie's estranged father, which has absolutely nothing to do with the baby swap line that I can readily think of, so I can't really remember why I thought it might be relevant in the first place. In fact I've said that already, cos it's all very confusing, and anyway I can't even remember who the father of Ronnie's now deceased child was, but I doubt if it was her husband Jack's, and I'm quite sure Kat's baby wasn't fathered by her husband Alfie, and may well be his brother's - oh dear, another plot twist for the future: perhaps Alfie will one day wish that Ronnie had kept the snatched baby!

But the above happened mainly in the last few weeks and covers only a section of the cast, and with several episodes per week stretching over 25 years it's inevitable that the plots become contrived and sensationalised, particularly in view of the ratings war with the other soaps, with this shock value often characterised by such euphemisms as "pushing the boundaries", which, for example, in the TV context almost seems to be Channel 4's raison d'être.

However, the point is that in this kind of soap opera milieu a basic cot death plot would have barely raised an eyebrow, particularly in the context of the even fiercer than usual festive ratings war, thus the need for something a bit edgier. Of course, and to reiterate, it's entirely understandable that some people might take offence at the whole thing, but perhaps the reason it all took off in the way it did is because it amounted to a classic internet viral campaign? Well I don't really know for sure, particularly since that part of the internet isn't really my domain, but when I saw the Mumsnet website mentioned in some of the news reporting this perhaps helped rationalise the strength and breadth of the reaction.

Likewise, the contemporary 'gritty' (another euphemism often justifying sensationalism) realism of soap operas - at least to the extent that they're not over-contrived - helps explain the response to the baby swapping plot: would the more cultured/highbrow (aka intellectual snobs?) who have criticised the BBC have reacted similarly to an identical plot in the Bible, Shakespeare or opera? I doubt it.

On the other hand, of course, no doubt the BBC and EastEnders consider all publicity to be good publicity, but it should be borne in mind that when the programme's creator Julia Smith claimed that, "We don't make life, we reflect it", she was well and truly talking out of her bahookey, or at least her own social background must be very bizarre indeed.

(I normally watch the EastEnders omnibus edition, and that's usually at least a week in arrears, hence the delay with this post. Indeed I haven't actually got to the baby swap bit yet, which might explain any lacunae in my knowledge, but I think I've got the gist by now. Oh, and no doubt EastEnders aficionados could pick holes in my plot summaries above, but the aim is merely to provide the gist for non-viewers.)

Independent thinking tanks?

The current debate on the future of Scottish policing has predictably given rise to many mentions of notions of local accountability and suchlike, but normally this is taken as a given rather than a problematic concept in its own right, particularly when considering the usually pliant and indeed fawning stance of councillors on local police boards, at least if my local area is considered instructive.

An interesting and perhaps illuminating article in this regard appeared in the Scotsman this week. This was written by Ross Martin, who is Policy Director at the Centre for Scottish Public Policy, which claims to be an "independent think tank". Got to be worth a read then, being detached from mainstream politics and all that, and from moribund party politics in particular.

Indeed, the article makes some good points about the focus on the cost-driven impetus for reform rather than change for its own sake, and also makes some brief but welcome mention of the need for debate on substantive policing rather than institutional reform per se. Moreover, in the process Mr Martin also has a few digs at mainstream politics in general, and at some shortcomings in Scotland's decade-old devolved government in particular.

All to the good then, although there seems to be something of a contradiction between his criticism of police officers acting as "nursemaids for drunken teenagers staggering out of irresponsible night clubs" and his censorious mention of "the UK government's authoritarian approach to youth disenchantment and disruptive behaviour....being enthusiastically endorsed with the adoption of the Asbo criminalising culture".

That aside, a very readable analysis, that is until the latter part of the article, which is mainly about "leading Scotland's second-largest police force through its last period of significant change", the "most successful reform" being to "devolve decision-making to the divisional level". Indeed, "by recognising the close working relationship that our local commanders had with each of the five local authorities within our combined force area we were able to invoke the spirit of the time, in preparation for the Scottish Parliament, and decentralise decision-making."

Eh? Because I read the article on the CSPP's blog I thought someone had perhaps accidentally pasted some corporate spiel from the police force's annual report - enthusiastically endorsed by councillors, no doubt - and this had ended up tagged on to Mr Martin's article, to slightly comic effect.

I was wrong, however. The explanation is to be found at the end of the article, where the author is declared to be a "former convener of Lothian and Borders Police Board". Ah, that explains that then. Further investigation reveals Mr Martin to be a former Labour councillor, and indeed was embroiled in one of disgraced MP Eric Joyce's controversies. Thus perhaps not so independent as the CSPP claims then, particularly as regards policing issues - and the organisation has certainly had plenty of partisan politicians involved with it - although in fairness there's no attempt to hide Mr Martin's past.

However, all that's not to dismiss the CSPP's contribution to the debate, but as often seems to be the case the tentacles of the Scottish political-bureaucratic complex reach far and wide, and this certainly isn't confined to the likes of the west of Scotland Labour party and their cronies often criticised by commentators such as Gerry Hassan, and indeed Mr Hassan himself often takes a wider, non-party perspective on the vested interests of the Scottish political establishment and power-elites generally, while ironically once himself having been involved with the CSPP. In fact his article on the SNP's "next step" in this morning's Scotsman could well be along these lines, although until I can get out to the shops it's behind the paywall.

But as regards Mr Martin's article and substantive policing and accountability issues, perhaps the likes of his take on the "close working relationship that our local commanders had with each of the five local authorities" could alternatively be read as representing greater opportunity for even more councillors and senior police officers to get together in a milieu of mutual and self-congratulation and self-importance rather than anything of real policing and democratic value.

Moreover, another article this week by the Telegraph's no-nonsense Alan Cochrane is perhaps a bit closer to the truth when he laments "the way chief constables currently run rings round the councillors to whom they're supposed to be presently accountable".

Muppetsville

Sunday's offering about the politics of snow and all that was to be illustrated by the above photo, which was taken a couple of hours before my early morning post, and shows a car on Dundee's Hilltown - which also happens to play host to the Planet Politics world headquarters - which seemed to have come off the road in the inclement conditions and almost hit a tree, but in any case appeared to have gotten stuck.

However, I thought a separate post about a couple of episodes at that time was warranted, and which perhaps provides a flavour of the area. The first happened while taking the photo, and I got the fright of my life when a couple of huge fireworks exploded nearby, and these resulted in two of the loudest bangs I've ever heard. They seemed to be the type that are normally aimed into the sky, where they detonate at great height and with much noise, but instead they had been utilised such that they exploded at ground level, and indeed close to yours truly! Not sure if I was specifically the target - the first one seemed to explode as I was approaching the area, while the second one went off while I was taking the picture - but I saw a group of, er, youths skulking behind the nearby flats, and they were clearly aware of my presence as well.

Anyway, less than an hour later and further up the hill the second incident concerned a couple of, er, young men who were squaring up to and shouting at each other in the middle of the street, and although physical contact was fairly limited the whole thing continued for the best part of an hour, on and off, and I could see it (or hear it, after I got bored) from my window. Again, although there wasn't much actual violence one or other of the participants was 'decked' on a couple of occasions, however there was no attempt to follow this up by (literally) kicking the opponent when he was down, as opposed to the perhaps more normal practice in the area of using the head as a football, given the chance.

All very Queensberry Rules then, and perhaps this was related to the fact that the pugilists spoke in an East European language. Which perhaps illustrates one benefit of immigration: you get a better class of violent ned.

And if anyone thinks this all sounds a bit racist, that's (one reason) why I didn't phone Dundee's finest, because it would have been ridiculous to omit the most obvious description above, but perhaps ill-advised to include it.

However, the most bizarre thing about the above episodes was that both happened not late at night, but during the period from just before 7 am until 8 am, and there's a police station slap bang in the middle of the Hilltown - isn't community policing and that topical link with local communities great? - not far up from the Christmas tree, which can just be spotted to the centre-right in the above photo. And quite a few people on the way to their work, church, or whatever passed the two East European combatants in particular, but like myself barely batted an eyelid. Indeed a passing car actually hit one of the protagonists, but didn't/couldn't stop, however no serious injury seemed to have been sustained.

Oh, aye, that Christmas tree again! Further to last week's post, and just when surely no one thought things could get much worse, the impossible happened and it did, with now even the severely curtailed display of last week reduced to next to nothing, as illustrated below.

But perhaps this neglect and severely faltering festive spirit provides an apt metaphor for the area which, as a previous post claimed, often doesn't live up to the suggested "belonging, togetherness and sense of community".

On the other hand, later on the Sunday night I was meandering home when I came across a drunk lying in the snow, and while reasonably cogent he was doing the classic 'sack o' tatties' bit, replete with the almost obligatory blood in the snow from the almost inevitably grazed bodily appendage.

Thus I did my civic duty and gave him a hand to his front door - which was mercifully only a short distance away, or he would have required greater assistance - for which help he was most grateful, so perhaps the "belonging, togetherness and sense of community" has life in it after all, but of course that would be in the specific Hilltoon context of assisting incapable pish-heids.

Brown skating on thin black ice?

Probably not - the SNP Government's newish transport minister seems unlikely to go the same way as the hapless Stewart Stevenson, since synthetic political outrage is surely unrepeatable over such a short timescale, and in any case Holyrood is still effectively on holiday, so it wouldn't do for a political crisis to get in the way of an extended break and next week's meander back to work.

Thus although the M8 was once again rendered impassable by black ice last week and snow closed Edinburgh Airport yesterday, the predictable kneejerk criticism of Keith Brown seems unlikely to come to much, since surely the realisation is by now that things wouldn't have been a whole lot different who had been given the brief or which party had been in power at Holyrood.

On the other hand, all this perhaps underlines the rather hubristic nature of Mr Brown's appointment, and in particular his ridiculous and grandstanding decision to spend the night at the coalface of Transport Scotland's "resilience centre" soon after taking the reins, and even after the latest M8 closure being photographed shovel-in-hand at Leith docks on delivery of a shipment of salt.

Of course, gimmicks like those often convey the impression that the politicians are having a laugh at our expense. An inch or so of sleety snow late on Friday froze to ice in Dundee yesterday, turning many of the roads and pavements into virtual skating rinks, even when some still haven't been properly cleared from the big dump of snow several weeks ago. And a couple of inches of fresh snow fell on the city last night, with little sign of gritting even in the city centre, and seeing many vehicles unable to make it up a busy road near to the Planet Politics nerve centre, apparently for most of the night.

And on a slightly different tack, driving last night saw the usual numpties who think slow-moving traffic on dangerous roads provides the perfect opportunity to tailgate and intimidate other drivers. Of course, these people do this with impunity at the best of times - and complacent politicians and police expect us to keep our heads down regarding such matters so as not to spoil the message of plummeting crime figures - but the inclement weather merely underlines what a tiresome and dangerous experience these people can make the task of simply driving from A to B while minding your own business.

Dundee cuts mean Hilltown Christmas half-cancelled?

A belated happy new year to ane and a'!

The reason for the delay in spreading this festive cheer was my requirement for this post to be accompanied by a photo of the Christmas decorations in the Hilltown area of Dundee, where yours truly has the seemingly unending good fortune to reside.

Anyway, this kept on slipping my mind, but the deed has now been done, and as well as providing the backdrop for my new year message of hope and benevolence, the decorations also provide another instalment in a saga now stretching to three different Christmases.

There may well be someone on Planet Earth other than myself who has read my previous ramblings on this subject, but for the eager hordes who haven't then perhaps a slight recap is in order.

Christmas 2008 saw the Hilltown gain a shiny new tree and lights, but at the time the whole thing seemed just a tad underwhelming:

A year later, and an astonished Hilltown played host to a significantly augmented display:


If that wasn't enough, and following criticism that the lights had been left burning until the end of January, a local SNP councillor suggested that the decorations might remain a permanent fixture. Huge disappointment quickly followed, however, when the lights were extinguished shortly thereafter, and a new Nationalist dawn for the area was thwarted.

That was probably enough drama for one festive season, but a year later and yet another twist in this never ending saga, with only half the tree illuminated this time round.

Whether this was an attempt to save power in accordance with the city's tightening fiscal regime, or perhaps because half the lights were faulty but no funds were available to repair them, the end result is surely less pleasing than even the original threadbare look:


Unfortunately there did not appear to be any press articles this year concerning all of this - and to that extent it's unclear whether the good Lord Provost attended a switch-on ceremony as previously reported, replete with carol singers etc, but in view of his recent enthusiasm to leave the country for a junket abroad, a visit to a busy road junction in a cold, icy and generally driech Hilltown probably wasn't a particularly attractive proposition for him - but the air of mystery surrounding the whole affair merely whets the appetite for next year's instalment.

Neither is it clear whether the following epitome of the political/bureaucratic complex was involved in the latest change in direction (OK, this is just another opportunity to repeat one of my favourites):

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

(Last year I questioned how the savings attainable by switching the lights off compared to the cost of taking them down and putting them back up the following year, but I subsequently noticed that they had merely been extinguished rather than removed, thus I profusely and humbly apologise for this misrepresentation and any offence caused.)

Whose "racist bile"?

Surprisingly there were no letters published by the Scotsman in reply to a recent missive accusing Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray of "racist bile" in relation to when he "clearly ridiculed Ireland, Iceland and Montenegro" in the most recent session of FMQs.

If the letter writer is correct then the vast majority of Scottish Nationalists are guilty of "racist bile" towards anyone categorising themselves as British, surely?

However, I personally wouldn't characterise this type of discourse in such a ludicrous and incendiary manner, but if the Scotsman's correspondent feels vindicated by the lack of a (published) response, then he is unfortunately likely to feel even more encouraged by the subsequent diplomatic spat between Iain Gray and the state of Montenegro, which has taken issue with the MSP's remarks.

At FMQs Mr Gray said the SNP's website claimed: "Montenegro shows us just how easy it can be to become an independent country."

But he then said it took "40 days, two world wars, the Balkan conflict, ethnic cleansing, a war crimes tribunal and a UN peacekeeping mission".

In a letter to the Scottish Labour leader, Marijana Zivkovic, chargé d'affaires at the Montenegro embassy in London, expressed her "deep regret" over Mr Gray's claims, and said: "Your statement that Montenegro was involved in 'ethnic cleansing', including your references to 'a war crimes tribunal and a UN peacekeeping mission' is simply incorrect."

In fact he didn't claim that Montenegro was involved in ethnic cleansing etc at all, and was quite obviously (with hindsight, at least!) talking about the wider context of the Balkan conflict.

Of course, there's no doubting that Mr Gray's remarks were undiplomatic and a tad cack-handed, but unfortunately that's the consequence of operating in an environment of soundbites, which was begat by the SNP's equally crude characterisation of events. In turn, the Montenegrin diplomat's response was eminently predictable, irrespective of the facts of the matter and what Iain Gray actually said.

And while there's little point in delving into the minutiae of Montenegrin history here, what's this in a UN General Assembly document, for example?:

Gravely concerned about the deterioration of the situation in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina owing to intensified aggressive acts by the Serbian and Montenegrin forces to acquire more territories by force, characterized by a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights, a burgeoning refugee population resulting from mass expulsions of defenceless civilians from their homes and the existence in Serbian and Montenegrin controlled areas of concentration camps and detention centres, in pursuit of the abhorrent policy of "ethnic cleansing", which is a form of genocide.

Strongly condemning Serbia and Montenegro and their surrogates in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for their continued non-compliance with all relevant United Nations resolutions.

The bottom line is perhaps that none of the protagonists in all of this should be wholly believed, but the most ridiculous aspect to all of the above is the Scotsman correspondent's characterisation of Iain Gray's FMQs remarks as "ridiculing" and "racist", and that was even before the essential content of what he said was questioned; it was clearly criticism of other countries per se that was considered beyond the pale.

Unfortunately if the SNP wants to cite other small nations in support of its quest for independence then if the facts don't quite live up to the soundbites and sloganeering then the truth should be told. Surely we can't accept the likes of the "arc of prosperity" claim at face value and allow any dissent from this to be characterised as "racist bile"?

It might be slightly reassuring to suggest that we've only got another four months of this kind of thing before May's Holyrood elections, but in truth nonsense of this ilk will only be exacerbated in the coming weeks; Holyrood's short history demonstrates that the chances of any long-term elevation of Scottish political discourse from its current dismal level are remote indeed.