The tram Gathering

It was interesting to watch a typically earnest John Swinney on Newsnicht being grilled by Isabelle Fraser on the Scottish Government's due diligence as regards its funding of the Edinburgh trams to the extent of a cool half billion pounds or so.

Of course, the finance secretary now intends withholding part of those funds on the basis that the project's remit has changed significantly, but as things stand his government has in effect handed over hundreds of millions of pounds to the City of Edinburgh Council only to see it flushed down the lavvy.

And the Scottish Government's scrutiny as regards this largesse? In essence, as long as the funds are spent on the intended project then that's effectively the extent of central government due diligence, according to Mr Swinney.

Thus as long as the money is spent on the trams - and not on, say, a couple of new schools, a battery of nuclear weapons, or several hundred million packets of Gypsy Creams for councillor meetings - then all's well and good.

And according to Mr Swinney, the reason the government and the likes of Transport Scotland don't get more involved is because, "where there are more than one party involved in the governance that can lead to real project uncertainty, so the control of the project rested exclusively with the City of Edinburgh Council".

Voila! Thanks to the finance secretary's devastating insight it's all becoming clear now. Instead of the uncertainty in governance that would have resulted from others becoming involved, the governance has resided exclusively with the council, hence all that certainty in governance that's clearly characterised the project.

All hail 'certainty in governance'!

And if such 'reassurance' from our finance secretary isn't enough to disabuse some of the notion that the SNP government should ride to the rescue and put the trams fiasco to rights, it should be recalled that they couldn't even organise a glorified Highland games in Edinburgh without it collapsing into insolvency, subsidy and subsequent political machinations, thus not unlike the trams project itself.

Oh aye, and councillors Dawe and Cardownie were implicated in that little mess as well.

Indeed, perhaps a Highland games organising committee could have been asked to deliver the trams. They presumably couldn't have performed any worse, indeed they'd have probably made a better fist of the whole thing.

Why no Asda 'Roll forward'?

It's a while since I've blabbered on about the exciting business of buying big bottles of coke and suchlike at supermarkets, so here's the latest instalment.

There may actually be someone in the universe who remembers the previous posts, but for the other, er, person here's a quick recap.

Tesco's own brand Cola Zero was selling for around 40p or less per 2 litre bottle. The price increased fairly sharply until it rocketed to 78p. But this was accompanied by a three for two offer, so ostensibly a good deal, the only catch being that the price per bottle was still significantly higher with the offer than that prevailing not long beforehand. And a similar Asda product largely followed the price increases, ending up at an identical 78p, but no three for two offer or BOGOF. (Although Asda has apparently ditched such 'gimmicks' in favour of "being transparent in its price cuts". Oh, aye!)

Then Tesco's product plummeted to 39p, precisely half of what it had been retailing at previously, and indeed substantially cheaper than with the three for two offer.

Now Asda's product has also plummeted back from the 78p of a few weeks ago to 52p. And naturally it's marked as one of the retailer's 'Rollback' offers. Oh whoopee! But it's still dearer than before the price rocketed to match Tesco's. And there was nae word of the 'Rollforward' when the price was surging ahead. And Tesco now has the Asda price marked on its shelves as a comparator. Of course, there's never any mention when the price is dearer than in other stores!

And the big tins of sweeties mentioned in my previous post - Quality Street, Roses, Heroes, Celebrations - have reappeared on the shelves, once again priced at £5, thus a substantial discount on the £10 normal price. But, as pointed out previously, I can't ever recall seeing these things actually offered at the 'normal' price. They seem to reappear a few weeks before Christmas at the 'discounted' price and then disappear for the rest of the year on an annual cycle. And if they are to be on display until the festive season then they certainly seem to have 'rolled' Christmas 'forward' this year!

But as usual the irony of Asda's petrol director saying that "customers shouldn't have to buy into gimmicks and promotions" shouldn't be lost on anyone.

As for Tesco, it all reminds me of the time I was attempting to master the self-service tills (a topic worth several blogposts in itself) when I overheard a couple of members of staff (who probably thought I was listening to The Clash's 'Lost In The Supermarket' or whatever on my iPod, but unbeknown to them the album I was listening to had just ended) bitching about us customers, saying "you ken what they're like". Aye, zipped up at the back, presumably!

Of course, retailing is hardly the only environment where we're triumphantly told the good news but the bad is kept hidden, and where we're constantly being manipulated in other ways. Now, I wonder where else that would happen? For those who didn't read my previous post, the clue's in the name of this blog!

The trams: same old, same old

According to Lesley Riddoch in today's Scotsman, we're all in a bit of a lather over Edinburgh's tram shambles: "Edinburgh is collectively furious. The rest of Scotland is not far behind."

Er, nae really, Lesley, at least not in the Planet Politics global nerve centre here in distinctly autumnal Dundee.

It's not that I'm not personally furious, because most of the time I am. It's just that the trams haven't really changed things much for me. It's more of a case of same old, same old. Again.

Let's simplify things by ignoring the rationale for the project in the first place (although the whole thing has often been described as a 'vanity project'). Just assume that trams for Edinburgh were an unproblematic and uncontested 'good thing'.

Thereafter, of course, the whole thing went off the rails, hit the buffers, and ended up as a political and national train wreck, sort of thing.

The highly paid public sector officials and private sector professionals made a complete mess of the initial blueprint. Not to worry though, because they're accountable to councillors, who would see through the whole thing. Er, hello?

So the project was flawed from the outset, and things just got worse. You know, the usual cost overruns, shambolic organisation and then the whole thing imploded into a commercial, legal and political shambles.

Hence the usual disputes between the various 'stakeholders', attempts at face saving, exploiting the situation for political gain blah, blah.

With all the stakeholders doing their level best to keep the facts of the matter from the public, of course. And, in particular, attempting to maximise political capital. But it's not just the politicians who do this - in the final analysis, the bureaucrats and private sector are all involved in a political game of sorts.

Equally, however the project reaches its denouement, all involved will continue to give precedence to their own damage limitation or best advantage, as the case may be. The public will play second fiddle to all of this.

Problem is, that's to a greater or lesser extent just the norm in public life. The difference with the trams is not because it qualitatively represents anything new, it's just that quantitatively it's the usual scenario on a grand scale.

Thus although the likes of Lesley Riddoch and Kenny Farquharson seem to be getting a bit het up about the whole thing, it hasn't really fazed yours truly in the slightest.

But only because I was just a bit worked up in the first place!

A lot has been made of right-winger Charles Moore's recent polemic against the high profile economic, political and moral failures of the past few years, resulting in a population "disillusioned with our debased democracies".

But while that was construed as a critique of right leaning politics in general and free markets in particular, Moore's solution wasn't a lurch to the left.

Indeed, the Edinburgh trams debacle is arguably symptomatic of the kind of left-leaning, statist solution to our problems that Charles Moore also decries.

Perhaps not as morally bankrupt as the likes of the MPs' expenses fiasco and the phone hacking scandal, but certainly bankrupt in the financial and political sense.

Ultimately it's not a case of crudely choosing between the left and right in terms of looking for solutions, because it represents a failure of politics across the board.

It's an age characterised by self-serving cynicism, where personal, political and corporate responsibility are mere inconveniences, and honesty and candour are lost in a sea of marketing, spin and soundbite.

Which is why our politicians are too busy politicking to even start thinking of how to really stop the rot, never mind reversing it.

Elites, experts and narratives

Continuing the ongoing theme of the anti-democratic nature of much of Scotland's public and political processes, an interesting recent article from Walter Humes in the Scottish Review is well worth reading. In the context of the education system and policy development he says: "My investigation led me to question the 'received wisdom', which invoked reassuring concepts such as partnership, consultation and consensus, and sought to convey the impression that those who made decisions exercised benign stewardship in the public interest."

As regards membership of the various bodies involved, he states: "...the system was carefully managed, through the use of patronage, to ensure that only those likely to conform to the unwritten rules of the game were likely to join the upper levels of the educational policy community. A measure of ability was important, but deference and trust were more important."

And regarding how the whole thing interfaces with political and public opinion, Professor Hume says:

Later I developed the concept of 'narrative privilege' to describe one of the most powerful ways which helped to ensure the perpetuation of a form of elitism disguised as democratic engagement. 'Narrative privilege' derives from the right of key players of decision-making bodies to write the official versions of events which gain currency as 'objective' accounts of what has taken place. It is expressed through the minutes and records of meetings, and embodied in annual reports of public bodies and official reviews of policy. It is also evident in press releases, in ministerial statements and on the websites of educational agencies. The discourse of these accounts generally conveys a favourable impression of those who have constructed the narrative.

A related issue is the credence afforded to so-called 'experts' in public policy narratives, and their relationship with politicians, who of course are normally anything but experts in the particular field under examination, and thus to a large extent rely on the 'real' experts in constructing their political discourse.

All this comes to mind in relation to a couple of this week's more prominent news stories. First, the ongoing spat over the medical evidence which was instrumental in the release on compassionate grounds of the Lockerbie bomber. Second, the Edinburgh trams fiasco.

In both cases the politicians have relied on experts to justify their actions. In the first example the justice secretary relied on medical professionals to assess al-Megrahi's life expectancy. In the second councillors relied on engineers and accountants to make the technical and business case for the tram line.

Thus perhaps illustrative of Professor Humes' 'narrative privilege', but of course in both these cases the expert evidence has transpired to be fundamentally wanting. Thus his 'counter-narratives' have to a degree won out, but only when the damage has been done.

Another topical example perhaps relates to Scotland's ongoing 'unhealthy relationship' with alcohol, and in particular the fairly wide support among the elites in the area of policy development for minimum pricing as an antidote.

But this particular narrative largely ignores issues like light touch policing of drunken behaviour and the lack of restraint from on-sales licensees, preferring instead to shift the blame onto the off-licence sector, and to large supermarkets in particular.

Thus even the experts who mathematically model the benefits associated with minimum pricing (marginal, as it happens) ignore these issues. And what precise insight into matters like policing and liquor licensing do the so-called experts in the medical profession provide? Of course, these people are experts at treating the medical consequences of excessive alcohol consumption, but asking their opinion on controlling consumption per se seems as relevant as asking an A&E doctor their opinion on driving and road safety.

In Dundee, for example, a handful of years ago councillors granted an ultra-late licence to a new large-scale drinking establishment. This leads to a mass exodus from the established nightclub scene before their traditional closing time, thus affecting profits.

A nightclub applied for an additional extension so it could retain its existing customer base. This was objected to by Tayside Police on the basis that it would stretch resources. Councillors agreed and the extension was rejected, but it seems unlikely that granting it would have changed things fundamentally. The damage had already been done by granting the ultra-late licence to the new establishment, and affording existing licensed premises a similar extension would have merely rearranged the patronage deckchairs.

But of course as with minimum pricing nationally, the dominant narrative here was unchallenged. Perhaps the powers that be realised that they had create an additional problem, but naturally the narrative constructed did not acknowledge that.

And indeed despite copious political objection to minimum pricing nationally, none of it really gets to the nitty gritty, such as the further liberalisation of licensing hours - and thus consumption - in Dundee even while debate was raging about the nation's alcohol problem. Instead it's essentially born of crude 'oppositionalism', thus providing little real counter-narrative to challenge the dominant one.

And locally the lack of a minimum pricing policy is conveniently regarded as the problem as well, with Dundee's licensing convener ludicrously suggesting implementing one unilaterally, despite such a move having been struck down by the courts a few years previously.

Included in this narrative and as part of the elite is a body called the Tayside Council on Alcohol, which pops up in the local press every so often urging implementation of minimum pricing. Hardly surprising that the organisation's director - a "leading expert on alcohol abuse" - is a former senior officer with Tayside Police, thus neatly illustrating things like the perpetuation of the elites, the 'narrative privilege' and the associated revolving door in terms of employment in Scottish public life.

Stalking donkey or thoroughbred contender?

It's not entirely clear whether Tom Harris's decision to [sort of declare his candidacy for Scottish Labour leader in a contest that's impossible under the current rules because the post doesn't actually exist and the closest equivalent - leader of the Labour MSPs in the Scottish Parliament - he's ineligible for as an MP] represents a serious stab at becoming Scottish Labour leader or is more of a stalking horse-style move to draw out the big beasts amongst Scottish MPs at Westminster, who are of course reputed to view Holyrood as something inferior to the real deal in London.

Of course, Harris has stated that his move is designed to make the likes of Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy show their hand and also to promote a wider party debate about "ideas" (although his remarks on Newsnicht seemed to portray a greater desire for the leadership per se than his earlier comments as reported in this morning's press). But it's hardly implausible to suggest that he's being slightly disingenuous and that he really does see himself as a contender, and that he's in effect using the stalking horse argument for his own benefit rather than the more conventional approach of employing it to test the waters for the benefit of others.

Thus he could be using Alexander and Murphy as a smokescreen to test opinion on himself as Scottish Labour leader. After all, following his stint as a transport minister in London it's often been said that Harris craves a position of power in some capacity, even reputedly giving up his highly successful blog in the believe that it was a stumbling block to a ministerial post, and indeed that he's now a bit miffed that Ed Miliband hasn't seen fit to recognise his talents in the shadow Labour team.

Of course, he's hardly Scottish Labour's 'stalking donkey' - the uncomplimentary description of Tory MP Anthony Meyer when he stood against Margaret Thatcher in the hope that a big beast like Michael Heseltine would show his hand - since he has had some experience of ministerial office, is clearly no daftie and on TV and radio seems more than plausible in today's media-obsessed environment. Moreover, ideologically he's perhaps a bit more realistic than those in the Scottish Labour party who seem to think that all they need is someone slightly to the right of Jimmy Reid or Tommy Sheridan to guarantee electoral success.

By the same token, however, his centre right politics are presumably a major barrier to his acceptance by the Labour Party in Scotland, and his Nat-baiting on Labour Hame verges on the juvenile and gratuitously provocative, and if Iain Gray managed to become the bête noire of the cybernats without ever venturing onto cyberspace then it's easy to imagine the kind of reaction that a 'Tom Harris for First Minister' campaign would engender.

But clearly to a large extent all that's only a concern to those of us who are (relatively) obsessed by online Scottish politics - and to a greater or lesser extent whoever leads Scottish Labour will be a cybernat bête noire anyway - thus from the electoral perspective Harris's online activities and history are likely to be of only marginal importance to voters more generally.

But to that extent he's also effectively a complete unknown, but then again Murphy and Alexander are hardly household names, and it's difficult to think of anyone who could possibly lead Scottish Labour and have a profile even approaching the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and Kenny MacAskill, never mind the biggest beast himself.

Of course, that's one of several reasons why leading Scottish Labour is regarded as something of a poisoned chalice, and why no one other than Tom Harris has as yet declared their hand. Thus if he genuinely is a stalking horse it would be ironic indeed if there was no real contest and he won by default.

But whether this would be because he is a genuine thoroughbred or because the rest of the field comprised old nags who were left in the stalls, this would quite possibly not become apparent for some time after his effective coronation.

(And as per this recent post, if Tom Harris became Scottish leader, and was an MSP and MP simultaneously (at least for a transitional period) this would give him even more reason to ignore things like the exploitation and profiteering attaching to the taxi cartels operating both north and south of the border!)

Expect more taxing questions ahead...

MSP John Mason's now infamous motion on same-sex marriages was uncompromisingly slated by his SNP MP colleague Pete Wishart. Mr Wishart courted further Nationalist strife by claiming the concept of 'Britishness' could be enhanced by Scottish independence. He then attracted further adverse headlines by suggesting that the SNP's "total and exclusive focus must be now on winning the referendum".

Which of course helped fill the silly season news vacuum during the gaps between the phone hacking scandal, the English riots and Libya.

But now it's Mr Mason's turn again, with his suggestion that Scotland should implement a top rate of income tax in excess of 50% evidently proving as popular with the SNP hierarchy as, say, a suggestion that independence could enhance Britishness.

But which is certainly at odds with the SNP's drive to implement a lower corporation tax rate in Scotland to attract investment in a competitive global market, since a business-friendly fiscal environment would be undermined by high rates of personal taxation. But the slightly bizarre thing here is Mr Mason's advocacy of a more competitive corporation tax regime in a planted question to Alex Salmond during a session of FMQs just before the Holyrood summer holidays. Then Mr Mason adduced the support of Clyde Blowers Capital for the proposal, but as pontificated here at the time this should have drawn attention to chief executive Jim McColl's status as a tax exile, which is presumably because of, er, unattractive rates of personal taxation.

Which serves to confirm the slightly contradictory nature of John Mason's latest proposal on income tax, and the plot is perhaps further thickened by his status as a chartered accountant.

However, perhaps the newsworthy status of these relatively minor SNP spats serves to underline the generally cohesive nature of the party in recent history, held together by the lack of a majority during their first parliamentary term of office and, moreover, any possible conflict dampened by the tantalising thought of the ultimate goal of independence.

Of course, with the current unpopularity of Scottish independence among voters necessitating a repositioning of the party to construct a form of greater autonomy that the public would buy in a referendum, this brings questions of substantive policy more to the fore, and hence the likelihood of real Nationalist splits on the various issues.

Hence at the weekend the SNP attempted to put the currency issue to bed, with a Scotland on Sunday article flagging up a commitment to retain sterling post-'independence'.

Of course, with globalisation, supra-national organisations and to that extent an increasingly interdependent world, the SNP has for some time had quite a bit of trouble on the issue of where sovereignty should lie. And with the EU likely to either split in terms of the eurozone or move further towards a European superstate to save the single currency, this will do nothing to help the SNP answer questions regarding what a post-'independence' Scotland would look like. The vexed issue of an independent Scotland's EU membership - how or whether it would gain admission and whether or not this would necessitate euro membership - is likely to become even more difficult in view of the uncertainly over Europe's future in the next handful of years, unfortunately for the SNP coinciding with the run up to the independence referendum.

Domestically this will be exacerbated by the SNP's threadbare legislative programme for the next few years. To a degree Pete Wishart was only stating the obvious when he said the party will need to exclusively focus on independence, if only because there will be little else to preoccupy the party, or indeed Holyrood, the press and the Scottish body politic generally.

But clearly the whole question of what independence would mean will come increasingly to the fore, and while the lack of Scottish riots this summer and the Westminster cuts agenda provide easy pickings for the SNP, the more difficult questions like the EU conundrum provide a significantly greater challenge.

One correspondent to the Courier recently claimed: "A vote in the forthcoming referendum is not a vote on the EU. It is not a vote on dog fouling, the Queen, or hanging or the eurozone or any other matter that gets folk wroched up. It is a national chance to vote for normality and become a nation again."

But, unfortunately for the letter writer, most folk will get wroched up about the substantive policy implications of independence, rather than merely seeing "normality" and "becoming a nation again" as ends in themselves.

The politically correct Dr Starkey(!)

It seems that historian David Starkey is unapologetic about his recent Newsnight remarks on 'gangsta' culture that have predictably caused so much controversy. Or at least if his article in today's Telegraph is anything to go by. But it seems that even Dr Starkey has been stricken by the political correctness bug. Thus he says:

Scotland, Alex Salmond says smugly, is a “different culture”. It is indeed, since the Scots are allowed - and even encouraged - to be as racist as they please and hate the English with glad abandon. I do not want a similar licensed xenophobia here.

Of course, I though that usual form of the highlighted phrase was 'gay abandon', but presumably Dr Starkey hasn't used this in order that gratuitous offence be avoided.

Well done that man! Or person.

The Bill resurrected in Dundee!

Too much 'community spirit' and 'national pride' in Scotland for the country to replicate the recent scenes south of the border, of course, but it seems that no one has told the people of Dundee.

Thus when a convoy of Grampian Police minibuses went hurtling through the morning rush hour traffic in Dundee, with blue lights flashing and sirens blaring, some seemed to think there was a riot kicking off in the city.

One commuter told the Courier: "I thought the riots had started in Dundee and they were reinforcements for the city — it made me very worried about what I would come home to and I kept listening to the news, but there was nothing about Dundee."

Not quite. It seems that the Grampian officers were providing back-up for hard-pressed forces south of the border. London, to be precise. A week after the riots had fizzled out. A police spokesman said: "While officers were not responding to a local emergency call, they were utilising blue lights while travelling south in order to safely meet a national operational deadline."

Which presumably means they were late for their shift.

However, I was reminded of this last night when an incident occurred in Dundee's Hilltown. This was quite close to the Planet Politics boardroom window, so on hearing a lot of shouting and screaming I opened it to have a wee lookie. The problem seemed to be a group of drunken teenage girls, one of whom seemed to have fallen over and hit her head, but the reason for the subsequent hysterics and tantrums from her pals wasn't entirely clear.

Anyway, I overheard someone calling the police, three of whom duly arrived in a panda car, after a journey of up to half a mile through the one-way system, with 'blues and twos' going and quite possibly running two red traffic lights in the process.

Fair enough - drunken teenage girls require a rapid response and are best left to the professionals - but the funny thing was that the police station is only 100 yards or so from where the incident took place, so even if they'd merely strolled up the road they would have gotten there quicker, never mind showing any sense of urgency!

Of course, there may be good reasons for going by car - to give the drunken teenage girls a free lift home, for example - but surely two of the officers could have gone the quick way while the other drove round the one-way system? And when a substantially bigger kick off occurred a few weeks previously involving a significantly larger group of drunken teenagers, several officers seemed to (literally) hotfoot it from the said police station.

I should add, obviously, that these people do a very difficult job, and it's not one that most of us could even contemplate. But there's nothing like creating a sense of drama!

It's that 'community spirit' again!

They engaged with the vulnerable young man, apparently on friendly terms, but ended up rifling through his bag and eventually stole cash from him. No, not that now infamous footage from the England riots where the muggers feigned concern for the dazed student but used this as a pretext to rob him, instead this was early evening in Dundee city centre a couple of days ago, when a cerebral palsy sufferer was left "in tears" after a "despicable theft".

Must be that "community spirit" and "national pride" again, eh? But at least we didn't riot. So that's OK then.

In fact I was particularly annoyed because I walked past where the incident happened around half an hour or so after it took place, and indeed if I hadn't been faffing around earlier may well have witnessed the whole thing, and could have perhaps, er, done something.

And yesterday I heard a lot of banging in the block that houses the Planet Politics world headquarters, and was worried that it might be a rerun of Sunday's early morning incident, where someone tried to break a neighbour's door down over what seemed to be some kind of drugs debt. Luckily police arrived in the nick of time then and scared the perp off, but I'm sure I heard him say he'd be back.

But the more recent chapping was in fact someone covering up the glass panels in our communal close, which had been smashed years ago but had never been replaced, presumably on the basis that any replacement would just be broken again anyway.

So I was quite pleased when I ascended the stairs for one of my shopping trips - you know, walk several miles to save the environment, but come back with more plastic bags than if going by car because loading the bags up isn't really advisable if you're walking too far - and saw the nice new wooden panels at the end of the close rather than the neighbour's door kicked in.

There was a catch, however, because it seems that one of the wooden panels had, er, been kicked in. Already.

Oh well, at least some people are making a killing out of their dealings in property rather than having them slowly destroyed by that all encompassing "community spirit" and "national pride".

I refer of course to the SNP Government's finance secretary, who has reportedly pocketed a cool £57,000 profit on his taxpayer-funded second home. On Tuesday's Newsnicht John Swinney seemed to be using Alex Neil's crib sheet, hence employing the MPs expenses excuse: "I was just following the rules, guv, so it wasn't my fault my snout was in the trough".

And Mr Swinney just had to point out, à la Mr Neil, that he would be paying capital gains tax on his windfall. Er, no, Mr Swinney, no one was accusing you of tax evasion, so the relevance of that wasn't entirely clear. And he almost sounded hard done by, what with having to pay tax on his profit and all that.

But considering that he'd just spent the preceding five minutes or so totally failing to answer the questions being put to him on the SNP's proposal to reduce the corporation tax rate in Scotland, his evasive responses regarding his profiteering by virtue of taxpayers' largesse were hardly surprising.

However, at least Mr Swinney isn't proposing to reduce the tax rate on second homes or exempt them altogether. Must be that "community spirit" again!

A statistical crime

A similar title has very probably appeared on this blog before, no doubt in relation to questioning some aspect of policing or the crime statistics, or whatever. Thus hardly original, but then neither are the issues alluded to.

This post was originally planned following recent news articles reporting that crime had again fallen in Scotland and was now at a zillion-year low (or suchlike) but was put on hold in view of last week's events. Indeed, the subject matter has perhaps taken on a greater resonance in the past few days.

But let's not dispute the overall downward trend in the crime figures, or the minutiae of their construction, the latter point being well beyond the scope of a blogpost authored by a mere member of the public.

However, in broad terms how do the police decide what's pursuable as crime and to that extent what's recorded as such? For example, police have significant discretion as regards the pursuit of more minor crimes such as speeding, whereas they have less latitude when it comes to more serious offences.

But the Courier recently reported that Tayside Police recorded eight (sic!) cycling offences last year, including "one instance of dangerous cycling, three cases of careless cycling and cycling whilst unfit, and an episode of failing to comply with a traffic sign"(!).

Moving on swiftly, and slightly further up the scale of criminality, it was recently reported: "A police officer failed to arrest a convicted thief because she "could not be bothered", a court has heard. Constable Michele Selby confiscated tools from a man who claimed he was fixing the door of the Moon River Chinese restaurant in Kirkintilloch, Glasgow at 5:30am. [...] But the job that Selby claimed she had to rush to was not a 999 call but delivering letters to another police station."

And apropos the recent public disorder, when a couple of thousand Polish football fans effectively commandeered the streets of Dundee recently only four arrests were made, although as compared to last week's events south of the border this was all pretty low level stuff, albeit pretty intimidating for those affected.

And continuing the fitba theme, some of the debate surrounding the SNP Government's clampdown on sectarian crime points out that there are laws currently available to tackle the problem, but which simply aren't enforced.

Things appear to be little different further up the food chain, although because this is more out of the public view it's not so obvious that offences aren't pursued, unlike in relation to cyclists (say) where it's self-evident to all that many/most cyclists ignore the law with impunity, and the Tayside Police figures quoted earlier ably demonstrate the lack of enforcement action.

However, one high profile case which is perhaps illustrative of the general principle as regards less public offences arose in relation to the News International phone hacking scandal, when the then Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner John Yates said he didn't pursue the investigation because the News of the World "failed to co-operate".

By the same token, many informed commentators appear to be of the opinion that the failure to pursue criminal charges in relation to many of the MPs caught up in the expenses scandal appeared to be due to reasons other than impartial enforcement of the law.

And as regards an even more contemporary example, it's now of course well established that police in effect turned a blind eye to some of the disorder and looting during the earlier stages of the riots in several English cities last week, a course of (in)action which even Lib Dem (and former senior Met officer!) Brian Paddick claimed may have caused the action to escalate. If police had managed to contain the early disorder then events might not have spiralled out of control.

Of course, there may be good reasons for this kind of inaction (which will be examined in a subsequent post), but this brief and unscientific survey of some recent news items - both very high and very low profile - surely demonstrate the fundamental lack of integrity as regards crime statistics, particularly when it comes to more minor offences.

Moreover, the kind of issues outlined above go to the heart of the whole debate over the future of policing rather than the mere statistical, and some of these issues will also be addressed subsequently.
........................................

Naturally some reading the foregoing will be questioning why the discussion includes examples from both north and south of the border, but as pointed out in a previous post examining police inaction in relation to anti-social behaviour, there seems little to suggest that Scotland and England are fundamentally different as regards this kind of debate.

By the same token, some of the partisan reaction to last week's riots and the difference between England and Scotland as regards what happened has verged on the ludicrous. For example, some have suggested that a more prevalent community spirit and greater sense of national pride north of the border explains why we didn't emulate England last week. Thus SNP MSP Joan McAlpine cites a Facebook page saying "Not rioting in Scotland, too proud of my country", but does not mention messages on similar social media attempting to incite public disorder in Scotland.

However, perhaps the worse example of this kind of false dichotomy was provided by Duncan Hamilton in last weekend's Scotland on Sunday, where he said:

With England deep in tortured introspection about what kind of country it has become, Scotland is about to start its own reflection on what kind of country it can be. The obvious difference, of course, is that the change coming in Scotland is peaceful, consensual and constitutional. While English thugs steal televisions from Dixons, our desire for "control over broadcasting" is altogether more subtle.

Of course, it's an indisputable fact that the public disorder emanating from London a few days ago into other English cities didn't quite make it to Scotland (and indeed in England itself was probably as irrelevant to a much larger population as it was irrelevant to Scotland as a whole), but otherwise this kind of gloating and schadenfreude (things that many nationalists are keen to accuse others of when they point out the economic failings of other countries, for example) completely misrepresents England and Scotland as regards their respective crime problems, and in effect amounts to an insult to those in the latter who suffer at the hands of murderers, rapists, thieves, the violent, the drunken and the anti-social. Who, of course, don't normally consider things like community spirit and national pride when doing what they do, so presumably these factors wouldn't have been a consideration as regards whether or not they decided to follow the English example and riot.

In the grand scheme of all things criminal the English riots represent little more than a statistical blip, and should not fundamentally change how we compare the two countries' respective crime problems. Of course, there are differences between the two, but surely these are primarily of nuance rather than fundamentals. And even if this is disputable, what's surely not in doubt is that the rhetorical nonsense presented by the likes of Duncan Hamilton simply misrepresents the situation for partisan ends.

The gangsta rap riots?

Historian David Starkey represents something of a bête noire for both the broad Left and Scottish nationalists, thus his comments on Newsnight last week suggesting that the ethos of gangsta rap may have been an important factor in last week's riots have predictably gone down like a lead balloon in some quarters, including this from a darling of the Conservatives (following her demolition of comprehensive schools in a conference speech).

What follows does not really intend to engage with the minutiae of that debate - although, for example, when Dr Starkey referred to black Labour MP David Lammy as sounding like a white rather than a black I assumed he was referring to his outlook and ethos rather than denigrating ethnic minority grammar and speaking abilities - but instead takes a brief and amateurish look at the possible impact of gangsta rap on last week's events in the context of another popular music genre.

Thus as blogged last week English punk band The Clash essentially feted the black propensity to riot in their iconic 'White Riot' anthem from the late 1970s. Aggressive and subversive, certainly, but then riots generally are. However, the perspective was essentially political, and the band raged against issues like unemployment, racism and authoritarian policing. And when The Clash eschewed punk rock for the mish mash of musical genres on their London Calling and Sandinista! albums, black-influenced styles were much to the fore.

And the album cover shown perhaps nicely encapsulates the band's early ethos - the lone Rastafarian walking towards the serried ranks of riot police. Thus it's not difficult to draw a parallel between this and the Brixton riots of the early 1980s.

But as compared to the anarchy and nihilism preached by punk compatriots The Sex Pistols, The Clash's message was essentially socially aware. As perhaps was demonstrated by the band's early punk/reggae crossover cover of 'Police and Thieves':

Police and thieves in the streets
Scaring the nation with their guns and ammunition

Which would presumably deplore both sides in last week's looting and disorder.

Compare that with gangsta rap pioneers NWA (Niggaz With Attitude for the uninitiated!) from their classic 'Straight Outta Compton' - 'F*** Tha Police' - 'Gangsta Gangsta' triumvirate:

Do I look like a mutha f**** role model?
To a kid lookin' up ta me
Life ain't nothin but bitches and money.

Or:

Just cause I'm from the CPT [Compton, California], punk police are afraid of me, huh
A young nigga on a war path
And when I'm finished, it's gonna be a bloodbath
Of cops, dyin' in LA

Or:

When I'm called off, I got a sawed off
Squeeze the trigger, and bodies are hauled off
You too, boy, if ya f*** with me
The police are gonna hafta come and get me

Ah, that seems a lot more 'in tune' with the violence and hedonism of Tottenham 2011 rather than Brixton 1981.

Thus although there's plenty of reading available on the precise words of Dr Starkey, in more general terms (as a black academic writes in the, er, Daily Mail):

For, despite the attempts of some apologists to dress up the looting as a political act against an oppressive Tory establishment, the fact is that the ethos of materialism — or ‘bling’ to use the street term — that pervades urban black youth played a major part in the widespread criminality perpetrated by rioters of all races.

That is why the looters targeted specific stores that are cherished in this culture, such as those selling mobile phones, trainers, sports clothes or widescreen TVs. Let’s face it, there were no reports of the vandals looting bookshops or public libraries.

What motivated the troublemakers was not genuine poverty but rather a raw acquisitiveness that is fuelled by so much in this black-led youth culture, from the imagery in rap videos to the lyrics of hip-hop music. The twin central themes of this world are sex and material possessions.

It is a milieu that glories in loose women and fast cars, in macho dominance and easy wealth. Concepts of restraint, hard work and personal responsibility are absent. Respect is something to be demanded rather than earned.

So much of the music and the video output is close to pornographic, with women degradingly treated as little more than sex objects. In this world, the highest ideal to which a man can aspire is to be a philandering, gun-wielding gang leader.

Where I believe Dr Starkey is right is that it is now just as likely to be a white or Asian teenager posing on the internet in baggy designer clothes and dripping in gold chains, either waving a weapon of some kind or pointing their fingers at the camera in a grotesque parody of a shooting.

All of which means, of course, that I couldn't be bothered developing the argument and couldn't hope to emulate the likes of the foregoing, hence the mega-quote!

Of course, as with anything else it's dangerous to generalise, and hip-hop can be both subversive and socially aware rather than purely self-indulgent - compare Public Enemy with NWA, which in hip-hop terms is perhaps like comparing The Clash and The Sex Pistols in the punk genre.

(As something of an eclectic popular music buff I've had both NWA's Straight Outta Compton and Public Enemy's It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back on my iPod for months before recent events, two albums I bought around 20 years ago but never really got into at the time.

My favourite gig ever was The Clash at the Caird Hall, Dundee over thirty years ago. The nearest I've been to that since was a tribute band - The Clashed - who I saw a week and a half ago at a venue in Dundee a mere couple of streets away from the Caird Hall. With some personal irony, around 24 hours after the band finished their encore with 'White Riot' - which almost made me break into a pogo, but was worried that my sciatica would play up! - things were just kicking off in Tottenham.)

European uniformity trumps the Scottish national interest?

In last weekend's Scotland on Sunday Duncan Hamilton claimed a successful eurozone entails "proud nations accepting a European uniformity rather than responding to the instinctive desire to protect and promote their national interest".

Which would seem to militate against greater Scottish autonomy in the context of retaining sterling.

By the same token, if an 'independent' Scotland joined the eurozone, she would presumably have to accept "European uniformity" rather than "protect and promote" the "national interest".

It's also curious how Mr Hamilton does not differentiate in terms of size regarding "the very countries which need to change the most" also being "those least likely to be allowed to do so by voters". However, as regards Ireland and Iceland, he says the "advantages of small, nimble, responsive nations in a crisis is striking."

Of course, the fact that he also manages to make a virtue of the contrasting responses of both Ireland and Iceland to their debt problems - "over-achieving" in its deficit reduction and default respectively - perhaps suggests a degree of rhetorical contrivance.

Indeed, given the need for decisive action and the external influences involved, perhaps Mr Hamiltion is making a virtue of necessity when he talks of the "small, nimble and responsive nations in a crisis".

And perhaps he should have cited the lumbering behemoth that is the UK with regard to decisive action taken to avert a possible sovereign debt crisis, but on the other hand I suspect Mr Hamilton wasn't particularly impressed by that either.

(This was initially drafted as a letter to the newspaper, but for various reasons was never sent. But this explains the less long-winded than usual nature of the post!)

Why no White Riot?

Black people gotta lot a problems
But they don't mind throwing a brick
White people go to school
Where they teach you how to be thick

So sang The Clash in their iconic punk anthem 'White Riot', well over 30 years ago. Although these lyrics may prima facie suggest racist connotations, in fact these political subversives were lamenting the reluctance of indigenous Londoners to follow the example of thier black brethren in rising up against authority. It seems that white band members Joe Strummer and Paul Simonon had earlier been involved in a riot during the Notting Hill carnival, when a mixed group of both blacks and whites came to the defense of an arrested pickpocket.

Simonon and group guitarist Mick Jones were both brought up in Brixton, south London, which was the scene of England's then worst riots in modern times in 1981, a handful of years after the Clash exploded onto the music scene in the late 1970s.

A few years later I also lived in the Brixton area for around a year, regularly walking down the Railton Road 'frontline' from the tube station towards where I stayed nearer to Herne Hill rail station, albeit that I was an aspiring young professional in the City of London rather than any sort of authentic Brixton resident or a member of London's punk rock counter-culture. (Anyway, by that time the London punk rock revolution had largely fizzled out to morph into the Seattle-based grunge of Nirvana and Pearl Jam.)

Of course, the Clash's perspective on the race-based explanation for rioting in London has largely been confirmed on a more intellectual basis in the wake of events of the last few days. Hence Scottish commentators like Kenneth Roy in the Scottish Review, Professor Tom Devine on Newsnicht, Torcuil Crichton on his blog, Michael Kelly and sociologist Stuart Waiton in the Scotsman have all, to a greater or lesser extent, employed Scotland's lack of a significant Afro-Caribbean rooted population as rationalising the lack of copycat riots and looting in Scotland. (Stuart Crawford in the Caledonian Mercury somehow manages to sidestep this completely, but perhaps his attempt to rationalise the difference by reverting to humour masks a degree of politically correct sensitivity on the subject.)

But if this explains the Scottish aspect, what about the racial dimension to the riots in London and elsewhere south of the border?

Between the Brixton riots in 1981 and my briefish residence there I studied a criminology module while a student, and one aspect of this was a left-wing sociological explanation of this kind of disorder, and the course entailed reading the Scarman Report on the riots. Broadly speaking I was sympathetic to this way of thinking and his lordship's liberal approach to the subject.

And although the details remain hazy, racism and consequent economic marginalisation of black people were largely considered to have fostered the conditions for the violent uprising, explanations which of course require little in the way of elucidation in view of this week's ensuing debate, which indeed largely echoes the kind of thing that's never been far away from the headlines during the generation since the events of 1981 in south London.

Another key argument from my academic studies of what happened was the comparison of the concepts of 'policing by consent' with 'policing by coercion', and again this hardly requires much in the way of exposition, at the superficial level at least.

However, anyone regularly reading this blog will perhaps have surmised by now that my take on such matters is slightly different these days - in fact, arguably diametrically opposed - and I'm more sympathetic to the likes of David Cameron's Downing Street statement yesterday on the week's events, or perhaps this from the Telegraph's Philip Johnston:

Yet the riots we are seeing now are fundamentally different from those that have gone before. They might, ostensibly, have been triggered by the police shooting of Mark Duggan, a notorious gangster, in north London; but they are fuelled by pure greed, by a belief that something can be had for nothing. The usual brakes on such behaviour – either an appreciation that it is wrong, or by the prospect that the culprit will be caught and punished – are largely absent.

For this, we have to thank four decades of politically correct policing, and a gradual breakdown of the informal network of authority figures that once provided an additional element of control over the bad behaviour of young people. Adults are now reluctant, or too scared, to step in and stop things getting out of hand, or to impose a wider moral code – and in any case, they are no longer listened to. Deference to age and authority has been eroded by years of genuflection to the twin gods of multiculturalism and community cohesion.

The police, bludgeoned by criticism for the way they handled the Brixton riots 30 years ago and the Stephen Lawrence murder in 1994, have become more like social workers than upholders of law and order. And the places that have really suffered as a result are the most deprived: they have to bear the brunt of the criminality and the fear, squalor and alienation that accompanies it.

And here, in a nutshell, is my perspective on events. Britain encouraged large scale immigration in the post war period to do the 'rubbish' jobs that the indigenous population didn't want to do. Hence immigrants settled here at the bottom of the pile, and have to a large extent stayed there ever since. More recently, political progressives encouraged an even larger wave of immigration, further exacerbating inequalities and further economically marginalising those at the bottom of society, with racism in the labour market helping things along. Thus more crime in immigrant communities, with an element of racist policing causing further alienation.

And another facet of progressive thinking elevated rights over responsibilities, extended the boundaries of permissible human behaviour, and excused criminality on the politically correct basis that a person was towards the bottom of the ladder as regards social status, particularly in relation to matters like poverty, race and culture.

In turn this increases criminality and lawlessness, making those living in such an environment virtually unschoolable and in turn unemployable in the mainstream labour market, hence turning instead to gang culture and making a living via theft and drug dealing.

Of course, to an extent society as a whole can function normally despite all this - and, perhaps instructively, the problems don't normally impinge onto the chattering classes and middle England/Scotland any more than marginally - but occasionally things 'kick off big-style', and rather than standing idly by the authorities are forced to act, but by this time radical intervention is required.

But the left still blame the economic for the criminal, but ultimately this merely maintains the vicious circle: if joblessness and poverty are used to excuse wrongdoing then this merely perpetuates the wrongdoing, in turn cementing the joblessness and poverty.

It's quite easy to find examples detracting from the slightly romanticised notion of popular uprising born of economic disaffection, but two rioting and looting females speaking on Tuesday's Newsnight perhaps summed things up nicely: "It's good fun...course it is...showing the police we can do what we want...yeah, that's what it's all about...and now we have."

And from a personal perspective my change of mind has hardly amounted to an epiphany or Damascene-style conversion, instead more a long and gradual process taking place over at least half a generation, but ultimately resulting in a wholly different perspective.

And perhaps it's personal experience of facets of society ruled by the more low level violence, drunkenness, vandalism and anti-social behaviour generally that's been instrumental in my turnaround in attitude. Most obviously, the part of Dundee where I reside is largely ignored by the authorities until things get out of hand, in which case police officers certainly arrive mob-handed, and to that extent a more coercive approach is required. Thus in many ways a microcosm of what's been evident on our TV screens over the past few days.

To a degree, then, the 'policing by consent' v 'policing by coercion' debate mentioned above seems pretty meaningless. What does policing by consent actually mean, for example, beyond a convenient soundbite? In the context of Brixton, for example, perhaps it has meant in effect tolerating a certain level of criminality which is dressed up in terms of things like community policing, social cohesion and multiculturalism.

But of course what may help gain the consent of some merely alienates others who suffer from the consequent criminality, culminating in this week's events, and necessitating a more coercive state response.

Similarly, in today's Scotsman Michael Kelly says:

The philosophy of policing by consent is not a concept that people robbed of their business want to hear. But it is the right approach. It is right, too, that the police, rather than being a distant, feared body of authoritarian hardmen are integrated in the communities in which they serve, are accessible, do concern themselves with the deeper causes of criminality rather than simply try to quell it at its flashpoints.

A Britain whose streets are controlled by water cannon, where even the most obnoxious, snivelling little thief is wounded and possibly killed by a rubber bullet, where the army puts down even the most aggressive of the anti-social elements who steal the plasma TVs and iPhones that the rest of us take for granted is not a Britain in which I want to live. The level of theft in Saudi Arabia is low, it is said, because they cut off the hands of thieves.

Civilised societies accept higher levels of crime as the price of the just and proportionate treatment of offenders. We live in a civilised society here. Policy should be directed at keeping it that way.

But surely the level of force used, while not gratuitously disproportionate, should simply be that necessary to restore order. Imagine if police had been unable to stop the looting, arson and violence this week and the numbers involved in the disorder had escalated? What would have happened then? Luckily it seems that order has been largely restored without resorting to water cannons and baton rounds, but what if the more conventional approach hadn't worked? Of course, it's all very well to talk of a "more civilised society here", but ultimately the level of force required to put down disorder depends on the level of disorder in evidence. Imagine if the middle class Michael Kelly's life and property had been threatened by arsonists and looters; what would policing by consent mean then?

By the same token, policing by consent very often seems to mean just letting people get on with a certain level of wrongdoing, rather than police concerning themselves with the "deeper causes of criminality" which inevitably means police "simply trying to quell it at its flashpoints", rather than the former obviating the need for the latter as Mr Kelly claims.

Thus despite the reforms brought about by the Scarman and MacPherson reports, the comments from the two females quoted from Newsnight arguably demonstrate the failure of the hands-off approach to policing, with criminals merely exploiting the situation rather than being properly "understood".

Likewise, the community warden scheme introduced in many of Scotland's more euphemistically described 'troubled' 'communities' around a decade ago seemed to be an attempt to gladhand neds and be off the streets (the wardens, that is) by the time the drunks spill out of the pubs, with the best the politicians can come up with regarding the light touch approach to policing drink-related disorder being to raise the price of alcohol, which is likely to be as effective as raising the price of Blackberries (the communications device, not the fruit!) would have been in quelling this week's riots south of the border.

Therefore in 1977 The Clash effectively explained the reasons why Scotland isn't witnessing the riots which have beset London and other large English cities this week, and thus to an extent the basis for the resultant purely political dimension dominating today's Scotsman headlines.

But on the other hand the policing and law and order issues are largely similar throughout the UK, and in effect the tolerance of more low level wrongdoing ultimately begets more serious problems and hence a more robust policing response.

However, rather than presaging a police state of water cannons and rubber bullets, turning this around would instead entail addressing low level misdemeanours and criminality from the bottom up, which would ultimately decrease more serious crime and disorder and hence avoid the more coercive state solution.

From a political and policing perspective, on the other hand, the chances of this happening are remote indeed. But excusing wrongdoing on the basis of things like race, poverty and social status ultimately makes things worse, both for the perpetrators and for wider society.

Never mind everything else, let's focus on independence!

SNP MP Pete Wishart has been a busy boy of late, and seems to have taken to making remarks likely to inflame and alienate. First was his claim on Better Nation that Scottish independence could well "enhance" Britishness and "give it a new lease of life", which went down like a lead balloon with the unreconstructed wing of nationalist fundamentalism.

Then he upped the ante following John Mason's nod towards social conservatism, describing the SNP MSP's Holyrood motion on same-sex marriages as "nasty" and "just wrong". Thus hardly likely to contribute to party cohesion.

But neither of the above seemed likely to cause great offence to the electorate as a whole. However, perhaps that's not the case with Mr Wishart's latest remarks in the Scots Independent newspaper, where he said: "It's now three months since our historic victory in May and our total and exclusive focus must be now on winning the referendum."

Which seems unlikely to go down well with either the electorate generally or indeed MSPs who ironically seem unlikely to win an independence referendum if that's the SNP Government strategy proffered to the Scottish people during the next handful of years.

Thus Mr Wishart's comments seem more likely to prove a hostage to fortune than smoothing the path towards independence, and in truth seem rather cack-handed. Perhaps he's trying to win back those in the SNP annoyed by his comments on Britishness, but in doing so has overegged the pudding and to that extent seems likely to in turn alienate public opinion.

But ironic, therefore, that Mr Wishart's remarks only seem to have been picked up by the Courier's David Clegg (not to be confused with Nick Cameron!), perhaps because of media preoccupation with the riots. Which of course Mr Wishart could no doubt hardly have predicted when he penned his article, and which it's difficult to in any way link the SNP to, but that perhaps underline the ill-judged nature of his claim.

(Pete Wishart's article in the Scots Independent does not seem to have made it to the publication's website at this time.)

Like Murdoch, like Souter

It's perhaps instructive that the SNP and their supporters are trying to deflect Labour's questions regarding the Murdoch and Souter affairs by accusing Labour of hypocrisy and raising the issue of past influence and honours involving Blair, Brown, McConnell et al.

Which is all very well - tell us something we didn't know already - but the SNP do currently form Scotland's government (a fact the Nationalists are keen to point out when it suits) and, for example, excusing the Murdoch schmoozing by claiming that it was all about promoting Scotland and securing investment ignores the likes of the Sun's 'Play it again, Salm' headline, which featured a photo of Alex Salmond brandishing a copy of the Sun. Perhaps self-promotion - for both News International and Mr Salmond - was just as important.

And comparing the number of meetings between the Murdochs and Blair/Brown/Miliband/Salmond is slightly ludicrous. The UK is a G7 nation with a permanent seat on the UN security council, while Scotland is a small, currently semi-autonomous nation and a constituent part of the UK. Which is Rupert Murdoch likely to be more interested in? More to the point, how do the circulations of the News International titles compare north and south of the border?

Likewise, if SNP ministers have no say in the honours nominations and this is handled entirely by civil servants in Edinburgh, then there does seem to be an element of nitpicking about Labour's probing. On the other hand, look at how the SNP approached the likes of the Henry McLeish and Wendy Alexander affairs, leading to the resignations of both over, um, not very much.

And today's Scotsman reveals that a letter sent by the First Minister to a Labour MP said: "The recommendation process and award of UK national honours is dealt with by the UK government. Scottish ministers are not involved in the process at any stage.

Likewise, Kevin Pringle, Mr Salmond's senior special adviser, said in June regarding Scottish Government involvement in the nomination of Mr Souter: "We are just not involved in the process in any way, shape or form."

Thus while Iain Gray's claims that these latest revelations amount to "outright falsehoods" perhaps overeggs things slightly, the whole thing just seems symptomatic of Scotland's elites and their power and privilege broking, with another member of that club - another 'Sir' who manages to straddle the UK-nationalist divide - predictably defending the whole thing in a letter published in today's Scotsman.

Although ultimately the SNP cannot do anything about the UK honours process, they should at least specifically condemn the process generally, and in particular the knighthoods awarded to the likes of Sir Brian and Sir Sean Connery.

But they won't. Of course.

McLeish defending Salmond or McLeish?

While other media outlets seem to have emphasised Henry McLeish's suggestion that meetings between politicians and media executives should be recorded, the Courier's political editor has instead highlighted the former first minister's comments in defence of Alex Salmond in the wake of last week's disclosure of the details of the current first minister's meetings with Rupert Murdoch and other media executives.

Thus in an article (not online) titled 'McLeish comes to Salmond's defence on meetings issue', David Clegg kicks off by quoting the former Fife MP and MSP, who said that the SNP leader did "nothing improper, incriminating, illegal or irregular" in the course of his dealings with News International executives.

Which is all very well, but the alliteration in Mr McLeish's statement unfortunatley brings to mind his claim that the 'Officegate' affair was a "muddle, not a fiddle", subsequent to which he was forced to resign as first minster.

Of course, no one is claiming that Alex Salmond's courting of Rupert Murdoch amounts to anything illegal, but Mr McLeish also said: "I've been concerned about the weakening of our democracy, the weakening of our representation and the growing power of the printed press."

Indeed, but this seems to slightly contradict his staunch defence of Mr Salmond, but of course Mr McLeish will have done his own cosying up to the media during his term as first minister - the details of which the Labour party is currently under pressure to disclose - thus perhaps this is a case of Mr McLeish getting his excuses in early and in effect defending himself by the manner of his excusing Mr Salmond.

Naturally they're all at it, with the silky-smooth Stewart Hosie neatly deflecting questions put to him on Newsnicht about his party's relationship with the Murdochs by instead emphasising the SNP's transparency on the issue - not to mention the usual blather about "promoting Scotland" and "securing investment" - which in turn he used to highlight the other parties' lack of disclosure.

Meanwhile, another parallel between the murky worlds of Westminster and Holyrood politics is revealed in this morning's Scotland on Sunday. It's been disclosed that Sir Brian Souter's recent knichthood was as a result of a Scottish Government nomination, thus with the Stagecoach tycoon bankrolling the SNP's two Holyrood victories this latest revelation has highlighted the Nationalist's role in the Westminster 'cash for honours' inquiry.

However, the emphasis is very much on the Scottish Government rather the SNP Government, because the latter are defending themselves on the basis that nominations are made by civil servants on an independent Honours Committee rather than by elected politicians.

Which perhaps demonstrates that the civil servants weren't bothered about how it would all look, but the reason for this indifference is perhaps harder to fathom. Lack of political nous? To emphasise their impartiality? To drive a wedge between Sir Brian and the SNP?

But in any case shouldn't the SNP make it absolutely clear where they stand on the issue of the UK's honours system?

Of course, with important backers and donors like Sir Brian, Sir Sean Connery and Jim McColl OBE all more than willing to accept Her Majesty's titles and baubles the SNP are somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place in this regard, with Sir Brian's position on same-sex relationships merely likely to exacerbate the Nationalists' current difficulties on this matter.

But, irrespective of the source of the nomination, either Sir Brian will be made to look even more hypocritical if he supports Scottish independence when the referendum is called, or the SNP will be without a major donor. On the other hand, Sir Sean's acceptance of a knichthood has never stopped him campaigning for Scottish independence, all the way from his tropical island to boot.

Also, given the way that the SNP has been moving on the independence-union continuum, what's the betting that the UK honours system could be retained as part of an 'independent' Scotland?!

Scotland the banana milkshake republic?

Wednesday's quote-heavy post cited Joyce McMillan's article about the banana republic-esque aspects of UK governance unearthed - but to a large extent merely underlined - by the phone hacking scandal, in which she described "elite capture" by a "group of wealthy and privileged people - across government, business, the media - who collude with one another to run public policy in their own interest".

In turn she posited that: "In Scotland, some will see independence as the obvious answer; and it might indeed provide us, north of the Border, with a kind of fresh start".

However, in this regard she was taken to task by the Scottish Review's redoubtable Kenneth Roy who, despite wholeheartedly endorsing the essential thrust of her argument, claimed Professor McMillan was at "the highest end of the Scottish elite" herself. More generally Mr Roy said:

There is not the slightest evidence that Scotland is, or will be, less dominated by elite captures and clique styles than the body politic as a whole. The elite exists in any society and it is likely to be more pronounced in a small society than in a large one. SR has devoted a lot of space in the last two years to pointing out the overlapping interests of the elite in Scottish public life, the scandalously small pool from which that elite is drawn, and the often unfortunate results.

However, in another excellent article in this morning's Scotsman, Joyce McMillan seems to cast doubt on her own suggestion that Scottish independence - and, presumably, devolution to a lesser extent - is the "obvious answer", and indeed much of what she says is remarkably similar to Kenneth Roy's critique. Thus:

The problem is, though, that now the perspective at Westminster has shifted, and the bubble of News Corp's power has been pricked, the SNP can be seen more clearly for the party it is; a nationalist grouping that certainly stands at a little distance from the big power-play of Westminster politics, but that has still been shaped by an age when all parties in the UK have struggled to fund themselves without resort to wealthy donors, and have lived in fear of negative coverage in the popular press. [...]

There is no guarantee, in other words, that political independence brought to us by Alex Salmond and his party would necessarily provide the kind of fresh start for which many Scots now yearn; and no evidence at all that the other main Scottish political parties - the demoralised Liberals, the marginalised Tories, a shattered and desperately confused Scottish Labour - could even begin to provide the kind of radical, vigorous and forward-looking scrutiny on which the success of any independence process would depend. [...]

Twelve years into the age of devolution, our Scottish Parliament clearly needs to begin a rigorous cycle of self-updating and reform, getting abreast of recent radical changes at Westminster, improving its systems of accountability, and creating formats for debate which put government ministers under serious scrutiny, rather than simply allowing them to display their skills at stand-up comedy.

Thus while there's clearly a difference in emphasis between the two, their essential point is substantively similar (apart, obviously, from Mr Roy's characterisation of Professor McMillan as a member of Scotland's elite, which she certainly doesn't address, but presumably because she considers herself part of a group attempting to hold a higher elite to account, thus perhaps in the same way as I as a humble and obscure blogger regard the editor of the Scottish Review as being a member of yet another elite, whether or not it's a more benign elite than some!) - that there are grave deficiencies in the conduct of government and democracy in Scotland, and there's no prima facie evidence that either devolution or independence seem likely to fundamentally change this.

Of course, the big story in today's press is yesterday's revelations regarding the SNP Government's relationship with the Murdochs and their News International titles.

Which on one level is all a bit yawn-inducing, but on another merely underlines Holyrood as a watered down version of Westminster, with the gap between the two in terms of egregiousness likely to narrow as the former institution matures (if that's the right word!) and accrues more powers.

Thus while Alex and Moira haven't romped in pyjama parties(!) with News International executives, the self-evident mutual schmoozing between the First Minister, Rupert Murdoch and others in the latter's newspaper titles is laid bare in the correspondence made public yesterday.

So instead of the sleepovers and "downing champagne and oysters", Mr Salmond attempts to curry(!) favour with Mr Murdoch by way of more tartan-oriented hospitality such as a visit to the Ryder Cup and theatre tickets for the Black Watch production in New York. Then there's the mutual admiration and suggestions of commercial benefit for NI in return for coverage of the Gathering, which in itself was arguably a vehicle for promoting the SNP and independence.

And, of course, that's not to forget the 'gift' of SNP endorsement from Scottish NI titles during May's Holyrood election campaign - with the concomitant virtual character assassination of Mr Salmond's main opposition opponent - not to mention that the SNP effectively paid for what was more or less an 'advertorial' in The Sun regarding Sir Sean Connery's simpering endorsement of Alex Salmond.

Hence on the one hand nothing that we shouldn't be familiar with as regards Westminster politics, but on the other clearly underlining the dangers of replicating the so-called mother of parliaments in Edinburgh.

(The blog headline represents a rather lame attempt to suggest that Scotland's democracy amounts to something of a watered down banana republic!)

Borrowing an idea from Gordon Brown

Labour Hame has reproduced an article from former Scottish Labour adviser Andrew McFadyen, which originally appeared in the Scotsman a few days ago.

His piece starts with reasonable but now eminently predictable points about how those awful Tories and Lib Dems in London are implementing the "biggest public sector cuts since the Second World War", that David Cameron's administration is "looking pretty tarnished by the phone hacking scandal", hence the Scottish electorate clearly want "border posts at Carlisle", blah blah.

And to that extent he makes a reasonable case for devolving more powers to Holryood than those emanating from the Calman process, in particular some kind of full fiscal autonomy.

Moreover, he makes the compelling point that the SNP Government wouldn't be so keen to make hay out of proposals for cuts in corporation tax and fuel duty given that a financial black hole in revenues would suddenly appear if such proposals were implemented.

Thus: "The current lack of financial responsibility encourages a culture of gripe and grievance and prevents Scotland from having a serious, grown-up debate about policy." And: "Giving the Scottish Government power to take these decisions would call Alex Salmond’s bluff."

Which would in turn play into Labour's hands, "Nye Bevan", "James Maxton", "common heritage", "progressive home rule", blah, blah.

But the latter neatly sidesteps the black hole in logic posed by the full fiscal autonomy gig - even if this did militate against Alex Salmond making his tax cutting soundbites a reality, how could the proposed cuts in Scottish public spending be avoided?

Yes, the big unmentionable - borrowing powers.

And how did the UK get into the mess necessitating the cuts in public spending Mr McFadyen complains about in the first place? Yes, the big unmentionable again - borrowing powers. To finance public spending. Gordon Brown's public spending. Labour's public spending. Gordon Brown's and Labour's financial black hole.

Moreover, his suggestion that Salmond and Co would be constrained from tax cuts by a reduction in revenue is a non sequitur when borrowing powers are brought into the equation.

But that a Scottish Government could use borrowing powers to finance tax cuts in the hope that the consequent increased economic activity would lead to increased revenue - thus making the cuts pay for themselves - is perhaps a tad optimistic, as Mr McFadyen himself says: "Even if you believe the Reaganite argument that lowering taxes would attract new companies and generate additional growth in the economy, it would take years to replace the lost revenue."

Indeed, some suggest that the SNP's proposals as regards deep cuts in corporation tax is pie in the sky in that respect, and that's not even considering EU disapproval of this kind of competition between states in relation to tax rates.

But of course we can't forget who else thought that massive public spending increases financed by borrowing could end 'boom and bust' and thus eventually pay for itself.

Until, that is, the economy runs into trouble and the whole creaking edifice of borrowing is in danger of crashing down.

Which necessitates the spending cuts to avoid the country going bankrupt, in turn bringing us back to the start of Mr McFadyen's article. A classic case of déjà vu all over again.

One of Andrew McFadyen's essential points is that full fiscal autonomy would enhance financial responsibility.

But he should have started his piece by outlining the financial irresponsibility that necessitated the spending cuts which instead he conveniently uses as a prelude to making his case.

Thus instead of "the current lack of financial responsibility encouraging a culture of gripe and grievance", his article seems to demonstrate that new Labour's lack of financial responsibility has encouraged a culture of gripe and grievance - blame others for your own Balls ups.

Elites, cronyism, and nepotism - it's all relative(!)

Excellent article from Joyce McMillan a couple of weeks ago in which, in the wake of the nature of the News International/police/political nexus unearthed by the phone hacking scandal, she cites a Reuters article entitled "Is Britain More Corrupt Than It Thinks?" that:

...painted an all-too-recognisable picture of a nation that has become subject to what it calls "elite capture" by a group of wealthy and privileged people - across government, business, the media - who collude with one another to run public policy in their own interest, and to create an ever-growing gap between rich and poor; while the voices of ordinary people increasingly go unheard.

The point about this kind of corruption, though, is that it can be difficult to trace; partly because it operates not through the direct bribery of public officials that is often criticised in developing countries, but through networks of kinship and "friendship" at the highest level of our society.

Of course, defining elites and related concepts such as power, wealth and social status is a subjective process. Thus in this blogpost I suggested that Joyce McMillan was part of the elite herself in that in another of her recent Scotsman articles she bemoaned the effect of liberal economics and the detriment of this kind of thinking to ideas like maternity leave, while treating as unproblematic the issue of mass immigration and the detrimental economic consequences this could have on those further down the food chain who couldn't even begin to consider the kind of pre- and postnatal 'career gap' that others further up the social and income hierarchy would consider a basic entitlement.

By the same token, a riposte to Joyce McMillan's first article appears in the Scottish Review this week. In an equally compelling piece Kenneth Roy critiques her suggestion that "in Scotland, some will see independence as the obvious answer; and it might indeed provide us, north of the Border, with a kind of fresh start", thus enabling us to "regain our political and democratic sovereignty, re-establish the impartiality of our law enforcement systems, and reduce corrosive inequalities in our society."

But Kenneth Roy suggests that Joyce McMillan is herself part of Scotland's upper echelons, indeed "at the highest end of the Scottish elite", citing the role of the good Professor and others in the Independent Commission on devolution and as part of a subsequent group of "11 eminent Scots" established to advise on the workings of the Scottish Parliament. He says: "The names of the eminent are to be found in the service of body after body."[...] "Elite capture? You got it. Or rather we got it."

And he adds: If [Joyce McMillan] does not consider herself a leading player in the Scottish elite, she is not in full possession of the facts – about herself."

Moreover, to that extent Mr Roy claims Professor McMillan's suggestion that devolution or independence will herald a new start in Scotland is misplaced: "SR has devoted a lot of space in the last two years to pointing out the overlapping interests of the elite in Scottish public life, the scandalously small pool from which that elite is drawn, and the often unfortunate results."

And he concludes, after considering issues like the Herald's approach to the Purcell affair: "It is surprising that, in a piece headed 'The cosying up together has to end', Joyce McMillan could not spare even a sentence to deal with so outstanding an example of cosying up together in the supposedly purer atmosphere of Scotland."

Indeed, regular readers of this blog will be aware that it's this kind of thing that rationalises my scepticism towards devolution generally and independence in particular - what's the point of replacing one parcel of rogues in Westminster with another at Holyrood, albeit that the latter hasn't reached the egregious depths of the former. Yet. Of course, the Scottish Parliament is a relatively new institution and does not enjoy absolute power. And we all know what absolute power does...

For example, I know of one individual who in the last few years has exploited legal loopholes and local government administrative incompetence to profit to the extent of a six-figure sum for relatively little effort. And I've been aware of this kind of thing for a number of years and could well have made significant sums of money by the same route myself if so minded.

Instead, however, I've tried to draw the attention of the authorities to these matters through the normal processes - and without attempting to kick up a big stink about it - but to no avail. Thus try to do the right thing and the powers that be and those exploiting the situation are effectively laughing at you.

In a recent article Iain Macwhirter drew a comparison between the banking and phone hacking scandals, claiming: "But I make the comparison because a number of commentators have been saying that the hacking scandal is trivial compared with other grown up issues, like the debt crisis sweeping Europe right now. I don't think it is trivial because it is a product of the same complex of lax regulation, political hypocrisy and naked self-interest."

Indeed, but at least there's plenty of political and press interest in such matters, whereas in that regard the matters I refer to above are totally below the radar screen, despite also being the product of a lower level "complex of lax regulation, political hypocrisy and naked self-interest".

Thus play by the rules and some people like myself end up living in an virtual slum with no obvious way out, while others in a not dissimilar position are exploiting the same system to an extent which would change my life, while the powers that be stand idly by.

And who to complain to? Well I've tried a few official avenues, but perhaps it's the aforementioned collusion and corruption within the ruling elites that's the problem. For example, one council implicated in the above has a former senior councillor and former senior officials safely ensconced on bodies like Audit Scotland and the Standards Commission for Scotland, that scenario of course a product of the public sector revolving door taken to task by Kenneth Roy, and also recently slammed by that blogging Burd, who talks of the "culture of cronyism that exists in Scotland the clachan".

It's not just Scotland's elites that need sorting. There's a tartan Augean stables affecting all points in the food chain.

(Of course, what is considered the elite will depend on our position on whatever hierarchy is under examination. For example, Kenneth Roy clearly thinks that Joyce McMillan's weekly Scotsman column - where she "is now in the happy position of commenting weekly, sometimes more, on the administration of the new Scotland which she and her eminent colleagues helped to facilitate, for better or worse" - partly qualifies her as a member of the elite.

On the other hand, as the author of an obscure political blog I consider Kenneth Roy - as editor and 'columnist-in-chief' at the Scottish Review - to be part of the Scottish commentariat's elite as well!

By the same token, one contributor to Newsnet Scotland's comments section recently 'accused' me (and indeed Kenneth Roy) of being an "intellectual", which had me tickled, even despite the condemnatory tone of the claim, and the response of a subsequent poster who corrected this by saying that I was merely a "wannabee intellectual". Well I regard even the latter jibe as being complimentary, so keep them coming!)

Another big bang in Dundee's Hilltown

Sunday's demolition of the Hilltown's Alexander Street multis in Dundee brought the predictable gushing optimism from a city council official. The Courier's news article chuntered on about the "start of a new era"; "opportunities presented by the collapse of the four towers are too good to be ignored"; "looking to the future"; "help change perceptions of the community"; blah, blah.

And what's the betting they said suchlike when the multis were built? But the use of the c-word is always an opportunity for a bit of cynicism, and indeed the nature of the "new era" in the "community" was ably demonstrated less than twelve hours after the area's big bang with a shooting - and consequent attempted murder charge - outside a Hilltown pub.

And while I'm only a couple of minutes walk from where the multis were, the pub in question is more or less on my doorstep, which kind of underlined what I'd been thinking earlier - the new dawn will be irrelevant to some parts of the area, and to that extent it's a pity that the demolition exercise stopped where it did.

Almost twenty years ago I bought a flat in a newly renovated tenement in the area. Of course, I knew the area's reputation, there were pubs and takeaways aplenty and that sort of thing, but on the plus side I liked the flat, needed to buy something in a hurry and the price reflected the neighbourhood's reputation.

But, and without going into too much detail, the whole experience of living here for that period of time has perhaps provided some insight into how the likes of the Alexander Street multis can be almost destroyed by official indifference and the concomitant contempt of many of the area's residents, with the denouement of the whole thing and literal destruction of the blocks taking place last weekend. By the same token, while I was quite proud of my flat in our much smaller block when I moved in, these days it's simply a soul destroying embarassment.

Of course, other parts of Dundee are similarly blighted. For example, a couple of days before the Hilltown's new dawn "yet another fire" had torn through one of the city's smaller multis in the Lochee area. Yesterday an opposition councillor said: "This is the last straw for me. There is no hiding place now. It really has to be looked at."

Until the next time, perhaps. Helpfully the housing convener "urged residents to come forward with evidence" and reassuringly said that "the fire wasn't in any of the flats and one of the good things about these buildings is that fire doesn't spread in them particularly easy".

Well that's OK then. Which reminds me of something else.

I was working late on Sunday night and thus missed the shooting incident, which I only found out about when reading the relevant story in yesterday's Evening Telegraph. However, I suspect there was a reporter at my door about it because someone chapped on it early on Monday morning when I was trying to get some shut eye - having had an early morning walk up the Law Hill a couple of hours earlier to take in the new vista - which is why I didn't answer it, but it's the kind of area where if someone chaps on your door unexpectedly then you're wary about answering it anyway.

A bit presumptuous, perhaps, to assume that it was a reporter? Well it's extremely unusual to have an unexpected knock at that time of the day. And the last time it happened it was indeed a Tele reporter who had come to ask about a fire which had broken out in a flat downstairs in the early hours, with only a passer-by seeing the smoke and alerting the firies possibly averting disaster. Apparently the occupant had fallen asleep with the cooker on, but having helped the jakie in question up the stairs on a couple of occasions (when he miraculously seemed to forget the previous occasions when he'd shouted abuse at me!) due to his 'sack o' tatties' demeanour it's not difficult to work out what had happened. This occurred a mere few weeks ago.

Oh aye, and a couple of weeks later in the next street another fire necessitated the rescue of residents by firefighters. And that may well have been in the same block where a stabbing took place a few weeks previously - it was certainly the same street.

Hopefully the shiny new "desperately needed" "homes built for families" to be developed on the site of the demolished multis will indeed represent a new start for the neighbourhood - for a time at least - but even at that there's a lot more to be done in the area yet.

Indeed I've often thought about setting up a blog dedicated to the likes of the above - there would certainly be plenty of material - but with a shooting, stabbing and a couple of fires in the last few months perhaps saying nothing more is the better option!