Alex Salmond for president?

It's disappointing both that the SNP is being allowed to re-use the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' slogan used on 2007's list ballot paper, and also that the party has decided to once again exploit this kind of thing.

As I recall it the phrase was used because it would both emphasise Mr Salmond's role - hence exploiting his personal popularity - and elevate the party to the top of the ballot paper. It seems that the latter aim has been thwarted by the Electoral Commission requiring the addition of the party's name in front of the slogan (Hence - 'SNP: Alex Salmond for First Minister'), but otherwise this has done nothing to remedy the misleading nature of the label.

These are parliamentary elections. It's not a presidential contest, but as it stands the list ballot paper manages to convey the latter impression vis-à-vis Mr Salmond. It would clearly be ridiculous to use the label in question for candidates in a FPTP constituency vote, so why should the regional contest be any different - it's the list candidates that voters are selecting, not the party leader.

And it's self-evident that Scottish voters often don't fully understand the list system, thus any attempt to exploit this confusion and perhaps exacerbate it is utterly shameless, particularly since the link between voters and the regional members often seems so tenuous.

Of course, as well as emphasising Mr Salmond, as a corollary the sleight of hand here helps detract attention from the actual list candidates themselves, so perhaps the SNP's stance on this says something about their quality? And indeed since Mr Salmond is usually keen to highlight the strength of his ministerial team it does seem strange to portray the SNP as more of a one-man-band in this way.

Sloganeering should be confined to the speeches, leaflets and press releases, and should not appear on the ballot paper.

The SNP may want a presidential-style election, but voters are selecting MSPs. Of course, they very probably vote for these MSPs with one eye on the prospective First Minster, but that's not the same as directly electing a president, and the powers that be should consider the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' as unacceptable on the regional ballot paper as it would be for the constituencies.

Comments policy

Apologies to anyone who has posted a comment which has never appeared. Comments are normally published immediately, but the software settings allow moderation to be applied to posts over a certain age. This allows the blog author to keep an eye on older posts, because it would obviously not be possible to manually check two-year-old posts (say) to see if anyone had added a belated comment. However, although the software alerts the blogger to any comments that require moderation, for reasons unknown some such posts have been categorised as spam, which means that no alert is issued. And when I've tried to authorise such comments they have disappeared to who-knows-where. This has affected only a very small number of comments, but to mitigate the problem moderation is now required only on comments added to posts more than ten days old rather than the previous five. (Another recent problem is disappearing paragraphs!!)

Salmond last night's clear loser

Which is less a comment on the substantive debate than on the results of the STV opinion poll presented at the start of the programme, which showed Alex Salmond with more support than the other three leaders put together as regards who would make the best first minister.

To that extent it seems likely that even if Mr Salmond won the debate the gap between him and his rivals would narrow as the others took advantage of the exposure to garner a bit more support, particularly in view of the significant proportion of those polled who have still to make up their minds.

In particular, both Iain Gray (7%) and Tavish Scott (2%) secured ratings significantly at odds with their party's polling figures, and this is probably largely due to a lack of public recognition.

Of course, the narrowing of the gap would depend on sufficient voters watching the programme to have an impact on overall voting intentions. And also that none of the participants in the debate performed significantly worse than the others.

On the latter point - and although as per usual I lost interest fairly quickly - none of them seemed to perform disastrously in any significant respect. At an impressionistic level, and in keeping with the critiquing ethos of this blog, Alex Salmond seemed too subdued and anodyne, Iain Gray too confrontational and FMQs-ish, Annabel Goldie too self-righteous and patronising, while Tavish Scott was too, um, Lib Dem. (In fact I quite like Tavish's style in debates of this kind, but actually paying much attention to what he's saying is another matter!)

Of course, and as Iain Gray's figures in particular demonstrate, the leaders' own poll ratings don't readily translate into support for their parties. Thus with the SNP catching up on Labour in terms of party voting intentions, even if the yawning gap between Alex Salmond and the other leaders narrows slightly he could still paradoxically be getting closer to a second term as first minister.

Green behind the ears?

Call me Green behind the ears, but I've often wondered about the precise nature of Gerry Hassan's politics in terms of parties - clearly pro-independence, but certainly no acolyte of the SNP, which he obviously considers to be part of Scotland's 'forces of conservatism' (not his phrase!). But it all became a bit clearer in his recent Scotsman article:

Scotland’s Big Story is out there; an alternative, parallel nation already thriving under radar...You can find it in parts of our political mainstream, where people kick against the stultifying nature of our party politics, but if it is evident anywhere here it is in the Scottish Greens. They have a vision of a decentralist, sustainable nation, championing wind, wave and solar power, and a self-governing and self-determining community...

He contrasts this with the "modernist urge to centralise and concentrate power", which "led to us building tower block slums and believing the hyperbole of RBS and HBOS". Moreover...

The 20th century of course saw the idea of utopia taken to the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union....the notion of the utopian blueprint, of rationalising, organising and systematising a whole society should never be attempted again.

Indeed, but how precisely would the Scottish Greens' utopia of a decentralist, self-governing community work? Well this sounds slightly anarchistic in nature, at least insofar as there seems little evidence of a strong, central state government. And in fact perhaps some such micro-societies could work, provided the people involved are generally like-minded.

But for a nation as a whole such a commonality of interest seems unlikely, and to that extent the more popular conception of anarchy - as demonstrated by elements of Saturday's demonstrators in London - is more likely to prevail without a strong state apparatus.

By the same token, without robust regulation from a strong government, society would be an environmental disaster, unless of course these decentralised, self-governing communities became mere microcosms of the centralised state, in which case the duplication would seem pointless.

And to an extent this has been demonstrated by the more liberal approach to human behaviour evident in the last couple of generations, culminating in the politically correct watering down of rules and boundaries in favour of the welfare approach to law and order, with the backlash in terms of attempts to reimpose micro-management on the populace.

Which perhaps demonstrates why successful modern societies generally lie between the two extremes outlined earlier in terms of the power and reach of the state. Neither extreme seems particularly desirable or sustainable. A utopian society without law and regulation won't work - particularly to the extent that a green agenda is considered desirable - while on the other hand the overbearing state must always be guarded against.

Thus Gerry's blueprint seems as Green behind the ears as my own perspective on his politics. There's surely a profound contradiction between a concern for the environment and the dismissal of strong and centralised government.

Blogger endorses no celebrity endorsements

A second rate political blogger from Dundee has spoken out on the issue of celebrity endorsement of political parties, claiming that the issue could detract from the bitching, soundbites and lack of substance generally in the run up to May's Holyrood elections.

Stuart Winton, author of the highly unpopular blog Planet Politics, spoke out after the SNP had revealed the latest in a string of celebrity backers.

Two-star Michelin chef Andrew Fairlie described the party's food and drink policy as "refreshing", and said he trusted the SNP to "do the right thing for Scotland". But Mr Winton, newly converted to the Scots language after completing his census form, claims he's "never heard of" Mr Fairlie and said the fact that he's "only got two stars" demonstrates a "lack of credibility".

He added: "My pal works in the Michelin canteen up on Baldovie Road and naebody's ever heard o' this Fairlie person. He says it's never been the same since the windmills were pit up, and it's affected some foolk in the heid, so it could jist be somebody havering".

"I didna even ken the SNP had a food and drink policy, ken? I thocht the drink policy was tae dae wi' minimum pricing, ken?"

But an SNP spokesman welcomed Mr Fairlie's endorsement, saying his comments underlined that Labour were in disarray on food and drink, and that Alex Salmond would announce a manifesto commitment to double the amount of two-star Michelin chefs in Scotland from one to two by the end of the next parliament.

He continued: "The people of Scotland are fed up of Labour's legacy of fish suppers for the better off and baked beans from Aldi for the most vulnerable members of society. Our aim is to ensure that all families have at least one meal from the Tesco Finest microwave range every month. A healthy and nutritious diet for all would make a significant contribution towards the development of a more assured and confident Scotland, and could also contribute to a greater sense of national identity."

However, sources close to the SNP leader revealed a top-level split over the issue, with Mr Salmond keen to appoint a curry tsar under a future SNP administration. But deputy Nicola Sturgeon wants to promote fresh fish, while former health minister Shona Robison is said to favour the lentils and mineral water option.

And a spokesmannie for the online Nationalist community blamed a lack of haggis, neeps and tatties for the poor nutritional content of the Scottish diet.

Building relationships. With criminals.

An interesting quote in Dundee's Evening Telegraph recently on the subject of community policing (community often appearing to be little more than a feelgood label applied to policing in an area that is usually anything but a community!). An officer told the newspaper:

Policing is about getting on with people no matter who they are, whether they are a shopkeeper, a teacher or a criminal.

It's surely instructive as regard the softly-softly nature of modern policing that the officer affords some sort of equivalence between criminals and the rest of society as regards how police should interact with them.

Which brings to mind a statement a few years ago by another Tayside officer, who said, in the context of dealing with boy racers, that they preferred to "build relationships" with them rather than enforcing the legislation.

Which was brought into focus at a later date when police were making a virtue of enforcing the law in relation to problems cause by boy racers, presumably because the latter had been exploiting the previous relationship building to deceive the former into believing that a pat on the head was all that was required to turn them into model drivers.

Indeed, in the latest article the officer goes on to say:

You develop an understanding and a good community officer will have a bit more time to to develop these relationships.

Of course, such an approach can pay dividends, but on the other hand it's surely self-evident by now that the increasing propensity of police to ingratiate themselves - to portray the 'building relationships' approach pejoratively - to miscreants will just be exploited.

Indeed, as I said here recently the last time I approached police in the street about something the pair simply blanked me, the message self-evidently being for me to go away and stop being a nuisance.

Thus on occasion it's not only seen by police as constructive to 'get on' with criminals on an equivalent basis to law-abiding citizens, but perhaps also to place more emphasis on gladhanding wrongdoers while viewing the public generally as an impediment to this.

And perhaps police are just as guilty as politicians of placing more emphasis on 'building relationships' with the the culture of spin and soundbite rather than the substantive task they're charged with.

Alex Salmond - Mr 50p

As regards my interest in politics, Budget day has become a bit like Christmas; with increasing age you just wish it was all over so things could get back to normal.

Thus while trying to watch some of the yesterday's coverage, I found it difficult to concentrate for long, thus the most memorable bit was probably a (presumably) throwaway line from Alex Salmond on Newsnicht.

Of course, the SNP have been doing a fair bit of huffing and puffing recently about the price of fuel and the need for a fuel duty regulator, but precisely what they are aiming for in terms of prices at the pumps isn't so easy to discern.

However, yesterday the first minister said: "Fuel duty across the UK could have been down by 5p; down by 50p if we controlled it in Scotland."

Aye, right! Of course, fuel would be cheaper in Scotland than in England under such a scenario - it would have to be, wouldn't it? - but the chances of a spendthrift party like the SNP giving up such a huge amount of revenue seems remote in the extreme.

For example, there are all those subsidy-hungry, um, green energy schemes to consider for a start. And isn't it amusing that the party portraying themselves as saviours of the planet would like to cut more than a third off the price of a fossil fuel?

Indeed, the Nationalists making an electoral virtue of any cut in the price of fuel seems at odds with their attempts to outgreen the Greens (well, perhaps not quite), but a promise to cut pump prices by more than a third smacks of the kind of easy soundbite that the speaker knows they'll never be in a position to be held accountable for.

Alex Salmond - Mr 20% (sic!)

While it's perhaps trite to claim that the lack of popular interest in politics means the UK suffers from something of a democratic deficit, this was underlined in the Scottish context by remarks yesterday from Alex Salmond, who suggested that a 40% poll for the SNP in the forthcoming Holyrood elections would be enough to propel his party back into power.

Well 40% certainly wouldn't be a bad result in terms of a mandate, but of course the big caveat for the sceptics is the usual one. Turnout.

In 2007 this was slightly more than 50%, but it would certainly come as no surprise if this time round less than half of the electorate actually bothered to vote. Thus even if Mr Salmond's party secured 40% of the vote and formed the next Holyrood administration then only around one in five of voters would have endorsed 'Alex Salmond for first minister', which at best suggests a lack of democratic legitimacy.

Of course, even this would represent an improvement on last time round, when the SNP won the support of less than 17% of voters, thus a mere one in six of the electorate. Then the Nationalists secured around 32% of the poll, with the 40% winning line suggested by Mr Salmond this time round arising from the collapse of the Lib Dem vote, with neither the Conservatives nor the minority parties likely to benefit.

Thus while the 'winning' party in May is likely to secure a bigger mandate than in 2007, this will be partly due to antipathy towards one party rather than the attractions of the victor. And in terms of legitimately speaking for the oft-adduced 'people of Scotland', forget it. Indeed, even of those actually endorsing a particular party, how many do this with great enthusiasm, or is it more a case of 'the best of a bad lot'?

While the political class can't be wholly blamed for voter indifference - with consumerist citizens perhaps more inclined to vote with their wallets in favour of corporate behemoths like Tesco, which often seems to be where the real power and influence really lies - the campaign thus far predictably provides little evidence to suggest any alleviation of this apathy. Indeed, perhaps exacerbating the antipathy would represent a better characterisation.

But whatever the reasons for all this, what will be so galling come the election aftermath will be the self-indulgent triumphalism of the winning party, when the lack of a ringing endorsement surely meaning that a bit of humility should be the order of the day.

As usual, however, the winning post will be all that matters to the politicians, with those who feel disenfranchised being of little relevance. It's the result that matters, not how they got there.

(The 2007 results represent rough averages of the constituency and regional votes.)

Triangulation, Holyrood style

If there wasn't enough confusion over Labour's policy U-turns, flip-flops and boomerangs - OK, let's be nice and call it policy convergence - and exacerbated by the lack of any radical new agenda from the SNP, it seems the Tories are getting in on the act as well, at least if their new party political broadcast is anything to go by.

In a short film slightly reminiscent of Kinnock: the Movie (minus the other half, of course) Auntie Annabel is shown feeding the birds in her garden, then doing a bit of birdwatching, while underlining how bonnie Scotland really is (no sign of litter strewn streets, puking drunks and boy racers trying to wake the dead, though).

Enough of that though - then it's on to the real substance:

When I think of what the 16 Conservative MSPs have delivered in the last four years - the 1,000 extra police officers, the council tax freeze, help for business, help with jobs....

Eh? While it's arguable that they've enjoyed a bit of leverage at Holyrood, it's surely overegging the pudding a bit to say that the Conservatives have delivered these things, which is primarily down to the SNP Government? I thought perhaps the Unionist BBC had got the PPB scripts mixed up as part of its dastardly plan to thwart the SNP, or that Annabel had concluded that the Nats really were the 'Tartan Tories' and had jumped ship, but it would seem not.

And with not a little irony she goes on to deny the claim that politicians are all the same because the Tories should be judged on what they've done, and in her weekend speech to the party faithful Ms Goldie preached the virtues of straight talking. Which suggests to me, er, that politicians are all the same, both as regard the lack of straight talking and increasingly, it would seem, in terms of policy.

So it should be hoped that one of the big three - and let's not intrude into the private grief that's the Lib Dems - can come up with something more original and substantial before polling day. Otherwise, it'll just be a personality contest, and with the SNP apparently quite happy to steer things in that direction, and with the miniature 'Annabel: The Movie' (together with the self-effacing 'old nag' jibe) suggesting a similar tack from the Tories, this might well work in Iain Gray's favour as the unknown and underdog, who might turn out to be the Scottish Nick Clegg in the televised debates.

Then again, he might well fall flat on his face, and ultimately the Clegg effect turned out to be just froth anyway.

But if Labour and the Tories just want to ape the SNP then personality and Punch & Judy it'll have to be. But perhaps Alex Salmond will turn out to be the Holyrood equivalent of Gordon Brown's "clunking fist".

The Jaconellis and me

While not exactly possessing expert knowledge regarding the case of the Jaconellis in Glasgow, I've noticed a couple of parallels with my own residential property buying experience.

From what I can gather we both bought two-bedroom tenement flats around 20 years ago, and both paid around £30,000 for them. We both still live in them (although from what I can gather the Jaconellis lived in theirs for a substantial period before the actual purchase).

It seems that they were initially offered £30,000 under the compulsory purchase order, which seems derisory. It's reported that they want £360,000 for the flat, which seems over the top. Glasgow City Council has offered £90,000, which the Jaconellis have refused.

Despite the parallels with my own purchase, I can safely say that if offered £90,000 for my flat then I would be out of it quicker than an MSP benefiting from Holyrood's second home subsidy could say 'profiteering'.

And I'd have a massive grin the width of the River Tay on my face to boot. In fact the biggest smile since moving into the place almost twenty years ago.

Any chance of a late relocation of the Commonwealth Games to Dundee?

Who's "Paddy-bashing" now?

Fundamental to Scottish nationalism is a critique of the UK state, and indeed there's a lot to be critical about.

However, to that extent it's surely a bit hypocritical of nationalists to characterise their opponents' criticism of certain other small countries as "denigration", or suchlike.

A couple of regular contributors to the Scotsman's opinion pages - Alex Orr and Joan McAlpine - are particularly noteworthy in this regard. For example, last year the latter said, in relation to statements from Labour MSPs: "We haven't heard this much vitriol about Eire since The Rev Paisley in his pomp." She also used the words "Paddy-bashers", "foolish" and "offensive".

Both Mr Orr and Ms McAlpine are SNP list candidates in this May's Holyrood elections. Another such candidate - George Kerevan - recently used the Scotsman's opinion pages to accuse Ireland of forsaking "civic values" during the economic boom, and it thus "suffered accordingly".

So I wonder where precisely Mr Kerevan stands on the McAlpine scale of "Paddy-bashing", "foolishness" and "offensiveness", or are there different rules for SNP list candidates than for the rest of us?

Or what about this earlier piece from Kenny MacAskill regarding Dublin's taxi trade: "Even with checks the quality of vehicles declined, jeopardising safety, and assaults and rapes by unregulated drivers soared. Old vehicles not fit for purpose were on the road with drivers who neither knew their way about nor were bothered about how they treated passengers."

Surely if someone is making a legitimate point about something pertinent to another country, and that involves an element of criticism, then it shouldn't be used as an excuse for the kind of language used by Messrs Orr & McAlpine. As indeed the self-evident double standards surely demonstrate.

Thus perhaps it would be more appropriate to praise Mr Kerevan for his realism and candour rather than accuse him of denigrating Ireland.

A progressive Westminster or a Tory Holyrood?

My recent post about Scottish independence being an 'end in itself' quoted a Scottish Nationalist stalwart who had contributed to Lalland Peat Worrier's post about SNP debate on Scotland's substantive future. In turn Unionist blogger Braveheart cited my post, and the Nationalist stalwart (Indy) used Braveheart's blog to refute my point (!).

However, Indy's counter-argument seems to do little to address the point about Scottish independence per se being a desirable goal:

Since I was the person quoted by Stuart Winton I think I am entitled to point out the rest of what I said when I said that the case for independence does not rest on defining what kind of country Scotland will be post-independence. The case for independence is simply that we believe Scotland will be better governed and more successful as an independent nation. No-one cares as much about Scotland as the people who live here. No-one will prioritise Scotland as much as a Scottish Government. That is not an intellectual argument or an ideological argument but it is, I would suggest, a common sense argument.

Which to me adds little of substance to the argument beyond the likes of the earlier: "Scotland's future course will be decided democratically and by the Scottish people - and only the Scottish people." By definition a Scottish Government will prioritise Scotland, but does that mean that it will ipso facto be good for Scotland beyond more abstract ideas like notions of democratic autonomy, and symbols and emblems like flags and nomenclature?

Of course not: presumably the EU prioritises the EU, the UK prioritises the UK and local authorities prioritise their local authority area. Which tells us little about what this means in practice, particularly as regards a pro-independence Scottish party that wants to cede sovereignty to the EU while controlling local authority revenue raising, say.

But the 'independent Scotland as an end in itself' argument should of course be qualified to the extent that the contemporary SNP and its support is built partly upon a progressive political philosophy rather than mere considerations of ethnicity or crude geography. And this is probably in part a reaction to three decades of Westminster rule encompassing Thatcherism through to the progressive disappointment of Blair's 'third way'. Hence a better Scotland depends on how this is defined, and clearly this will mean different things to the progressive Indy as compared to the capitalist and socially conservative Brian Souter (say).

Thus although the likes of Indy will to an extent view Scottish independence in politically neutral terms, presumably this can only be taken so far. Thus an independent Scotland based on racial apartheid and a Souter-esque approach to sexuality would surely be unpalatable to someone like Indy, and to that extent to the dominant Scottish Nationalist ethos as well.

Part of the online Nationalist fraternity seems to think they have nonplussed the progressive Unionist Braveheart (although naturally he thinks otherwise!) with the question: "Would you prefer a Tory government in London or an independent Scotland with a Labour Government?"

But on the basis of the discussion above the counter-question to the Nationalists has to be: Would you prefer a progressive government* in London or an independent Scotland with a Thatcherite Tory government?

Interesting also that the question posed to Braveheart seems of course to accept the possibility of a Labour government in an independent Scotland as merely the lesser of two evils from the Nationalist perspective. But presumably a Labour administration at Holyrood come May will be considered preferable to the Westminster coalition in London. Well of course it will (won't it?) but don't expect much evidence of that in the coming weeks!

*Or indeed a progressive alliance including the SNP, as sought by Alex Salmond last May before the formation of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.

The colourful Mr Coutts

I keep on seeing the above in a rather forlorn and semi-derelict shopfront not a million miles away from Planet Politics Towers, and the 'Coutts' featured in what looks like an old SNP election poster is presumably Mr David Coutts, who stood for the Nationalists in the Dundee East constituency in 1992's general election, losing out to Labour's John McAllion. Mr Coutts was the SNP leader on Dundee District Council and also the party's chief executive.

Although his spell as a councillor was a bit before I became interested in Dundee politics, since then Mr Coutts' name has cropped on a regular basis in what seems to have been a colourful and varied political career. Thus the recent appearance of the old election poster - there was no obvious sign of it when the shop was actually open - perhaps represents a good opportunity to pull some of the strands of Mr Coutts' political career together, and it certainly provides an interesting contrast with my own rather humdrum existence, as I'm sure it does in comparison to most people's.

Anyway, it seems that Mr Coutts was a particular thorn in the side of Labour's Dundee hegemony when he led the SNP opposition, but unfortunately for him it was revealed during a bitter expenses scandal that he had "convictions for theft of cheese for a student cheese and wine party and for vandalism".

Presumably this didn't help his chances against Mr McAllion, but being a good Scottish nationalist Mr Coutts decided to decamp to Tallin, Estonia, where he became involved in the pub trade with Kenny MacAskill and a former SNP spin doctor called Chris McLean. (And to where Mr MacAskill apparently jetted in 2000 with entourage in tow to discuss a leadership challenge to Alex Salmond, which coming a year or so after his infamous drunk and disorderly charge presumably amounted to something of a high-risk strategy. But how times change!)

However, despite his Tallin investment Mr MacAskill clearly thought his future lay at home rather than in the former Communist bloc, but Mr Coutts seems to have had a rare old time there, including organising a Miss Wet T-shirt competition, the winner of which seemed to depend on a rival contestant refusing "to bare her breasts to the leering throng". Very 'civic nationalism'.

And Messrs Coutts and McLean also attempted to develop a shopping mall called British House (sic!) on the basis that: "Scotland does not have enough companies to sustain a Scottish House, whereas Britain does, along with a reputation for good quality products." Which all sounds a bit, "too wee, too stupid" etc for my liking.

Although it's not clear if Mr MacAskill intended including this sort of thing and the wet T-shirt competition in his proposed "Museum of the Scottish Diaspora" - or if they're included in his books Global Scots - Voices From Afar and Wherever the Saltire Flies - fortunately Mr Coutts retained a link with his home country in the shape of Dundee's taxi trade, where he ran a couple of vehicles with a private hire firm founded by the Marr brothers, who owned Dundee FC and were linked with such colourful characters as lawyer Giovani de Stefano - recently arrested on fraud allegations and who previously defended people like Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and killer doctor Harold Shipman - and gangster John Healy.

Of course, there's no suggestion of impropriety as regards the Marrs themselves, but given Mr MacAskill's seemingly never ending campaign of action against organised crime in Scotland's taxi and private hire trades, it's presumably fair to say that he wouldn't have been too happy at Mr Coutts' involvement with a business owned by people linked by the tabloid press with a millionaire convicted drug smuggler, although there's nothing to suggest that Mr Coutts himself was involved in the Marrs' hobnobbing.

But it seems that Mr Coutts had a bit of a fall out with the SNP anyway, and as I recall it he returned to Dundee promising to stand for elected office on a "Peoples' Independent Party" sort of ticket, but this didn't seem to happen.

And after being involved in founding 505050 Taxis in Dundee, Mr Coutts once again emigrated, but this time only as far as Edinburgh. There he was apparently instrumental in securing Councillor Steve Cardownie's defection from Labour to the SNP, presumably after a rapprochement between the latter party and Mr Coutts.

Messrs Coutts and Cardownie - the latter under the media cosh recently due to his status as deputy leader of Edinburgh council and involvement in the attempted bail-out of The Gathering - ran a Russian-themed pub in the capital, which got into trouble for selling cheap booze (minimum pricing, anyone?) and operating without proper planning permission, and was eventually closed following complaints from neighbours over noise.

Mr Coutts then turned his attention to Edinburgh's private hire taxi trade, with Mr Cardownie tagging along, and the inevitable press speculation about organised crime duly followed, this prompted by Mr MacAskill meeting police and licensing officials following "fears that Glasgow criminals are trying to buy into the capital". Which Mr Cardownie refuted by pointing out that "people with a criminal record cannot get a taxi permit or licence in this city".

But which seemed to contradict earlier comments by Colin Keir, convener of Edinburgh's regulatory committee, who had said: "Because private hire is de-regulated, much of the movement within the trade is just down to commercial decisions taken by the individual organisations, which we don't have any bearing over."

So one councillor thought there was a problem with private hire licencing, while another didn't. Which is where yours truly comes in and plays a bit part! I pointed out the contradiction in a letter to the Scotsman, but in response Councillor Keir harumphed that although private hire vehicle numbers were not regulated the trade is still, er, regulated, so where's the contradiction? Which I still haven't worked out, as pointed out here on a couple of previous occasions, so unless someone can square the circle then I still think Mr Keir was all over the place, presumably due to the slightly awkward involvement of his SNP colleague in the private hire trade.

Onywey, back to Mr Coutts, who it seems more recently quit his position in Edinburgh's private hire trade after the Sunday Mail revealed him to be running a "sleazy sex club" described as "Edinburgh's biggest and best swinging club". Gosh, I wonder if Tommy ever visited?

So when Mr Coutts was photographed with Dundee's boring old SNP group following their taking control of the City Council in 2009 - and penned a glowing missive to the Courier on the Nationalist nirvana about to bewitch Dundonians - we can only hope that his involvement in the swingers' scene had nothing to do with it!

What he's up to these days is beyond this blogger's ken, but it's surely safe to say that Mr Coutts has led a significantly more colourful and exciting life than the Shona Robinsons and Joe FitzPatricks of the Scottish Nationalist firmament, and indeed a good bit edgier as well by the looks of things.

Of course, Mr Coutts is likely to go down in SNP history for an entirely different reason, this being due to his involvement in an episode much earlier in his Scottish Nationalist career. In 1985 Willie MacRae, a lawyer and leading Nationalist who stood in an SNP leadership contest, was found dead in mysterious circumstances, and while the official inquest verdict was suicide, SNP luminaries like Gordon Wilson and Winnie Ewing questioned this, others claimed he was assassinated by the British State, and the row rumbles on even now.

But by coincidence Mr Coutts was one of the first on the scene when Mr MacRae's body was found in his car in an isolated spot near a Highland road. Mr Coutts knew Mr MacRae, helped remove his body from the car, subsequently questioned the farcical investigation into the death and "fought desperately" for a pubic enquiry.

Of course, I'm sure he would rather not have become involved in the aftermath of Mr MacRae's death, but in terms of interest and excitement his life could surely only go downhill after that, but I suspect a faded poster in a dusty and decaying Dundee shop window won't represent the end of my own interest in Mr David Coutts!

Cronyism writ large?

If Scotland on Sunday's main article on the SNP's weekend get-together is to be afforded credence then the most significant part of Alex Salmond's speech was his commitment to no compulsory redundancies across the public sector, this encompassing not just mainstream local and central government, but also extending to schools, colleges and the health service. And the quangocracy as well, presumably.

Elsewhere in his speech, Mr Salmond lambasted Labour's "crony state, where helping out your pals came before helping the poor. Where a party card was a passport to the cushiest numbers."

But doesn't Mr Salmond's preoccupation with job security in the public sector smack of a kind of Labour cronyism writ large? Of course, in other contexts such a commitment to a specific interest group might be termed an electoral bribe, but this looks just too much like low-level cronyism on a grand scale, particularly when compared with the majority who have to tough it out in the private sector.

And despite my current cynicism about the public sector, I still believe in a strong state and decent working conditions, but this smacks a bit too much of preferential treatment.

Moreover, this also seems a bit too much like Dundee Labour's Holyrood campaign being led by the promise of a Living Wage for public sector workers, which as I said previously might not go down too well with the majority who are more exposed to the 'slings and arrows' of the free market's 'outrageous fortune'.

But, to reiterate the point made in those previous posts, perhaps all this underlines the size of the public sector in Scotland and to that extent its pivotal role in deciding May's election, particularly in view of the likely pitiful turnout overall. In effect the SNP is pitching for the public sector vote and thus trying to 'out-crony' Labour.

But to that extent it's unlikely to endear either Labour or the SNP to the rest of us, and will merely extend the characterisation of the former's 'client state' to the latter, and also help confirm Scotland as a nation over-dependent on the public sector.

And perhaps this also underlines the lack of overarching vision from both parties.

Trust no one, part 1,678

The Scotsman's coverage of the controversy surrounding City of Edinburgh Council's involvement in the financial rescue of The Gathering continues this morning, with Unison reported to be unhappy that CEC's leader and deputy have implied that officials lied about what was said at a crucial meeting. It's claimed this breaches a code of conduct which prevents criticism of council staff and that this was done in the knowledge that officers have no right of reply.

Irrespective of the facts of the Edinburgh case, this raises an interesting issue, because it underlines how officials can be unaccountable for their actions. My own impression of many facets of local government is that councillors very often act merely to rubber-stamp what's desired by officials, and since councillors are subsequently prevented from criticising officials then clearly this underlines that it's in effect officialdom that run things, with the councillor function conferring merely a facade of scrutiny and accountability.

Of course, while there are many very able and honest people both employed by and elected to local authorities, this doesn't mean that they're necessarily competent in the subject matter they're responsible for. And there's surely little doubt that there's an element of dishonesty among officials corresponding to that prevalent within the political class, not to mention that in wider society.

Thus while even if politicians are widely and justifiably mistrusted, it hardly bears repeating that our imperfect democracy never really holds them properly to account. And while bureaucrats are perhaps afforded more public trust, in reality this is no doubt often misplaced, and the principle expounded in the current CEC imbroglio perhaps underlines their even greater lack of accountability.

Indeed, the lack of interest demonstrated by Edinburgh councillor Eric Barry in the debate on The Gathering and other important matters - he claims to have spent three hours doing a sudoku puzzle - perhaps ably illustrates what a charade the whole concept of local accountability can be.

Which in turn merely adds insult to injury as regards the recent proposal to substantially increase councillor salaries, with the likes of the two CEC senior councillors under intense scrutiny regarding The Gathering proposed to receive a salary of up to £63,000.

Wheels coming off SNP bus complaints?

It was gratifying to yesterday receive a second SNP election communication through the post, self-evidently sent to yours truly based on my position on the electoral register rather than a perusal of this blog.

The faux newspaper format (called the Dundee Independent [sic!]) of the missive provided for numerous 'articles' on what the SNP has done for Scotland and Dundee -replete with quotes from and photaes of local candidate Joe FitzPatrick - but was predictably bereft of specific policy commitments for a future SNP Government at Holyrood.

However, one issue not included in the 'newspaper' was a claim from Mr FitzPatrick that National Express Dundee must "live up to its responsibilities to the city's bus users" following a significant increase in the group's annual profits. In a prominent recent article the Courier quoted Mr FitzPatrick as saying that while the company has a responsibility to its shareholders it also has a "social responsibility to maintain good routes and serve the public". This follows recent complaints in the wake of changes to bus services in Dundee.

But a few days later the Scottish media featured news articles about bus operator Stagecoach, which had appeared at a hearing conducted by the Scottish Traffic Commissioner following issues arising from an investigation by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, which is responsible for vehicle safety in the UK. This included alleged "wheel loss incidents" on Stagecoach's operations in Fife, Glasgow and Dundee, and also several fires on buses operating from the latter depot. Among the allegations made were that proper safety inspections were not carried out and that driver reluctance to report episodes of possible wheel damage may be "cultural".

It's not clear whether or not the traffic commissioner has issued her 'verdict', but if Stagecoach is found 'guilty' what's the betting that we won't be hearing Mr Fitzpatrick's views on the company's 'social responsibilities', either in the Courier or that other fearless and esteemed organ, the so-called Dundee Independent?

SNP the Sanctimonious Nationalist's Party?

Managed to pay enough attention to Sunday's Politics Show (Scotland!) to hear SNP Government housing minister Alex Neil chuntering on about the ills of PFI/PPP and how his party intends helping first-time buyers get on the property ladder.

Few would presumably dispute that the fundamental problem with PFI/PPP is the excessive profits accruing to the private sector as a result of these ill-thought-out schemes but, on the other hand, the SNP's fantasy of raising shedloads of cheap finance for pubic infrastructure projects via the Scottish Futures Trust seemed equally ill-conceived. Indeed, that such funds which have been/will be forthcoming seem to depend on a rehashed/rebranded PPP model, then a degree of realism has clearly trumped the idealism.

But although I used to find Alex Neil's articulate and avuncular mien quite attractive, since news of his profiteering to the sum of £105,000 on his taxpayer-assisted second home purchase hit the headlines this has fundamentally coloured my view of the MSP, underlined by his defensive "Do you want me to stay in a caravan?" remark, which seemed to miss the point a bit.

Thus a fun figure became a figure of fun (and even that's when I feel more like laughing at politics rather than crying) and in view of his taxpayer-funded Personal Property Profiteering it's difficult to take his views on the likes of PPP seriously.

As for Mr Neil's concern about first-time buyers, of course the corollary of the difficulty of getting on the property ladder is the mega-profits accruing to many of those already on it. It's an ill wind, and all that. And any assistance to first-time buyers would very probably just inflate property prices further, which could indeed help MSPs who have still to sell their properties purchased under Holyrood's second homes sca..scheme. And never mind the housing minister's responsibility for the homeless.

Of course, in the grand scheme of UK politics this isn't anything particularly worth getting worked up about, but is there something especially self-righteous about Scottish nationalism that makes the likes of the Alex Neil scenario seem slightly more nauseating than if a Scottish Labourite did likewise? Or is it just that we're so inured to this kind of thing from the Labour Party that the Nationalists are unfairly demonised for lesser misdeeds?

But Labour's historical grip on Scotland is probably a good demonstration of the dictum 'power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely', therefore with the Nationalists' only taste of power thus far being a lame-duck-from-the-off one-term administration then it's impossible to compare the two in that regard.

But Mr Neil's profiteering ably demonstrates the low-level self-serving ethos which characterises many members of the political class, thus the SNP can ill-afford to appear too holier-than-thou.

(Mr Neil disputes the £105,000 figure specified in the initial reports on the subject, because he'll have outgoings like capital gains tax on the profit realised. Indeed, it's terrible that politicians have to pay taxes on their income and capital gains like the rest of us. Exempt the poor dears, I say!)

Ideology as an end in itself

A couple of decades ago my personal politics were in a perpetual state of flux, and at one point I recall wrestling with the Labour v SNP option. In essence it was a class-based politics versus my strong sense of patriotism. Crudely, it was class versus country. In the end class won out, but the choice wasn't quite grounded in the kind of Labour/SNP fissure that scars Scottish politics today. Indeed, it was more like the choice between chocolate or ice cream, and I was certainly the antithesis of a Unionist, which I perhaps naively saw as an essentially right-wing concept.

But that was back in the days of personal idealism, and the real world and experience has from my individual perspective put paid to both left-leaning ideology and Scottish nationalism. Part of the problem was the realisation that abstract ideological notions and tribalism become the goal rather than anything more concrete in policy terms. Thus a Labour government at Westminster was a cause for celebration in itself, and the details didn't matter. It would be alright on the night, sort of thing. But a few years later and the realisation is that having your tribe in power isn't enough, and it's what it does with that power that's ultimately important. On the other hand, many individuals will hang on for decades thinking that the former is more important than the latter - maybe because they gain personally from it - or perhaps they just delude themselves into thinking the latter is better than it actually is. Of course, the floating voters who decide elections are by definition neither tribalistic nor particularly ideological, thus UK Governments tend to cycle between Labour on the left and the Conservatives on the right, much to the chagrin of both sides of the ideological divide.

Thus for me it's much the same as regards the debate on Scottish independence. Abstract notions on autonomy and sovereignty don't matter so much these days as what it would all mean in more mundane terms.

And while I'm sure he wouldn't thank me for saying this, and equally he'd probably disagree with my interpretation of what he said in a typically dense cogitation, a recent post by Nationalist blogger Lallands Peat Worrier neatly articulated some of my own scepticism as regards what Scottish independence would ultimately mean, although his perspective is clearly more 'half full' to my 'half empty'.

But without getting into the minutiae of LPW's particular argument, a comment on his post left by a Scottish Nationalist stalwart perhaps better encapsulated the problem, albeit presumably inadvertently:

I understand that people will want to know what an independent Scotland would be like but the truth is that the SNP cannot answer that question, any more than unionist parties can answer the question what will the UK be like in ten, twenty, fifty years time. None of us have a crystal ball.

The case for independence does not rest on defining what kind of country Scotland will be post-independence because we will all have different ideas about that - even within the SNP people have very different political outlooks. What is important is that Scotland's future course will be decided democratically and by the Scottish people - and only the Scottish people.

My cynical interpretation of the above is that independence is seen as an end in itself, thus even if things aren't much different than under the current status quo then it's still a cause for celebration, because the Scottish people are deciding things, blah, blah.

Which comes back to what I said earlier about having a left wing government in power at Westminster being sufficient. However, experience dictates that it's not enough. Ditto Scottish Nationalism.

And perhaps the past week's result in the Welsh referendum on enhancing devolution is a case in point. Supporters will point to the resounding margin of victory, and the conclusions to be drawn by Scottish Nationalists from this are obvious.

But for pragmatists the salient lesson of the vote was the pitiful turnout of just over one third, which means that in this 'decisive' victory only just over one in five voters actually endorsed more powers for the Welsh assembly.

But this won't matter to the ideologues and tribalists. The victory is an end in itself. The fact that the vast majority don't care means nothing.

Euphemism or political correctness?

While some aspects of political correctness may be characterised as euphemism, on the other hand a desire not to cause offence may be born of a reluctance to incur the wrath of people in positions of power such as public servants, police or politicians. Thus reading part of a recent letter in the Dundee press which seemed characterised by euphemism, it was interesting to speculate on the motivation for the self-evident reluctance to cause offence.

The letter concerned long-standing problems of crime and anti-social behaviour in the Baxter Park area of Dundee, and below is proffered an alternative, straight-talking interpretation without the usual pussy-footing around, sort of thing, if you see what I mean, kind of:

"More and more youths are coming into Baxter Park at night to hang out and blow off a little positive energy..."

The area is being overrun be neds, who intimidate by way of the sheer force of their numbers. They are running wild and are responsible for the usual litany of problems such as noise, violence and vandalism.


"...but the youths need to be safe in the darkness."

Something needs to be done to sort these people out for the sake of local residents and others who may be subject to the nuisance and intimidation, particularly at night.


"Senior Tayside Police officers have publicly given their expert opinion that more lighting in and around the park is a benefit to community safety."

For various reasons the police are next to useless, and these so-called experts are abdicating their responsibilities by citing the lack of lighting in the park to be the root of the problem. More lighting might help alleviate the problems, but as well as shifting the blame this would probably achieve little more than to shift the neds and attendant misbehaviour elsewhere.


Perhaps there's an element both of political correctness and a willingness not to offend police - or indeed suck up to them - but the rest of the letter suggests that there are no qualms about taking local politicians to task.

Another possible interpretation of the letter is that there's an element of the tongue-in-cheek and sarcasm about it, which would certainly be the case if yours truly wrote it. But although we all employ euphemisms and I doubt if many of us outline our true feelings on such matters in a public forum - except perhaps anonymously - the letter is certainly not the kind of thing that I could write as an honest expression of opinion!

Big business support good for SNP prospects?

It seems unlikely that any of the major parties would turn their nose up at cash or an endorsement from businessmen like Brian Souter or David Murray - 'the corrosive effect of the super rich' or 'among Scotland's most successful entrepreneurs', depending whether they're on your side or not - so it's a bit rich of Labour to complain about these people bankrolling the SNP's election campaign and endorsing Alex Salmond respectively.

On the other hand, will an association with big business and the wealthy be good for the SNP's chances in May's election, or could this in fact be detrimental to the party's chances?

After all, the dominant Nationalist commentariat never seems to cease telling us that Scotland is a progressive, egalitarian and collectivist sort of nation, thus tolerant and inclusive towards gays, for example, and we're all Jock Tamson's bairns, sort of thing.

Thus hugely successful businessmen hardly seem consistent with this ethos, and Murray and Souter are both conservatives, the former with a big 'C' and the latter with a small one. On the other hand, perhaps the thinking among politicians is that being associated with success can never be a bad thing, irrespective of precisely what that success consists of and whose success it is. After all, the uneasy relationship between the need for wealth creation and its fair distribution was perhaps neatly encapsulated in Alex Salmond's infamous claim that we the Scottish people "didn't mind" the economics of Thatcherism, but didn't like the social side of her philosophy.

Perhaps the view is to some extent that support from people such as Murray and Souter represents a poisoned chalice, but on the other hand it's best to make the most of the situation. After all, it would surely be considered churlish to reject Mr Murray's endorsement, while Mr Souter's half million pounds gift horse shouldn't be looked at in the mouth.

Of course, the generally gushing Nationalist welcome for Brian Souter's largesse - as opposed to the man himself - perhaps demonstrates the superficiality of the whole thing, since what is being welcomed is little more than a marketing budget to be used to sell the SNP brand rather than to encourage an election campaign discourse of grand ideology and penetrating analysis.

And of course the quasi-celebrity endorsement culture is all part of the marketing ethos, but whether this could represent the SNP's political equivalent of a Consignia remains to be seen.

It's surely the case, for example, that a Donald Trump endorsement wouldn't do Salmond & Co any favours, but perhaps the jury will forever remain out on the effect of slightly less rapacious businessmen like Brian Souter.