Where Tesco meets politics - every gimmick helps!

The never ending saga of Tesco's Cola Zero pricing strategy has taken a not wholly unexpected twist, in that you really can't tell what will happen next. Thus it should be recalled that one of my favourite tipples was inexorably creeping up in price until it suddenly rocketed from 56p to 78p per two litre bottle, which meant it had almost doubled in a few months. But in true BOGOF style (well, almost!) this was accompanied by a 'three for two' offer, so although this made the price per bottle seem like a bargain, it was still significantly higher than previously.

And when the offer ended the price had still almost doubled over several months, underlining the fact that the 'bargain' was anything but.

Not to worry, though, since not long after the offer ended the price per bottle halved to 39p, thus around the price when I started buying it a couple of years or so ago. And now it's substantially cheaper than the effective price when the super-duper three for two offer was on - that worked out at 52p each if you bought three, whereas you can now buy one for 39p.

Of course, with tens of thousands of lines in these hypermarkets and myriad supposed offers and bargains this is the classic marketing gimmick type of stuff, where rather than making price comparisons easy the intention is to, er, discombobulate shoppers.

Another example is those big tins of sweeties that festoon the shelves of the big supermarkets at around Christmas time: the Roses, Quality Street, Heroes and Celebrations, sort of thing. Thus they're offered at a huge discount for a limited period, so you buy them up in case you miss the boat, then at the end of the offer period they add an even bigger discount for another limited period, and so on. Then they disappear from the shelves until next Christmas. And the thing is, I've never actually seen them on sale for the supposed 'real' price.

Of course, politics is all about selling something as well, and the marketing gimmicks are broadly similar. For example, marketing spiel in the commercial context becomes spin and soundbite in politics. A sales drive becomes an election campaign. A television advert becomes a party election broadcast. Adverts and leaflets become, um, adverts and leaflets.

Clearly this issue is multi-faceted and probably best left to professionals who know the field and can evaluate it critically and objectively.

But one gimmick that the political parties often use is to claim they are listening to people, for example while campaigning on the doorsteps. Which is fine up to a point, but it seems unlikely that a party would change policy in any particular regard unless they thought it would win them votes. Similarly, in retailing the big supermarkets invite suggestions from customers and may well act on them, but generally this will be with a view to improving the bottom line - if the costs outweigh the benefits, it won't happen.

Political parties also have the issue of principle to contend with - if they move too far to accommodate what voters want then they stray from their 'core values' and look hypocritical, presumably alienating some other supporters. But in true cost/benefit analysis style, if a policy change gains more votes than it loses them then to that extent it may be politically palatable.

In the final analysis, however, it may be the party's undoing, as perhaps was the case with New Labour - it moved too far rightwards to attract 'middle England', thus alienating much of its core support. As indeed the Lib Dems more obviously did last year in a similar lust for power, albeit that the intention was to curry favour with their prospective coalition partners rather than voters in an election. In the Scottish context, the SNP's dilution of independence could do likewise, but the calculation here will be the hope that more people will come to support [whatever] than will be deterred by the party shifting from the more fundamentalist stance on the issue.

By the same token, the essence of the democratic process means that politicians can't please all of the people all of the time, regardless of what they might claim. For example, in the past I've raised the issue of the political reaction in Dundee to Tayside Fire & Rescue's proposals to redistribute resources around the region to optimise public safety. Naturally voters in an area where resources were under-utilised weren't best pleased at having their nearby fire station downgraded, even though they would very probably still be significantly safer than someone like myself (say!) in a high-risk area.

But the politicians went with public opinion, hence it's nothing to do with principle or the safety of Tayside residents as a whole, and instead down to naked electoral advantage. Which pleases the politicians and those who elect them, but feels like a kick in the teeth to those in more imminent danger, like yours truly.

But as mentioned previously, not all the politicians were driven solely by party and electoral advantage, most prominently SNP fire board convener Ken Lyall. Hardly surprising, therefore, that he seems to have been excommunicated by the party and effectively exiled. He's moving to Australia.

Norway and the SNP

There's a certain contradiction in Joyce McMillan's article in today's Scotsman. On the one hand she berates right-wing commentary on recent events in Norway as "some truly disgraceful coverage of the Norwegian shooting, dripping with schadenfreude", while at the same time slamming an "almost religious belief in greater marketisation" in the context of the UK's economic problems.

But it's the market fundamentalism of immigration that has created many of the self-evident tensions and the concomitant rise of the racist right. She ascribes to elements of "Britain's elite" a "belief in policies that often involve inflicting pain on blameless people". Yet this can be precisely what immigration does, driving down wages and conditions for those at the bottom of the heap, or even putting them out of a job. Which makes Joyce's talk of the merits of maternity leave and "empowering women" even more academic for such people than it might have been before the economic detriment caused by mass immigration. Which in turn perhaps underlines why I thought the likes of Joyce were actually the elite, in Scotland at least!

Of course, the liberal elites prefer to brush past such inconvenient arguments, preferring instead to concentrate on the 'melting pot' sort of rationale for immigration, or in perhaps more contemporary parlance the "high levels of trust and cohesion in Norway's successful social-democratic society", as Joyce puts it, or the usual stuff about 'integration', 'tolerance' and a 'multi-cultural society'.

However, the reality is often very different, and it's probably this kind of thing that Joyce slightly hysterically refers to as "dripping with schadenfreude":

In recent years, however, Norway started receiving immigration from around the world, and Islam has become the second biggest religion. Given Norway’s homogeneous insularity, the impact of such different cultures has been even bigger than it was in Britain in the 1960s. Casual racism is rife. Only in Norway have I heard someone order a taxi and request that the driver is white. News reports can display an unwitting racism that is shocking to British ears. There is a widespread unease about the way the country is changing, which even mainstream politicians play on, with anti-immigration rhetoric more inflammatory than anything you will hear in Britain.

By the same token, in the Scottish Review John Cameron says: "[The Norwegians] did not want to spoil their lonely idyll by joining the EU or becoming multicultural and the recent influx of Islamic refugees was met with fierce anti-immigration rhetoric."

Of course, the likes of the main quote above will be dismissed as merely the right-wing views of a Boris Johnson aide writing in the Telegraph. However, even Lesley Riddoch - Joyce's Scotsman and (broadly) ideological stablemate - said: "Even ethnic Norwegians are thought strange if they don't want their kids to play outdoors (fully equipped) in minus 28. So the demand for segregated play by some Muslim parents can seem to threaten the kindergarten system which underpins gender equality in the workplace."

But while Lesley Riddoch seems to think the kind of resentment engendered by examples like this can be overcome, the reality is perhaps something else.

Naturally the left thinks it's all the fault of the right for not being tolerant and integrationist enough, but when immigrant populations themselves are often intolerant and isolationist the potential for tension is obvious, never mind the more radical strands of ethnic ideology and theocracy. Equally, for the liberal left intolerance, misogyny and homophobia seems to be excused when it's imported, but it's a different story when homegrown.

Indeed, that's just the cultural conflict aspect of immigration - which has dominated the debate in the last week or so - never mind the potential for economic conflict mentioned at the outset.

And the point for us is that the SNP often posit Norway as representing some kind of economic and social exemplar for an independent Scotland and their vision of 'civic nationalism'. Hence Unionist blogger Braveheart describes (for the purposes of critique) Norway thus: "Open, modern, progressive, democratic, socially cohesive, free in association and liberal in attitudes with highly educated population and a relaxed approach to personal relations, race and religion. For many people a model of how a modern democracy can and should be organised."

But now we know that the idealism and rhetoric don't quite match up to the reality.

On the other hand, the civic nationalists and many of those on the left will point to Scotland's relatively trouble-free experience of immigration and draw simplistic conclusions therefrom. But the relatively positive scenario here is presumably due merely to the limited scale of immigration in Scotland rather than anything else - are we really fundamentally more tolerant than the English, or indeed the many other European countries which have demonstrated increasing tensions associated with immigration, or is it simply a question of numbers?

In the unlikely event that Joyce McMillan will read this she will no doubt have me down as one of the "wild men of the ideological right" and of course the kneejerk reaction of others is to shout 'racism'.

But intolerance begets intolerance, and Joyce's article unwittingly demonstrates the downside of the application of liberal economics to immigration.

Of course, it should go without saying that the actions of one deranged individual are effectively irrelevant to the immigration debate as a whole, but one unpalatable consequence of events from a week ago is to shine a light on questions that many prefer to remain in denial about.

Unfortunately, however, the evidence thus far perhaps suggests that the effect will be to polarise the debate rather than generate a more consensual position on the issues.

Which indeed provides a good parallel for what's at the heart of the debate - incompatible ideologies, religions and cultures can't be set head to head without an element of conflict arising. The ideal of a perfect cultural melting pot is about as likely as the left and right agreeing with each other.

And it should be borne in mind that one of the SNP's current priorities is addressing the ongoing issue of conflict which has its roots in immigration taking place in an earlier century. It's called sectarianism.

You said it, Jenny!

Monday's post about new Labour regional MSP Jenny Marra alluded* that successful list candidates are in effect chosen by the hierarchy of the relevant party rather than the electorate. Normally voters are essentially selecting someone they've never heard of, unless of course it's a well known constituency candidate who's afforded a second bite at the cherry having been rejected in the more direct vote. (Alternatively, voters may think they're voting for Alex Salmond when in fact they're selecting someone who's effectively an unknown quantity!).

Thereafter successful list candidates are afforded the trappings of power that helps promote their own political career and perpetuate the party political oligarchy, such as 'free' publicity via the press and getting their coupon on the TV occasionally.

Thus, right on cue, the day after my post the Courier carried a prominent article about Ms Marra's proposal for a football academy in Dundee, replete with photae of her smiling dazzlingly**.

Personally I'd have been more interested in her views on last week's invasion of the city's streets by Śląsk Wrocław*** football fans, with several hundred effectively commandeering the streets and indulging in vandalism, violence and intimidation. And only four**** of them arrested. For example, doesn't this underline the totally misleading nature of the crime statistics, particularly when last week's policy of 'containment' effectively amounted to the normal nighttime economy law enforcement scenario writ large? And since the hefty bonuses awarded to senior police officers are largely based on those statistics, what are the implications for the public sector bonus culture and suchlike?

Onywey, back to the subject of list MSPs. The search for the Courier piece mentioned above also threw up an earlier article in which Ms Marra proferred her views on the alternative vote referendum, which would of course take place on the same day as she was elected as a regional MSP. On the proposed AV system she said:

Barely one in three MPs is supported by a majority of his or her voters. What's fair or democratic about that? [...]

Would it give more power to extremist parties? No. AV prevents extremist candidates slipping in by the back door with minority support. Winners need the goodwill of the majority. [...]

I would call it the best of both worlds because it maintains the very important link between the constituency and the MP. [...] That link holds politicians accountable and makes them focus and fight for local issues.

In an age where we demand politicians to work harder, care more, listen carefully and be worthy of our vote, making us fight for 50% of the vote seems a sensible and fair solution.

Which seems at least as good a criticism of the Holyrood list system as an argument for AV at Westminster!

* Thus it was something I meant to say but forgot about!

**Replaced in the online version by a picture of an, er, fitba.

***Lest anyone thinks they've got a bit of stoor on their computer screen, yes there are three funny letters in Śląsk Wrocław, the least obvious being a little stroke through the middle of the 'l' in Wrocław, which looks more like a slight screen blemish on this blog's Verdana typeface.

****Apologies to Tayside Police for Monday's suggestion that only three arrests had been made. This was based on earlier reports, but presumably someone else had been arrested afterwards, or they'd forgotten that they'd arrested a fourth person in the first place!

Wishart flying kite for independence-lite

Pete Wishart's Better Nation post about embracing Britishness in a post-independence Scotland has engendered a fair degree of comment, since of course we all got a bit bored with the minutiae of what independence means and the conduct of the requisite referendum. Thus the debate made it into the MSM, culminating in a discussion on last night's Newsnicht, albeit that there's been a degree of 'fish & chips v deep-fried Mars bar'* levity to it all.

On the other hand, the discussion has been rumbling on since a debate about this kind of identity politics was conducted on Newsnight, with a Kenny Farquharson Scotland on Sunday article fuelling the social media fire.

Of course, the difference with the MP's contribution is that he's a prominent SNP politician, rather than a dyed-in-the-wool Unionist. Thus the predictable ire on Newsnet Scotland normally reserved for the likes of the Portillos and Farquharsons has been unleashed on Mr Wishart by the unreconstructed wing of nationalist opinion.

But the often highfalutin air to all of this perhaps misses the point slightly. The referendum will be won or lost on the day-to-day issues concerning the Scottish people rather than which national/supra national identity they adhere to. Thus while we all subscribe to Scottish and/or British identities to a greater or lesser extent, on the day of reckoning these matters will be subordinated to the practical application of political matters, as will similarly abstract ideas about sovereignty and autonomy.

Therefore Pete Wishart's intervention - whether or not endorsed by the upper echelons of the SNP - is all part of the process of flying a kite to test reaction to the watering down of the independence goal to the degree that both public opinion and nationalist support will buy it without the whole referendum process imploding, as it did during the last parliament.

And the more ethereal and nebulous ideas like national identity are in effect surrogates and euphemisms for the more divisive issues like defence, the monarchy, the currency and economic policy generally, about which there is clearly a degree of SNP uncertainty, in part because they don't yet know what form of independence can be sold to the public.

Thus while Mr Wishart claimed that Unionism was couched in terms of "motherhood and apple pie", the same could surely be said of an independent Scotland. That's because we don't yet know what that entails, and even if more meat was put on the bones there would be a huge element of a shot in the dark about the whole thing.

Of course, on the Newsnight debate Joan McAlpine made similarly positive comments about the "social union", and the less fundamentalist strand of online nationalist opinion has proffered similarly revisionist and consensual comments, such as that the Unionist notion of devo-max isn't too far away from what the SNP desires, whatever that is precisely.

Obviously there will be a lot more of this softening up and testing the waters in the forthcoming months and years. But given the oft-cited support of Scotland for more powers for the Scottish parliament it seems likely that the SNP can construct a form of greater Holyrood autonomy that could become the "settled will" of the Scottish people.

Likewise, mainstream gradualist nationalism is likely to prefer such a solution to that proposed by Westminster's Scotland Bill, but perhaps the big imponderable is the degree to which the pro-independence movement can be held together in view of the inevitable opprobrium from the fundamentalists and militant absolutists.

*If anyone feels insulted by my attempt at a little joke then perhaps it should have read "fish and chips v fish suppers". But perhaps that alludes that there is a strong degree of social and cultural convergence between Scotland and England and/or the UK generally. How about "fish suppers v haggis, neeps and tatties" then? Except that the latter isn't eaten that often anyway? On the other hand, it's just over ten years ago since Robin Cook pronounced, in a speech extolling the virtues of, um, civic Brit-nat-ism: "Chicken tikka masala is now Britain's true national dish, not only because it is the most popular, but because it is a perfect illustration of the way Britain absorbs and adapts external influences."

Or perhaps he should have said England rather than Britain. Gosh, this is getting complicated...

Mob rule v zero tolerance

Towards the end of last week Dundee's news agenda was dominated (covering five pages in Friday's Evening Telegraph) by the visit of Polish football team Śląsk Wrocław to play Dundee United in a Europa League match.

It seems that the Śląsk fans have a reputation for being a bit of a rabble, and so it proved, with Tayside's finest apparently having a bit of trouble controlling the 2,000 or so who descended on Dundee's streets. Of course, as usual it's a bit difficult ascertaining the precise facts of the matter, with some claiming police hadn't done their homework properly, while an opposing view is that they couldn't have anticipated the numbers and nature of the fans who arrived.

Anyway, what's perhaps clear is that there was a good bit more trouble in the city towards the end of last week as compared to that attaching to a normal football match. And as usual there's an element of euphemism in official claims, with a bit of exaggeration in the media reporting.

Thus on the night before the match police claimed that nightclub security staff had experienced a "challenging" evening, while the Courier's lead story the day after was headlined "City centre shut down after Europa match"*, which sounds a bit 'martial law imposed'-ish, but seemed to amount to most pubs and clubs not opening on police advice.

But there were certainly pub and shop windows smashed, various episodes of intimidation and violence, police lines in city centre shopping streets breached, workers and shoppers "absolutely terrified" and the sheer force of numbers meant "pedestrians with pushchairs sent scurrying for cover", with flares and fireworks let off in streets thronging with shoppers.

And yesterday's Tele reported that a sixteen-year-old female had been left with broken ribs after being kicked and punched by Polish fans for wearing a Dundee United t-shirt.

But despite all this, reports suggest that only three arrests were made and that misdemeanours that would normally have been addressed - such as openly drinking alcohol in city centre streets - were ignored and instead a policy of "containment" utilised, presumably on the assumption that a more robust approach could have escalated matters further.

Which in fact seems like normal nighttime economy policing writ large, but what was interesting in Saturday's Courier was that the stories on the Śląsk hooliganism were juxtaposed with an (ostensibly) unrelated article about a zero tolerance approach from Tayside Police to sectarian behaviour during the new SPL season: "Incidents of sectarianism will not be tolerated and will be dealt with robustly if and when they arise."

Which seems to echo what Tayside Police said a couple of days previously when early reports of incidents involving Śląsk fans were dismissed as "boisterous, but good natured" and that criminality would "not be tolerated". Not to mention the usual stuff about an "increased, visible and appropriate" police presence, who will be "proactive in their role".

Which perhaps provides a warning that the political imperatives and soundbites attaching to the SNP Government's crackdown on sectarianism may be derailed when they come into conflict with the realities of policing, as discussed in more detail here. Indeed, one reason that current laws have not been used to address the sectarianism issue at football matches is effectively the same as the policy of 'containment' used in relation to the Polish fans in Dundee last week.

However, what is perhaps more eminently predictable is the lack of honest and open discussion on these matters, with euphemism, hyperbole and soundbites more likely than facts and candour, depending on the context.

In that respect what was equally predictable was the political reaction to last week's police handling of the Śląsk Wrocław invasion of Dundee, with the police joint board vice-convener saying: "I would give the highest praise to Tayside Police over their handling of the fans. It was obvious to the people in the city of Dundee the degree of planning and control exercised by the police and the fact they handled with great ability what could have been very, very nasty acts of vandalism".

Er, the reports suggest that there were "nasty acts of vandalism", so perhaps the good councillor forgot to amend his statement to reflect what actually did happen.

Of course, whatever had taken place - and whether police cocked-up or not - the political reaction would have been much the same. Thus as usual usurping the ideals of local accountability with a pointless exercise in what is more akin to councillor self-regard and self-aggrandisement in that they are indirectly passing judgement on their own role as political overseers.

*The online version is slightly different.

The View from the political bubble pt 45,239

She's certainly improved the View in the Holyrood chamber*, and even if John Park's View that "the maiden speech from Jenny Marra was, in my view, probably one of the best speeches since the start of session four, never mind being one of the best first speeches" should be taken with a large pinch of partisan salt, even the non-partisan Burd'z View of Mr Park's new Labour MSP colleague is that she is: "Intelligent, talented, bright, vivacious. Yep, the girl has it all. Oh, and a USP as the niece of folk legend and Dundonian, Michael Marra. This is one wee star who will soar. Media friendly, with an intellect and the education to back it up."

The Burd strikes a note of caution, however, describing Ms Marra as "a bit wet behind the ears", having "spent much of her life in the political bubble".

Indeed, the 'career politician' criticism is hardly a new one, and neither is objection to the disconnect between list MSPs in particular and the electorate, which of course helps exacerbate the distance between politicians and voters generally. And the often politically 'unknown quantities' standing for the regional seats presumably helps rationalise the SNP's 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' ruse on May's ballot paper.

As regards the 'career politician' shortcoming, Jenny is right up there with the, er, best of them. Thus she seems to have studied at three different universities, is "qualified in both Scots and English legal practice" (presumably the first stage on the route(s) to becoming a lawyer after her law degree) and worked as some kind of assistant to an MEP. Thus so far so career politician, but she's also had a proper job as well, as Head of Press at Dundee University. Gosh. But if it's not wholly the political bubble then it's certainly the public sector/academic one.

However, my real interest in Ms Marra (apart from the obvious*) is her now status as a Dundee-based regional MSP.

Thus as someone who pays more attention to Dundee politics than most - for example, I could probably recognise all the city's councillors by name, if not fizzog - I can't ever recall hearing or reading of Jenny Marra until a few weeks before the Holyrood poll, when I noticed her name in the Courier's political diary. Therefore not much evidence of political activity outwith (presumably) the Labour party bubble, and certainly nothing particularly high profile as regards the electorate generally.

Yet less than three months ago Ms Marra was catapulted from political obscurity to the position of one our representatives in Holyrood, with the proportion of the public she's now representing knowing her name - never mind anything else about her - presumably minuscule.

Of course, that's not to say she won't make a good MSP, and indeed in some ways - academic record, breadth of experience (within the political/academic/public sector bubble) - she's eminently well qualified.

Moreover, as a contemporary politician she seems to posses the other requisite talents in spades. Thus photojennic (sic!), good presentational skills and presumably with the ready soundbite to hand, no doubt honed during her rise up the Labour party hierarchy, ably assisted by her PR experience and time spent in the rarefied EU bubble.

But probably not much experience as regards many of the things that happen in the real world. For example, and apropos my interest in taxi licensing, I thought about attending the Courier's Dundee-wide elections hustings during the Holyrood campaign and asking an awkward question about the subject, which is of course a matter devolved to Holyrood and a historically well publicised function of Dundee City Council. Well I couldn't make it anyway, I doubt if the Courier would have entertained an arcane question of that type, and I don't think the regional candidates would have been there in any case, but I'm quite sure Joe FitzPatrick, Richard McCready, Allan Petrie and Shona Robison wouldn't have had a clue, in the latter case at least if her hubby MP Stewart Hosie is anything to go by. And all of the foregoing have long experience as Dundee councillors and/or MSPs, and to my knowledge have publicly uttered the t-word at one point or another. As for Councillor Mohammed Asif, forget it.

And let's not even mention the other constituency candidates, never mind 'oor Jens' on the list.

Of course, there's nothing to suggest that Jenny Marra won't make an excellent politician as forecast, but whether that's a compliment or a criticism is a moot point.

(The silly repetition and capitalisation of the word 'View' in the above alludes to a speech made by Ms Marra in parliament which mentioned Dundee punk/indie band The View, who had a hit with the song 'Same Jeans'. This includes the line "I've had the same jeans on for four days now", thus she felt the need to reassure the chamber that her dress was clean on that morning. Which according to Courier political editor David Clegg went down like a lead balloon with MSPs.

Which perhaps demonstrates that Jenny is both slightly out of touch with the real world and the Holyrood bubble!)

* As a single, heterosexual, greying, balding male a couple of years away from 50-years-old I'm eminently qualified to make such mildly sexist remarks, and presumably in these non-judgemental days of moral relativism excused from doing so as well.

A further threat to 'independence in Europe'?

My recent guest posts at Better Nation tried to rationalise the SNP's paradoxical attitude to sovereignty within the UK as compared to sovereignty in Europe. The Nationalists have historically disliked the notion of 'sterlingzone' membership and thus monetary policy and interest rates decided by the Bank of England, which they say is primarily for the benefit of the economies of London and the south east of England.

However, during most of recent history they've been committed to membership of the eurozone, with monetary policy and interest rates decided by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt and primarily for the benefit of Europe's northern nations, in particular the relatively large and successful economies of France and Germany.

My argument was that this contradiction could be explained by virtue of an ostensibly more attractive ideology and idealism associated with the European project, as compared to the tired old post-imperialist UK dominated by right-of-centre English politics, or in cruder terms perhaps just good old Anglophobia and a concomitant Europhilia.

And of course the loss of sovereignty necessitated by the SNP's aim of EU membership has always lent its 'independence in Europe' slogan an element of the ridiculous, albeit that Scotland already cedes such sovereignty via UK membership.

But the more recent eurozone crisis - and that ECB interest rates decided for the powerful German economy have kicked the likes of Ireland when it's been economically down - has concentrated SNP minds, and while current policy seems to indicate an independent Scotland retaining sterling, the long-term aim still appears to be eurozone membership.

However, last week's rescue package for the basket case Greek economy has raised the possibility of the EU deciding fiscal policies for eurozone member states. This is predicated on the basis that the public spending profligacy and accompanying borrowing by some nations - not to mentions the lack of economic convergence generally - is the reason for the whole single currency project nearly falling apart.

Indeed, even as a eurozone bystander - but with a lot at stake from a Europe-wide contagion emanating from the crisis in Greece - UK chancellor George Osborne hit the headlines last week by claiming that there was a "remorseless logic" to greater eurozone fiscal union.

In this morning's Scotsman Alf Young (eh?) looks at the implications from the perspective of the SNP Government, and points to its claim that: "With independence the Scottish Parliament would be fully responsible for fiscal policy in Scotland...Ensuring the sustainability of public expenditure would be Scotland's own responsibility, as would managing the national budget over the short and long-term."

But of course discretion in this area would necessarily be limited if an independent Scotland joined a eurozone prescribing greater fiscal convergence. Alf Young looks at the particular example of the SNP's commitment to a lower rate of corporation tax, and a nod in last week's eurozone agreement towards less national latitude in that regard: "But paragraph ten of Thursday's summit agreement notes Ireland's willingness to "participate constructively" in discussions on a draft EU directive about a common consolidated corporate tax base."

Hence if preferring the euro and interest rates set in Frankfurt to the pound and interest rates set in London seemed economically dubious, the prospect of an 'independent' Scotland's fiscal policy being decided in Europe merely adds fuel to the fire in this regard.

And as regards independence per se, if dumping the UK and sterling for the EU and the euro looked like a case of going from the sovereignty frying pan into the fire, this would surely be exacerbated if Brussels rather than London was deciding Scotland's fiscal policies as well.

Indeed, if the SNP thinks the UK economy hasn't converged sufficiently in 300 years to justify the continuation of economic union, then what chance the eurozone with its more disparate economies and its short but hugely turbulent history?

Where Tom Harris may agree with Kenny MacAskill

Any regular reader(s) may have concluded that one of my pet subjects is the hugely exciting world of taxi licensing. Thus it's entirely appropriate that on the day when a House of Commons select committee issued a report on the subject, this was slightly overshadowed by another such committee grabbing the political and media spotlight by conducting a meeting on something or other that was one of the most anticipated parliamentary events of recent years.

A further irony is that this blogpost concerns an aspect of taxi regulation which has to my knowledge featured in the Scottish national press only once in recent years, and that honour belongs to the now defunct News of the World.

That full article can be read here, with a summary of a follow up piece here. But in a nutshell, many local authorities restrict taxi vehicle numbers, which has the effect of denying new drivers the right to run their own vehicle, while incumbent operators exert a permanent stranglehold on the trade. Thus drivers either pay excessive amounts to rent a taxi or they can buy into the system by purchasing a licence, typically costing tens of thousands of pounds. Indeed, many can't/won't buy a licence because raising that kind of money simply isn't an option - banks won't accept the licence as loan collateral - and some refuse as a matter of principal, while many non-drivers with financial muscle run fleets of taxis which are rented out at excessive rates.

Hence when the NotW highlighted the issue in relation to the Glasgow trade, both Labour and SNP MSPs expressed their concern, and the matter was to be raised with Kenny MacAskill.

Thus perhaps the broadly similar system south of the border might have been expected to figure in the House of Commons Transport Select Committee's report published on Tuesday.

Er, no. It seems that it did merit one passing mention, but the issue was clearly regarded as unproblematic by the committee.

But the last report from the transport committee on taxi licensing in 2004 did in fact largely concern the matter of restricting taxi numbers, this following a lengthy Office of Fair Trading investigation and subsequent recommendation to remove the controls. But a committee meeting clearly hostile to the OFT and sympathetic to the unions and their parasitic closed shops resulted in a report recommending rejection of the competition watchdog's conclusions. The then Labour Government agreed with the OFT, but stopped short of legislating on the matter, presumably due to a lack of political will and unfavourable parliamentary arithmetic on the issue.

But with committee member Louise Ellman clearly sympathising with the unions last time round, that the Liverpool MP is now chairperson perhaps made it predictable that the issue of restricted taxi numbers was seemingly off limits this time round. Indeed, the impetus for the investigation came from the Liverpool taxi trade, whose closed shop was being undermined slightly by a large private hire firm which was licensed by another local authority - presumably to take advantage of a more favourable licensing regime: so-called 'flags of convenience' - but operating largely within the city.

Of course, taxi licensing is devolved to Holyrood, thus the transport committee's report has no direct relevance up here. However, what is perhaps interesting is that Glasgow MP Tom Harris is a committee member this time round, but clearly neither the situation in Glasgow itself nor its equivalent in England and Wales was considered by him sufficiently problematic to merit raising. And this was despite Labour MSP Richard Baker expressing concern in relation to the Glasgow situation last year and promising to raise the matter with Kenny MacAskill.

But when the NotW highlighted the Scottish situation last year it seemed likely that it would be quickly forgotten about, and there's no record of Mr MacAskill having ever made any public statement on the issue.

Thus as with Tom Harris south of the border, there were probably too many vested interests, too many union pals and generally just a can of worms waiting to be opened, hence better swept back under the carpet from whence it came.

And of course with the media preoccupied by other matters - and indeed the transport committee's report probably wouldn't have merited much in the way of headlines even at the peak of the silly season, never mind conveniently just before MPs start their lengthy summer hols - the politicians and vested interests are essentially given free rein on the issue.

Interesting also that a news article in last weekend's Sunday Post was about a Labour proposal that Scottish MPs could stand as list candidates for Holyrood and effectively do both jobs part-time. The rationale being that with devolution Scottish MPs have little to do at Westminster and list members at Holyrood haven't much to occupy themselves with either because of their lack of a specific constituency remit.

Thus perhaps Tom Harris could serve in both parliaments and could conveniently waste even more time ignoring the taxi cartels both north and south of the border!

The Augean stables of public life

Amidst the convulsions in the press, politics and public life generally surrounding the News International affair, there have been one or two low-profile suggestions that - wait for it - the public aren't really that interested. For example, the Westminster Diary in last weekend's Sunday Post asked: "Are the people of the UK really all that interested in all of this? Are they not still more concerned with jobs, schools and hospitals? Might they even be thinking that the political class has got its priorities wrong?"

Indeed, like the Westminster expenses scandal a couple of years ago I would have to admit to feeling a bit blasé about it all, which is clearly a view slightly out of kilter with the current affairs zeitgeist, the odd loneish voice like that quoted above excepted.

Of course, there are matters of great import at stake, but then again there are plenty other matters of great import that barely merit a mention at times, never mind amidst the current wall-to-wall coverage of the NI scandal.

I mean, who on earth cares if some celebrity has had their phone hacked, other than people who ordinarily care about some celebrities? Did I read that an official in a commercial organisation had been awarded £750,000 damages for having his phone hacked? Well I can't be bothered checking this, but if it's even remotely correct then I wish someone would hack my phone. Except that a person of my lowly status would probably have to pay someone to do it rather than be compensated for it.

Of course, hacking the phones of victims of serious crime is of a different order altogether, but perhaps the point is that in many ways the current furore seems to be treating that as more serious than the original crime.

However, it's not difficult to rationalise the current media and political storm and to compare this to the perhaps more circumspect approach in certain quarters, this blogger included.

Thus the press and commentariat are merely following their normal approach of highlighting and sensationalising (to a greater or lesser extent) those issues they deem important. Moreover, this particular issue is doubly attractive to the press because it concerns the travails of a major player in that business sector, thus kicking it when it's down is both a journalistic and a commercial imperative. This has been particularly evident as regards the Sunday newspaper market, with the circulation gap created by the demise of the NotW.

By the same token, an opportunistic and self-righteous political class see it as the chance to bite the hand that has fed them and get away with it. Thus the usual mix of hyperbole and hypocrisy, perhaps best exemplified by Gordon Brown's House of Commons speech last week and David Cameron's ongoing attempts to make the best of his employment of Andy Coulson.

But in general the revelations of the last few weeks have left me only slightly irked - isn't that what politicians, the press and the police do, haven't they always done it and won't they always do it?

Of course, that's by no means to claim that there isn't decency, honour and honesty in all these sections of society, but the current debacle certainly won't clear up the shortcomings. Naturally there will be official enquiries, court cases and commercial changes, and indeed no doubt in some respects things will improve. But in true Augean stable style the corruption, illegality and sharp practices in other facets of public life will remain, and of course in others still such problems will appear where there are none now.

But neither the expenses scandal nor the NI imbroglio have really changed my view of the institutions involved. It's really just a question of who gets found out and who gets away scot free. And to that extent which issues the press and politicians choose to highlight and which they choose to keep under wraps.

Take the issue of the two senior Metropolitan Police officers who have resigned, for example. Honourable exceptions to the modern rule that those at the top only carry the can in the most exceptional circumstances, perhaps? Or does the fact that they seemed to fall on their swords relatively easily suggest an ulterior motive - particularly with one telling us how honestly and uprightly he'd conducted himself - for example more skeletons in the cupboard, a big fat pay-off and pension, or a cushy number lined up elsewhere?

Of course, no doubt there are a million and one words on that very subject a mere mouse click or two away, but frankly I can't even be bothered looking.

But it's clearly easy to equate this blasé-ness with defeatism. Personally, perhaps this is a plausible criticism, particularly as regards Westminster and London. Hence perhaps my main interest these days is in stopping a mini-me version being replicated in Holyrood and Scotland, or at least insofar as a humble blogger can hope to make an impression against the shortcomings of the Scottish political, press and policing establishment.

The political bubble pt 2: Rank double standards

An interesting juxtaposition of correspondence in the Courier one day last month. The lead letter asked why Dundee MSP Joe FitzPatrick (and the first minster) hadn't responded to an enquiry about a rail link to Edinburgh Airport. No doubt by sheer coincidence the final letter was from Mr FitzPatrick, and concerned aid convoys sailing to Gaza and his intention to take part in one at a later date. Which perhaps explains why Mr FitzPatrick doesn't have time to attend to matters such as questions about a rail link to Edinburgh Airport.

Which brings to mind the seemingly perennial debate over various matters pertaining to Dundee's taxi trade. In February Mr FitzPatrick said: "I have contacted other Councils to find out whether they have caps and how they operate their taxi-services. Edinburgh operates a limit on the number of taxis and frequently reviews the demand for taxis and commissions regular surveys of demand."

However, an Edinburgh taxi driver contacted the Courier and proffered views which were clearly at odds with Mr FitzPatrick's, who responded: "Mr Taylor is a resident of Edinburgh and will be reflecting his experiences as such, which will be different to those in Dundee, and I have suggested that Mr Taylor contact his local MSP in Edinburgh to pass on his views."

Needless to say, when I pointed this out in subsequent Courier letter, there was no response from Mr FitzPatrick. Perhaps he was trying to join the aid flotilla at that time.

By the same token, almost a decade ago the (then) Scottish Executive launched a consultation on the taxi licensing issues involved. A follow up report was published, but then forgotten about. Of course, MSPs like Mr FitzPatrick - who served as a Dundee councillor for some time, thus should have had some kind of grasp on the issues involved - have other things on their minds, such as independence for Scotland, and in any case acquiring more powers for the Scottish Parliament, when they're self-evidently often not interested in dealing with those they have already, particularly where they may involve a big can of worms.

By coincidence another Dundee politician, Lib Dem councillor Fraser Macpherson, was also posturing about Gaza at the same time as Mr FitzPatrick. He proposed a council motion criticising Israel, clearly intending to fundamentally change the situation in the Middle East and geopolitics more generally.

Not long after and yet another taxi flare up, this time concerning a proposed late-night taxi rank outside a cathedral in Dundee, which is one of those incongruous buildings stuck in the middle of a busy street with shops, pubs and busy traffic. Cue a minor uproar, and several articles and letters in the local press, with Councillor Macpherson beating the drum for disgruntled churchgoers and ward residents, who clearly considered the prospect of a taxi rank equivalent to eternal damnation. But the forces of good triumphed over evil, and a few days ago it was announced that plans for the rank had been dropped.

But an unofficial taxi rank had been operating on the proposed site for several years, seemingly to cater for the Dundee Contemporary Arts centre next door and other licensed premises in the city's 'cultural quarter'. One of the main concerns was litter, but I drove past the area late one night when the proposal was being debated, and the only litter evident was that strewn outside a nearby takeaway.

Indeed, the reason police take an, er, relaxed attitude to the sort of unofficial taxi rank which had been operating is because it helps disperse the late-night drunks and thus alleviates rather than exacerbates any problems with litter, vandalism or disorder, thus installing an official rank in the area would have merely regularized the situation rather than causing any additional issues. And in any case council orderlies are up at the crack of dawn clearing the late-night litter from such areas lest real people see it, a fact that Mr Macpherson (and Councillor Richard McCready) should have been aware of when he "sought assurances" from the council that any litter arising because of the proposed rank would be cleared up before the cathedral opened in the morning.

A not dissimilar scenario arose a few weeks earlier regarding another unofficial rank in the town centre which had been operating for perhaps twenty years, which I knew about having driven a taxi in Dundee about fifteen years ago, but about which the likes of Councillors McCready and Macpherson seemed blissfully unaware. I pointed this - and other related farces and double standards - out in a letter to the Dundee press, but needless to say there was a huge ruckus between the taxi trade and the powers that be.

But the facts of the matter are irrelevant. Politicking is more important, and blissfully ignorant constituents were happy with the substantively irrelevant result, which is ultimately all that matters.

Of course, these local issues can hardly be equated with Gaza and the Middle East, but if politicians like Mr FitzPatrick and Mr Macpherson want to indulge in pointless posturing then perhaps they should at least do so in a more private capacity, or at the very least seek elected office as an MP before concerning themselves with matters reserved to Westminster while neglecting their more immediate responsibilities. And it's not as if they don't get involved in these more mundane domestic matters, but in Mr FitzPatrick's case in particular this only seems to extend to what the vested interests he's sucking up to want to hear, with alternative viewpoints contemptuously and hypocritically dismissed.

Indeed, Westminster politician Jim McGovern also stuck his oar into the recent taxi rank dispute in Dundee, when perhaps he should be the one more involved in the Gaza situation.

(And regarding Mr McGovern's comments about parishioners and the public being ''distressed" by "litter and other mess" (a euphemism for a 'pavement pizza'? - which is indeed also a euphemism!), I always wondered about the official double standards in this regard since others just have to put up with being distressed, but perhaps there's a religious dimension to it all!)

'Out of tune' at a 'sorry site'

The Scotsman has been kind enough to publish a letter I sent it regarding T in the Park and in response to previous correspondence from a visitor from the USA who described the behaviour and cleanliness at the event in unflattering terms. Indeed it's essentially an abridged version of my post from earlier in the week, and the newspaper's letters editor has (as I expected!) deleted the acts on the festival line up that I namechecked, which means my abbreviation of the Manic Street Preachers to mere 'the Manics' in order to both help keep the letter to a reasonable length and (try to) demonstrate that I'm 'down wiv da kidz' was in vain. ('Down wiv da kidz' doesn't sound very T in the Park-ish, but I'm sure you get my middle-aged drift.)

Anyway, I wouldn't normally reproduce a published letter on here if it's just a rehash of another blogpost, but I do so in this case just to add that I drove past the Balado site on Thursday night - it's adjacent to the M90 near the Kinross service station - and there were so many seagulls circling round it that anyone passing by would be forgiven for thinking it was a municipal dump.

In fact I pulled off the motorway to have a wee lookie, but the site is surrounded by barriers and there were security guards on duty at all the exits, so I assumed that they would tell me to go forth and multiply if I'd asked if I could come in and take a few piccies of the mess, or whatever.

Indeed - and I may be wrong here - I think that in previous years the barriers surrounding the site weren't restrictive enough that people passing by couldn't see in, and it's also my recollection that press access after the event was restricted because the published photos of the mess left behind were detracting from the official version of events mentioned in my letter (below).

Interestingly, the Scotsman has an aerial photograph of the mess in today's online edition (which I've taken the liberty of including above) together with a very brief piece niftily titled 'Sorry site', and although the image is too small and taken from too far away to show the 'wreckage' in all its glory, perhaps the paper edition manages to portray it more, er, graphically.

Of course, many reading this will be wondering what all the fuss is about, since the Balado site is private property, and the mess will be cleaned up eventually anyway.

Which is to an extent a plausible opinion, but what's perhaps more important is what it all says about wider society. For example, our attitude to the environment (particular among younger people), the response of police and politicians, and the interface between them all.

By the same token, the T in the Park scenario is essentially our Saturday night towns and cities writ large, and to that extent perhaps provides evidence that minimum pricing for alcohol would barely scratch the surface of the consumption and related crime problems.

Anyway, here's the version of the published letter sent to the Scotsman,which the newspaper has titled 'Out of tune':

It was interesting to compare Christopher Lochhead's description of T in the Park with the official version of events.

Thus the visitor from the USA complains of "offensive" and "disturbing" behaviour, a "sea of trash", a "garbage dump", an indescribable smell and the whole event turned into a "toilet".

Meanwhile, police praised the "community spirit", an organiser talked of "positive community behaviour", while a councillor called the festival a "jewel in the crown".

Then there's the Citizen T initiative to encourage responsible behaviour, and we should all be grateful for the fact that the event is carbon neutral.

But when the powers that be indulge in such language and gimmicks there's a fair chance that it's just attempting to put a gloss on something that's to an extent the complete opposite, but professional, commercial and political imperatives result in a classic triumph of spin over substance.

Indeed, while I would love to see some of the acts who performed at Balado - such as the Foo Fighters, Coldplay, the Manics, Slash, the Strokes, KT Tunstall and Pulp - I think I'll stick to the more civilised environment of my iPod.

Of course, despite the odd disgruntled customer and people like myself the event is guaranteed to be a sell out anyway, thus the bottom line is unaffected.

The 'SNP bastard traitors' angle and claims of neo-fascism

Last week's post about national identity - and the related notion of identity politics - underlined that such concepts can be used both positively and negatively, and that the tribalistic and often aggressive nature of the beast had been instrumental in alienating me from the whole process, with the UK's partisan politics generally and nationalism in the particular Scottish context often serving to divide rather than unite. Indeed, I should know, having once upon a time been belligerently dismissive of any political outlook inconsistent with my own left leaning worldview, and also perhaps guilty of a Scottish patriotism verging on jingoism.

However, my days of blind political partisanship and a rather crude '90-minute patriot' style are long gone, but before immersing myself in Scotland's online political 'community' a handful of years ago I wasn't really aware of the vehemence and aggression attaching to many of those attempting to further the cause of Scottish nationalism via the internet.

Of course, this is hardly a new phenomenon or what follows a particularly original insight - think Cheesegate, the Wardog scandal and targets like the Scotsman's David Maddox - but the whole so-called cybernat debate was brought into focus by Labour MP Ian Davidson's intemperate "neo-fascist" jibe towards his SNP opponents in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago, for which he's more recently and rightly apologised.

But despite the excessive nature of the MP's remark, the cybernat phenomenon and attendant debate has certainly never gone away, and indeed it's probably those sort of things that formed the basis of Ian Davidson's remarks. Of course, his problem was not only that he overegged the problem, but also that he picked the wrong targets, since SNP MPs heckling him in the House of Commons are hardly doing anything that parliamentarians of other parties don't do, almost as a matter of course.

And indeed some take exception to the cybernat label and its pejorative connotations merely because they're Scottish Nationalists/nationalists and they happen to operate in an online environment. However, this per se doesn't make someone a cybernat, which instead would seem to entail someone slavishly pro-independence - and, as a corollary, viscerally anti-Union - who fails to engage in substantive debate and instead favours ad hominen, derisive, derogatory and often defamatory attacks rather than statements of fact and fair comment, and who generally operates on an anonymous basis.

Thus over in the generally sober environment of the Scottish Review, columnist Dick Mungin took the cybernats to task in the wake of the Supreme Court affair. SNP MSP Joan McAlpine's assertion that Unionists are anti-Scottish he claims amounts to "insulting rhetoric" which "gives cover to those who use even more abusive language", citing as an example a Newsnet Scotland poster who said of Michael Moore: 'He's a traitor'...'When we get independence this guy should be refused citizenship of Scotland and deported to his Brit nat paradise...He's filth.'

But while Ms McAlpine retorts that Mr Mungin is "as guilty of the same extremism and misrepresentation he accuses others of", on the same page an ex-SNP member opines: "There is a tradition within the SNP of intolerance directed at those who dare to disagree with it."

Mr Mungin in turn says that Ms McAlpine's response "proved the very point I argued in my article", and in the wake of the Ian Davidson affair adds: "The stupidity of that remark was however exceeded by the editors of Newsnet Scotland who headlined the story 'Calls for Ian Davidson to resign after calling almost 1 million Scots neo-fascists'. The result of this example of dog whistle politics was a deluge of outraged readers' comments mostly hurling the usual abuse at 'quislings' and 'Brit-nats' but including one suggesting that those offended might 'pop along to one of his surgeries and discuss it with him. Nae chivs mind'."

Well clearly Mr Mungin missed the likes of the 'quisling traitor' double insult, the occasional allusion or suggestion of taking an, er, undemocratic path to an independent Scotland, or even talk of lampposts being reserved for non-believers.

Then of course there's the often incessant and juvenile references to the physical shortcomings of Unionist politicians which won't be used in relation to a Nationalist politician who is similarly, er, challenged, for example in relation to being overweight. And this also seems to be worse in relation to females, maybe suggesting a degree of misogyny, which in turn perhaps reflects the fact that historically the SNP has proved less attractive to female voters than to men.

There's also the occasional use of the particularly insulting and emotive phrase 'self-loathing' to describe Unionists, which one commenter on Bella Caledonia recently took exception to. And while the Guardian columnist who provoked the claim - in an admittedly ludicrous article - to an extent deserved a degree of derision in response, the attempt to intellectualise the 'self-loathing' jibe - "a wider phenomena in which you internalise shame of your own culture, people, history and prospects" is pathetic, and seems to claim that if you're critical of Scotland then you are suffering from some sort of mental health problem. Which is arguably at least partially racist, and in any case particularly ironic from the kind of people who will shout the r-word or cry 'intolerance' if, for example, someone takes gypsy travellers to task for trashing an illegal camp or indulging in other criminality.

Of course, some of this is so juvenile as to be positively mirth-making, albeit this entailing laughing at the nonsense in question rather than with it.

For example, a commenter on the first part of my recent guest post at Better Nation suggested that the inability of unionists to understand "ridiculously simple" concepts meant that they "are generally of low intelligence, or they just wilfully misconstrue matters for the sake of obfuscation".

Which if the boot was on the other foot might again be considered quasi-racist, but instead of consulting a human rights lawyer I tend to view such insults with the same kind of cringing hilarity with which I might watch a 1970s TV sitcom.

Of course, just like the clever Dick attempt to rationalise the self-loathing insult the author of this latter jibe had his get out clause thought out in advance, thus was charitable enough to conclude that I was an obfuscator rather than an idiot, but that still leaves open his attitude to other non-believers, and of course the commenter's own deliberate attempt to obfuscate did little to hide the thinly-veiled motive, which was simply to insult.

But although I've fortunately not been subject to the same vitriol as some others who are sceptical of the SNP and independence - I like to think that's due to a more measured and civilised approach rather than that this blog isn't considered important enough! - the grosser the insult then the more hilarious I find it, indeed a backhanded compliment. It's the more subtle and intelligent critique that induces an element of self-doubt.

And it's not just to be found in the nether regions of the internet either. For example, I recently came across a columnist in the Edinburgh Evening News who seemed to use uncharacteristically strident language for the MSM - for example that Willie Rennie "comes across on television, however, especially when he is yapping in parliament, as a particularly obnoxious individual, with all the graceless demeanour of Uriah Heep trying to imitate a rottweiler but managing only to resemble an annoyingly snappy whippet" with a concomitant cult-like worship of Alex Salmond - and whose name rung a bell from another journalistic context. Yes, you've guessed - Newsnet Scotland.

Then there are the wilder fringes of nationalism (note small 'n') away from the rough and tumble of the mainstream MacBlogosphere and MSM. There's nationalist legend Ian Hamilton QC, for example. QC, of course, standing for Queen's counsel. So why would an anti-monarchist emphasise this at the top of his blog? Well let's not get too personal, but would the term 'advocate' not be more obviously demonstrative of Mr Hamilton's Scottish republicanism and nationalism, even if it doesn't quite reflect his exalted status in the legal profession?

Anyway, the presumably comfortably off Mr Hamilton advocates things like minutemen marching on the BBC and a TV licence fee boycott, which is a bit of an insult to those of us who have to scrimp and save to pay it, and who try to abide by the law even if we don't particularly like it.

But of course Mr Hamilton had no problem in reverting to the law when his shares in RBS went belly up, albeit that his case was unsuccessful, and that he should have perhaps asked Alex Salmond why he was shortly beforehand bigging up the Scottish banks as "global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term" and extolling the virtues of RBS's toxic ABN Amro purchase, which of course was instrumental in RBS's subsequent requirement to be rescued by the UK taxpayer, underlined by a recent Nationalist concession that an independent Scotland couldn't have bailed out the Scottish banks and that assistance would have been required by the jurisdictions in which its worldwide operations were located(!)

Oh aye, back to the subject in hand. An even more extreme form of republican nationalism is evidenced by one contributor to Mr Hamilton's thread, who refers to the Queen's visit to the Scottish Parliament as 'rubbing Scots’ noses in the shite of her rule over Scotland', things like 'scum vermin MSPs who have lied their way into parliament will sit there quietly like wee mice and lap it up like the Queen’s lap-dogs they are' and consequently to 'SNP bastard traitors'. And he even has a rather professional video to get his message across.

And of course his pejorative reference to the SNP underlines the huge caveat to all of the above in relation to the pro-independence movement. Joan McAlpine again: "...to take anonymous comments from the internet and ascribe these opinions to mainstrean politicians is absurd – it is also a game that everyone can play. As a pro-independence writer I have been subject to all sorts of bile and personal abuse from the very aggressive online unionist community. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that these comments somehow reflect the approach of my parliamentary colleagues on the Labour, Liberal or Conservative benches."

Which is of course perfectly correct - it works both ways. However, the problem for Scottish nationalism - if not the mainstream SNP per se - is that if the internet is representative of real life then the poisonous and absolutist element of the movement is far greater in extent and magnitude as compared to Unionism, even despite the fact that the latter is still better supported by Scottish voters generally.

And indeed in relation to the electorate generally these people are minuscule in number, despite their seeming ubiquity in online Scottish political discourse.

Nevertheless, the simple unpleasantness and autocratic stance emanating from many of these people simply serves to underline my own scepticism towards Scottish nationalism, and indeed what purpose a lot of this stuff is supposed to achieve is difficult to rationalise. Surely it serves to repel rather than attract? Why indulge people who twist their own loathing of those who disagree with their worldview (or perhaps worldview is inappropriate in their insular context!) such that the perceived problem become's their target's self-loathing?

Of course, the hardcore cybernats will presumably be unconcerned about the views of apostates like myself in view of the inevitability of an independent Scotland - like Marx's deterministic view of the ultimate ascendancy of the proletariat - and perhaps we'll just be sent into exile when the promised land is delivered.

And indeed the biggest caveat of all to the whole issue is that neither the likes of myself nor the wilder fringes of cybernattery will be of other than the most marginal relevance to voters generally, as compared to those of us inside the social media political bubble.

'Toilet in the Park'

My ears are still buzzing from Saturday night's event, which must have been one of the loudest gigs I've been too. At comfortably over two hours the main band's set was probably the longest I've heard, and an appreciative crowd danced the night away. On the downside, there was a fair bit of excessive drunkenness, and fans left the area strewn with beer cans and other debris.

No, it wasn't T in the Park, it was a bash by AC/DC tribute band Bon's Balls (!) in sleepy old Kirriemuir, held as part of a 'Bon Fest' to celebrate the birthday of the real band's former lead singer Bon Scott, who was born in the Angus town, but in the style of true rock 'n' roll martyrdom drunk himself to death over thirty years ago. Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be, and all that.

Anyway, with hindsight if I'd died myself of something alcohol-related at about the time of Bon's death then I doubt if it would have come as a huge surprise to those I left behind, but as a puritanical teetotaller these days who takes an interest in Scotland's alcohol problem it was instructive to compare then and now in relation to what was going on at the weekend. And this admittedly limited evidence perhaps confirmed the more liberal approach to these things as compared to thirty years ago.

For a start, I don't think alcohol would have been sold in a venue like Kirriemuir Town Hall back then. I recall attending a couple of gigs at another Angus Council owned property - Forfar's Reid Hall - at around that time, and I somehow doubt if alcohol was on sale. Ditto Dundee's municipal Caird Hall, where I saw numerous bands.

Thus the floor of the hall wouldn't have been strewn with empty beer cans, but in any case would we have disposed of them more responsibly? A difficult question, but as I said in last year's moan about T in the Park, at the original Band Aid at Wembley in 1980 I'm sure we - and most of the rest of the crowd - dutifully bagged our empty cans and other detritus and took them to one of the skips in the stadium, thus generally quite unlike the T in the Park rabble.

Also, some of the punters in Kirrie's town hall on Saturday were clearly excessively drunk (or drugged), but this didn't seem to deter the sale of alcohol to them or concern the stewards in any way, thus if Angus Council can't even control its own venues then it's little wonder that sections of the licenced trade shows little restraint.

Indeed, I was in a Kirrie pub before the gig and even by 8pm or so quite a few punters were staggering about, shouting and generally being a bit of a nuisance. But the bar staff seemed unconcerned, which again I doubt would quite have been the case three decades ago, although it was by no means the most raucous pub I've ever been in.

But the Bon's Balls event ran ten minutes or so past its midnight licence, so police arrived and had a word. So that's OK then. Box ticked, job done, only the supermarkets left to sort out.

But it's all just rock 'n' roll, so what's the problem? And if police, politicians and the press indulge in their predictable praise of the good behaviour and community spirit of the Balado rabble then what's wrong with that? Well this post is beginning to drag on a bit, so no time for an attempt at chapter and verse. But there's the implications for wider society for a start; don't bother about lax law enforcement and concentrate instead on fawning statements from the press, police and politicians. And shift all the blame onto the supermarkets, who're always an easy target for society's ills.

Then there's the double standards. If gypsy travellers leave an (illegal) site looking like T in the Park on Monday morning then the press and (some) politicians are up in arms, but if T in the Park is left looking like a recently vacated illegal gypsy camp then that's great according to the 3Ps, because there were only x arrests, and no one was raped or murdered.

And anyway, apart from the environmental hypocrisy associated with T in the Park, the community spirit thing also seems overdone, since one or two people who've attended the event have told me that it's full of drunken and obnoxious Weegies, or suchlike (their phrase, not mine, before I'm accused of being anti-Glaswegian, or racist, or whatever).

And indeed the inspiration for this post is a letter in today's Scotsman penned by a couple from the USA:

We travelled from San Francisco in the hope of attending a fantastic festival in the Scottish country side. Instead we leave your beautiful country disheartened. T In The Park could have been wonderful. The list of artists was a who's-who of performers. Unfortunately, my girlfriend and I leave wondering why one of the most enchanting countries in the world tolerates such squalor. After attending many concerts, in many parts of the world, nothing prepared us for T in The Park.

The combination of disturbing behaviour and a bewildering lack of bins transformed the Scottish summer landscape into a garbage dump. When we first arrived we watched in amazement as people discarded plates, food and cups on the ground.

As the festival progressed, walking became akin to hiking through a sea of trash. Words can not describe the smell. And a lack of sufficient facilities coupled with offensive behaviour conspired to turn what could be a world class event into a toilet.

Of course, with the likes of the Citizen T initiative to encourage responsible behaviour it's perhaps fortunate that the American couple didn't attend the event in previous years; indeed, the Courier's main report on the event yesterday said: "It was also one of the cleanest festivals at Balado, with litter conspicuous by its absence."

Thus the Scottish psyche on matters like cleanliness and "positive community behaviour" clearly differs from that elsewhere in the world. But no doubt the event was yet again carbon neutral. I wonder if our American friends noticed?

(The headline is that used in the Scotsman letter.)

Salmond, Sir Sean and The Sun

Alex Salmond's predictably opportunistic and self-righteous statement on UK media regulation as a reaction to the News of the World affair does not sit well with the SNP's relationship with News International during May's Holyrood election campaign, says his biographer David Torrance. Moreover, Mr Salmond's otherwise low-profile reaction to recent events is presumably due to a meeting with James Murdoch earlier this year and the subsequent support of the Scottish editions of the Sun and NotW for a second SNP term of government at Holyrood.

Mr Torrance quotes a Labour source as being "struck by the SNP's extraordinary relationship with News International", presumably because Labour didn't have an extraordinary relationship with the newspaper group themselves.

But all this - together with a little fact found on another blog - brought to mind something symptomatic of that extraordinary relationship during May's campaign, touched on here at the time.

Imagine if Labour, the Tories or Lib Dems had paid for one of their election candidates to travel abroad to interview one of their celebrity supporters. This interview consisted largely of a eulogy of the party's leader, and formed the basis of several articles published in a prominent newspaper as editorial and under the byline of the election candidate.

All very cosy, the SNP's phalanx of online supporters would no doubt claim, to put it mildly.

Yet that was precisely what the SNP did during the election campaign. The party paid for Holyrood candidate Joan McAlpine to fly to the Bahamas to interview Sir Sean Connery. The interview - essentially a hagiography of Mr Salmond - formed the basis of several articles published in the Scottish Sun under Ms McAlpine's byline. And of course she is now an SNP MSP.

Obviously the SNP and Mr Salmond are hardly the first party and leader to gain the support of the press, but the party in effect paying for an article in a supportive newspaper seems very cosy indeed.

On the other hand, it seems likely that all the parties will in future sup with the press with a considerably longer spoon than hitherto, but how this will pan out is at this stage anyone's guess. But with the independence referendum almost certain to be the next big test of Scottish opinion the SNP were unlikely to be afforded many favours by the press anyway.

Separatism and Newsnet Scotland

With current news and debate preoccupied by the paroxysm surrounding the press, politics and police regarding the News of the World affair, a perhaps significant event in the short history of a rival to the MSM in Scottish political discourse has gone largely unnoticed.

But it seems that nationalist website Newsnet Scotland has split in two, thus perhaps taking its own advice regarding independence, autonomy and forging one's own destiny to its logical conclusion.

Slightly more seriously, it seems that as a result of a top-level power struggle at the site an effectively identical web presence has been set up under the domain newsnetscotland.net, thus competing head on with the established newsnetscotland.com.

The statements issued by the two sites do little to clarify precisely what has happened, and since NNS seems to have been run primarily by volunteers operating under a cloak of anonymity then this hardly aids transparency and clarity.

However, according to NNS1 the problems have arisen due to the actions of one particular individual who has had ideas for the site's development and management which have set them on a collision course with others contributing to the site. Following an emergency board meeting and the failure to resolve the dispute the individual has parted company with NNS1 and set up NNS2.

But NNS2 claims: "Plans have been drawn up and steps been taken to transition what was a simple blog and turn it into a world class digital content producer and distribution platform that will rival traditional newspapers in new and innovative ways while placing Scotland at the centre of the next leap in digital journalism."

Moreover, the board is "excited about the new challenges and opportunities that are ahead", but NNS's founder "would prefer to keep his interest in publishing to the relms [sic] of blogging and let the board move on to more ambitious goals".

Thus NNS2 presents the split as fairly amicable and essentially due to a lack of ambition by the site's creator, but NNS1 disputes this, saying: "One of the first things that was done was the naming of a volunteer to Newsnet Scotland, erroneously naming this individual as the creator of newsnetscotland.com. As well as being wrong on that specific matter it was also blatant breach of our pledge to protect the identity of volunteers.

"We are saddened that this step has been taken and trusts have been breached and as a team offer our apologies to the individual named. We hope it does not do lasting damage to the reputation and good standing of Newsnet Scotland."

So both sides are claiming the right to proprietorship of the Newsnet Scotland title and website, and it's perhaps instructive that both also claim to have the backing of the board.

Interestingly, however, the board of directors' webpage seems to have been removed from NNS1 (this is from the Google cache) but has reappeared in identical form on NNS2.

Thus reading between the lines it appears that disagreements over the direction of NNS's management and content has resulted in personality clashes and a subsequent power struggle. On the one side seems to be the site's founding grassroots members, volunteers and contributors, while the other side is probably led by media professional George Kerevan, or Alex Porter - both members of the original board - or both.

And while both sides are portraying themselves as a group of people against a maverick or unambitious individual the truth very probably lies somewhere in between those two extremes, and of course there is no doubt a significant body of volunteers, contributors and donors stuck in no man's land and who don't know which way to turn. But with one side talking of "considering legal advice" and the other mentioning a "security breach", the two sides are clearly irreconcilable and the current position unsustainable. Both NNSs can't continue in their current form.

Of course, Newsnet Scotland started on a simple Blogger platform like Planet Politics but now has a distinct and dedicated web presence together with a significant number of readers, contributors and financial donors. But while many nationalists in particular saw the unashamedly pro-independence site as being a potential rival to the MSM generally and its pro-Union bias in particular, despite its significant achievements and the troubles of the established press it seemed unlikely to become a major player, in the short to medium term at least: it's that political and online bubble again, with the real world carrying on regardless.

However, despite the opportunities presented by the MSM's difficulties in Scotland - the declining circulations, the demise of the Sunday Times Scotland, the emasculation of the Labourite Daily Record and Sunday Mail, and now the closure of the News of the World and the the likely consequent difficulties for News International's other titles - and notwithstanding the obvious ambition of some of those associated with Newsnet Scotland, the irony of the website's problems and subsequent split at this time will be lost on no one. And if the generally Unionist MSM have viewed Newsnet as a potential rival then they'll have double cause to indulge in some schadenfreude this weekend.

Also, regular readers of this blog won't be surprised to learn that its author won't be crying himself to sleep over either the NotW's demise or NNS's current difficulties, but it's difficult not to feel sorry for some of those caught up in all of this, in particular those unpaid volunteers who will have devoted significant time, effort and perhaps also financial resources into building Newsnet Scotland from a humble blog into a popular and significant online presence in Scottish political debate.

And it's also ironic that the site's less than amicable divorce provides a nice wee parable - the perceived unfair dominance of one group to the detriment of the other, the different directions of travel - regarding the struggle for an independent Scotland.

Update: An article on the original NNS site this morning adds some flesh to the bones of a dispute between a developing corporate/professional management structure and the original grassroots/volunteer ethos of the site, with the former setting up NNS2 as a consequence and the latter reasserting control over NNS1.

The statement also says that the door remains open to George Kerevan, Harry McGrath and Stephen Maxwell, suggesting that Alex Porter - the other member of the Board of Directors - was the unnamed individual who led the new corporate structure which ultimately clashed with the established less formal team, and who thus subsequently left to set up NNS2 and is now claiming to represent the authentic Newsnet Scotland.

Thus it all looks very messy - particularly as regards the financial aspects - and seems unlikely to be easily resolved, even assuming that those running NNS2 conclude that the game's up.

Of course, from the readers' perspective normal service could resume in fairly short order, but behind the scenes things could take some time to sort out.

NO2ID

Rather than concentrating on the crude party politics which usually characterises the Union v independence debate on Newsnicht, Monday's Newsnight discussion looked at the slightly more nuanced angle of national identity.

Of course, party politics and national identity are hardly unrelated concepts, thus the SNP's Joan McAlpine posited the fairly predictable vision of a better Scotland which could only be achieved with independence, while Michael Portillo took a similarly rose-tinted view of the Union's historically moderating influence against 'fanaticism', which in turn linked to the idea of Scottish v Unionist identities, and of course both tried to argue that their preferred identity was the more attractive one and that which the Scottish (and English) should, er, identify with.

Equally, as well as from the perspective of our preferred notion of the nation state, we all adopt various identities relating to numerous facets of our lives, some of which are of course related to the UK v Scotland clash. Thus party politics is the most obvious factor in this regard, while other matters like class, religion and ethnicity can also be relevant, particularly historically in the case of religion, although of course that can also be of more residual relevance to contemporary issues.

Our 'multiple identities' can also be found at lower geographical and political levels such as the county, city/town or housing estate/scheme. We can also identify with others with regard to things like football, music, occupation and a whole host of other ways in which we conduct our lives.

And of course many of these things can be related in different ways - for example, football and religion, music and politics etc - but some can follow a football team (say) while ignoring any religious or political dimension that others supporting the same team see as integral to that particular identity. Thus we can have multiple identities which can mean very different things to different people and interact in many different ways; a very complex scenario.

Anyway, the reason for this rather amateurish preamble - which (I assume) is really the domain of people like sociologists and anthropologists - is that from a personal perspective Monday's debate reminded me of how my own various personal identities have changed over the years.

Thus while living in England for a few years I regularly wore a small Scottish saltire badge or my Scotland football top, both as a mark of patriotism and defiance; indeed, perhaps almost antagonistically.

On the other hand, my politics were more class based, in fact left leaning and to that extent considering Scottish independence to be largely a distraction. But I was certainly no Unionist, and indeed associated the Union flag with a right wing, imperialist politics, and also connoting racism at the extremes, since in those days it was particularly associated with the National Front.

However, it's all very different these days. As Joan McAlpine said in Monday night's debate, the union is a 'political construct', thus my antipathy to politics means that I would still hardly call myself a Unionist. By the same token, Scottish nationalism is to a large extent a political construct as well, and as I don't find the SNP's politics any more attractive than the unionist parties then I'm not a Scottish nationalist either.

Similarly, I wouldn't wear my little saltire badge anymore, either because I don't feel so patriotic these days, or because in my previous life I used it in a regrettably slightly jingoistic manner.

Another problem is the essentially divisive nature of our identities. For example, my youthful anti-establishment ethos made me a fan of punk music, and by the same token regarded genres such as heavy metal and mainstream pop with some antipathy. And of course many people don't have to look at music through the political prism to 'diss' people who don't conform to their preferences in terms of bands and genres.

Thus these days I listen to all sorts of popular music from M People, Metallica, Morrissey, Madonna, Muse through to Motörhead, and even if I don't like a particular group or genre I peacefully respect the right of others to their preferences.

Thus the thing with identities is that they can be used in different ways by different people. Hence adherents to a particular religion can be tolerant and ecumenically inclined on the one hand, while others can bigoted and sectarian, which is perhaps a point that defenders of faith schools (for example) often miss, or at least ignore.

By the same token, political ideologies and nationalism can also be both constructive and divisive in nature (in terms of practical application as well as politics per se) but over the years the latter perspective has come to dominate over the former as regards my own personal outlook, hence this blog's essentially sceptical/cynical tone in relation to all things political.

Of course, the politicians hope that their preferred perspectives still resonate with the public and that - particular as regards the SNP - these political and national identities can increasingly be fostered in order to further their related policies via democratic means.

But John McTernan's defence of the dual British/Scottish identity in today's Scotsman and his reference to London (and to a degree the wider UK) reflecting Atlanta's "too busy to hate" ethos is surely over-optimistic. Perhaps with other people and in other spheres it's a case of the devil finding work for idle hands to do.