A final farewell from below the radar screen!

One of my recent posts alluded to the creeping destruction of the renovated tenement block in which the Planet Politics headquarters is located, the result, essentially, of the concomitant destruction of many societal rules and boundaries by Scotland's powers that be. Indeed, the denouement of this process was neatly demonstrated on a much larger scale in the same area a few weeks earlier with the demolition of the Alexander Street multis in Dundee's Hilltown.

Typically appropriate, therefore, that just as my blogpost was hitting a handful of computer screens, that morning's edition of the Courier - which sells more than either the Scotsman or Herald - was hitting the loabby carpets and newsstands with the more prominent than usual headline "The rebirth of a city".

Of course, as regards which 'narrative' wins out there's no contest. The "stunning vision" for Dundee's Waterfront regeneration project in general and the V&A museum in particular is a no-brainer for the city's Establishment and elites - councillors, bureaucrats, politicians and the great and the good more generally. Equally, some of the benefit will permeate down to lesser mortals.

Not for myself, however, with a continuing diet of drunks and druggies the more likely scenario. Indeed, since the Waterfront development is scheduled for completion in 2031 then I will consider myself reasonably lucky to live long enough to see it.

In the meantime, however, all the redevelopment has meant for me thus far is years of delays associated with the periodic roadworks during the day, not to mention pointless and irritating delays at night on my way home from work, caused by the profusion of unnecessary and uncoordinated traffic lights in the area. For example, this entails having to stop at two different sets of lights on a single roundabout where not that long ago they were deemed necessary only during the rush hour, or a wait that has been as long as two minutes at junctions for the railway station when it isn't even open, and another for an office block that's closed at night.

But for Dundee's Establishment, elites and vested interests these matters are of little significance. What matters is the dominant narrative. Of course, that's not to say that the Establishment doesn't take an interest in matters of more concern to those further down the food chain - such as crime and anti-social behaviour - rather than that someone may have their view spoilt by a couple of wind turbines a mile or two away, say, or that - shock, horror - such a scenario might affect property prices by a grand or two.

Equally, however, the concern for the hoi polloi only goes so far. For example, the Baxter Park area of Dundee has long suffered from anti-social behaviour, even despite - or perhaps because of - significant sums of money spent upgrading the park and its pavilion. But it was instructive to read the recent response from SNP councillor Liz Fordyce to correspondence in the press about a random attack on two women in the park. Although the letter writer was wrong about the whereabouts of a local school prom (and to that extent the apportionment of blame) this had no obvious bearing on the violent incident itself. However, Councillor Fordyce harrumphed:

This is not the first time people have publicly maligned the good name of the schools in the Stobswell area, nor is it the first time they have maligned the residents or the people who go to Baxter Park.

As ward councillor for Baxter Park and now Maryfield, I am getting exceedingly angry. Over the 12 years of my tenure, the residents of the Stobswell area have worked together to regenerate and restore not only the park, but also the community spirit of the Stobswell area.

If some people find it so abhorrent to live in this area then, for goodness sake, let them move away.

Which raises a number of issues, but clearly the tenor of the councillor's response is that if you don't appreciate my/our munificence/beneficence then please go forth and multiply, you ungrateful so and so - your complaints don't quite fit the narrative.

Of course, as per the recent hoohah over X Factor contestant Jade Richards' description of her home town of Buckhaven as a 'dive', here there's the usual attempt to denigrate the complainant with the well worn 'anti-[wherever]' or 'talking [wherever] down'. Then there's the contrast of that with positive words such as 'restore' and 'regenerate', not to mention that good old 'community spirit'.

Never mind that this kind of portrayal may all be a bit too rose-tinted and ignore the violent incident itself, or that a few weeks later the press would report on further problems in the area.

Or that for various reasons it might not be too easy for anyone finding the area "abhorrent" to move away. For example, that moving to such an area in the first place perhaps indicates that they don't have the wherewithal to choose, unlike (for example) senior police officers retiring on pensions of several times average earnings, and who can to that extent afford to take a more positive view of the area, and tell us how safe it is.

Indeed, a subsequent Courier correspondence involving the complainants, SNP councillors and the Lib Dems was also instructive. The latter said that at a meeting an SNP councillor "attacked individuals for writing to newspapers". Obviously if the dirty linen is to be washed at all then it shouldn't be done in public.

Even worse, the complainants seem to be regarded as serial offenders as far as washing the dirty linen is concerned. This earlier article has Mrs Fordyce saying the problems are over-exaggerated and: "As for the claim that the police are just not recording these incidents because they want to keep the crime figures down, I am appalled. That is a terrible slur on the policemen and women who, quite frankly, put their lives on the line for our community."

Wot, you mean all crime is recorded? Well let's assume that Mrs Fordyce is being delusion rather than dishonest, but again she (hopefully!) exaggerates her own reaction to the suggestion that not all crime might be recorded, and also demonises the complainants with what is frankly irrelevant. And to think she accuses others of "over-exaggerating".

Of course, the police are themselves part of the Establishment and broadly conform to the same narrative as councillors, each reinforcing this with a sub-narrative of mutual admiration. Thus in 2005, in response to complaints about prostitution and kerb-crawling in her area, Councillor Fordyce said regarding the police response: "They have been magnificent and seem to have everything under control."

Er, not quite, since a few years later the Scottish Sun reported that the area was an integral part of Dundee's "vice explosion", indeed playing host to an episode which resulted in a high profile court case on the definition of public indecency.

And no doubt police are magnificent and have everything under control in the Hilltown area of Dundee where Planet Politics Towers is located. Er, not quite (again!), as the litany of recent incidents described here perhaps demonstrate. And yet another incident a couple of weeks ago in a street just round the corner, this time involving an 84-year-old grandmother, who was "repeatedly punched in the head" by an intruder who barged his way into her home.

Almost precisely seven days later to the hour and I was walking nearby, and came across a group of police officers who were attending to a young male whose face was covered in blood and had presumably been assaulted.

The short street where the elderly woman was attacked also played host to a stabbing earlier this year, and a few of weeks later in the same street a fire necessitated the rescue of residents by firefighters. Also, in a strange twist the resident in whose flat the fire started was more recently convicted of criminal damage to an emergency response vehicle while he was being treated at Ninewells Hospital.

But that's all relatively small beer in the area. The photae below shows part of that troubled street from the rear of Planet Politics Towers, split by the road going up the middle. The stabbing and fire took place somewhere behind the vegetation to the middle left of the picture. The attack on the grandmother occured in one of the buildings towards the middle of the picture (the street is split in two and is rather, er, asymmetrical in layout). A few years ago someone was murdered in the green playpark area nearer to the camera. Within a year or so another murder had taken place on the road which dissects the street with the more recent problems (just off camera to the right of the picture).



So excuse me if I just don't quite get the area's "belonging, togetherness and sense of community". Call me anti-social, but I prefer to just lock the doors and immerse myself in my iPod, which both helps keep the noise out and doesn't annoy my immediate neighbours, who are mercifully very quiet.

However, there are some more pleasant areas nearby, including the greenery of the Law Hill, which is a mere few minutes walk from Planet Politics Towers. And where, despite its murderous history - a decade ago a female dog walker was "butchered" by a 16-year-old who lived nearby and a decade earlier parts of a dismembered body were found by another dog walker - I go walking several times a week. A few days ago I was ambling along when an almighty bang rang out a few hundred yards away - apparently heard over "half of Dundee" - and which later transpired to have been due to an arson attack on an allotment shed.

But of course after several years of SNP rule in Dundee things like that just shouldn't be happening in the city, and if you don't subscribe to the "community spirit" narrative then the likes of Councillor Fordyce will get "exceedingly angry" with you, indeed no doubt more angry than with the people who are actually causing the problems. It's the victims who're the problem, stupid, not the perpetrators. Moreover, with Tayside Police apparently more concerned about the use of supposedly offensive terms like "lady", "ethnic minority" and "immigrant" it's little wonder they don't have time for, um, policing.

A related subject revisited on numerous occasions on this blog is that of liquor licensing. Thus we have industrial scale intoxication in numerous licensed establishments and hence industrial scale flouting of the relevant law. It's what politicians call a "controlled environment", or suchlike. And police merely scratch the surface of drunk and disorderly and related anti-social behaviour. But our licensing councillors and those on police boards are indifferent to all this. Never mind the law, stupid, it's the fault of the supermarkets. Drunks are 'victims' and are 'vulnerable', and it's all down to cheap booze.

And yet even in the last handful of years councillors in Dundee and Fife have been significantly extending licensing hours, to the extent that huge queues can be seen outside one particular large scale establishment at 3am. Thus drinkers go out later, hence exacerbating the 'front-loading' with cheap supermarket booze.

A few months ago a Dundee nightclub tried to extend its opening hours to win back customers lost to the ultra-late drinking venue. The aforementioned Councillor Fordyce objected on the basis that this would "set a precedent" for other nightclubs. But that didn't seem to be a problem when the competing establishment was granted an all-night licence, hence precipitating the nightclub's application to extend its hours.

Presiding over all this in recent years as licensing chiefs have been Dundee's lord provost John Letford, and currently Councillor Rod Wallace. As well as their double standards as regards licensing and their selective approach to law enforcement, Mr Wallace seemed wholly ignorant of a high profile legal case concerning minimum pricing - which even as a mere interested bystander I recall vividly - and as regards a more recent case adverse to the council he simply said that the sheriff "got it wrong", while at the same time confirming that there would be no appeal.

Meanwhile, the Courier recently reported that licensing councillors in Dundee 'took note' of a breach of the licensing laws by a Tesco store in East Berkshire, England, since any such infringement "requires all Scottish licensing boards to be informed". You couldnae make it up.

Another fairly recent example illustrative of the problem concerned a new nightclub in central Dundee. Residents objected because of the potential for noise, but this was dismissed because the club had the necessary soundproofing.

Not long after I passed this establishment on a summer's evening and there was a girl lying on the ground outside, clearly the worse for wear. Several others were making an almighty racket, and there was a similar almighty racket emanating from the club itself. This was on a Monday evening in broad daylight. Problem is that licensed premises now tend to have smokers standing outside them much of the time, often behaving anti-socially. And many pubs and clubs leave their doors open, particularly in warm weather, thus the whole street gets to share the entertainment. But councillors had merely noted that the soundproofing box had been ticked, hence no problem.

Never mind all that though, because what matters is that the Lord Provost still swans around in his chauffeur driven limousine, repleted with little flags, royalty-style. The good news, though, is that he's announced his retirement, thus presumably presaging the complete removal of the Union flag from City Square, as opposed to its current position above the Scottish saltire.

But he's also endorsed...wait for it...Councillor Wallace as the "most outstanding candidate" to replace him, since he has "carried out his duties way beyond what was expected " - you can say that again! - and because he will continue to "take the city forward". To more drunkenness and illegality, presumably, while allowing the more irresponsible licensees to profiteer by affording them a monopoly on the late-night over-consumption of alcohol.

Thus again the same self-serving and self-perpetuating elite and Establishment. Oh, and apologies to Councillor Wallace, because he's a bailie rather than a mere councillor, but the decision to resurrect that particular title was another example of the self-aggrandising fluff so beloved of some members of the political class.

And talking of titles and baubles, the Lord Provost was also involved in the recent decision to exhume the civic order of burgess, which is to be part paid for by those seeking such personal adornment, but which also necessitates the recipient demonstrating a "commitment to equality and diversity in the promotion of civic pride in or contribution to the community spirit of the City of Dundee". Which must have something to do with Mr Letford having abuse shouted at him when he's driven to his home in one of Dundee's poorest housing schemes, not to mention his ever so wholesome contribution to Dundee's alcohol problem. As for his (and Mr Wallace's) oversight of the city's taxi trade, let's not go there.

Obviously the paid officials and civil servants in the political-bureaucratic complex are less overtly dismissive of those who don't conform to the narrative, but occasionally evidence of disdain for public opinion makes it to the surface. For example, a recent BBC Scotland investigation into alleged corruption and fraud in the administration of building contracts by Edinburgh City Council uncovered internal correspondence referring to a "moan letter" from an aggrieved member of the public. In a Scottish Review article Professor Walter Humes refers to a book by investigative journalist Heather Brooke (of MPs' expenses fame) about the "myth of British democracy", and says:

She also cites disturbing cases of individuals who have refused to be fobbed off by local authorities or other public bodies when they have sought to have complaints addressed. In one case a woman who kept pressing about the police and council's failure to take any action about an act of vandalism which she had witnessed and reported was told that she would have a 'warning marker' placed against her name for a period of 18 months and that this information would be passed to other agencies. Despite all the political rhetoric about community involvement and public responsibility, anyone who expects there to be an effective official response when they contact the relevant authority may well be disappointed.

Slightly closer to home and a recent judgement in an unfair dismissal case concerning a sacked teacher was highly critical of Dundee City Council. In response another former teacher involved in a separate long running clash with the council claimed that senior officials "presided over a 'school bully' culture in the education department, marginalising anyone who spoke out against the system".

On the other hand, to an extent the media are also part of the Establishment and help perpetuate it. For example, a recent double-page Evening Telegraph feature on the blight of vandalism in Dundee was accompanied by a leader column extolling the virtues of our "beautiful city", which as the feature itself surely demonstrated depends on where precisely in the city you are. Again this comes back to the identity politics encompassing the geographical and political entity of Dundee, à la Jade Richards and Buckhaven.

Similarly, a recent Courier editorial following the aforementioend assault on the elderly grandmother in her own home made the point that the fear of crime was often greater than the reality. But as usual the reality of crime depends on factors like where you live and what you do for a living. Senior journalists and senior police officers on six-figure salaries can't plausibly characterise disparate entities the size of Tayside and Dundee as safer than other areas (say), but of course they do, and get away with it.

It's surely also instructive that the only time I can really recall the DC Thomson stable taking issue editorially with light touch/hands off policing was a year ago with regard to illegal gypsy/traveller encampments - perhaps underlined by a double-page news article on the issue in last weekend's Sunday Post, not to mention another two-page spread in the Evening Telegraph this week - while a similar approach to policing with respect to other crime and disorder is never mentioned.

Of course, the explanation here is presumably that that issue is one often preoccupying those of a certain social/economic status, while similar blight further down the pecking order is a different matter. Indeed, if gypsies and travellers can plausibly claim to be discriminated against then perhaps it's because they're taken to task by sections of the commentariat for behaviour that's tolerated in other sections of society, such as many T in the Park attendees or some residents of Dundee tenement blocks.

However, the media in general is self-evidently full of bad news stories, but presumably the trick is to stay on the right sight of the line between negativity in general and "talking Dundee/Buckhaven/Scotland down", sort of thing, a dividing line that I suspect this blog has been singularly unsuccessful in negotiating!

And of course there are numerous other ways in which recalcitrants like myself are demonised, although on the other hand being acknowledged at all is in some ways an achievement in itself. But, for example, in a recent online discussion, as a blogger I was to that extent considered uninterested in the public more generally, and this was juxtaposed with selfless party activists who give up their time to chap on doors and all the rest of it. Ouch!

It's barely worth dignifying that sort of stuff with a reply, but rather than considering my own attitude towards others it's perhaps instructive to point out that in almost twenty years at my current address I can only ever recall one party door knocker, and certainly no one in the last decade. Moreover, during May's Holyrood campaign I didn't even get the leaflet drop via the post, and in fact only received three communications of any kind, those via the less discriminating avenue of addresses clearly culled from the electoral roll. And indeed nothing about the AV referendum either.

Of course, the explanation for this probably has something to do with the fact that the neighbourhood is one of those where you actually tend to worry about people chapping on your door, and as a corollary the political parties tend not to bother, because they probably view such areas as generally apathetic and to that extent resources are better employed elsewhere - marginal seats, for example, at the macro-electoral level - and also because, like police officers who are scared to patrol my part of Dundee on their own, I really don't blame party volunteers for giving such neighbourhoods a very wide body swerve anyway. After all, 20% of voters is perhaps typical of the mandate the parties need to get elected, so why bother with those more likely to be indifferent or even hostile to the political process?

Of course, the apathy card is also another one regularly played in the game of political poker. Turnout may be low, but why should the apathetic be brought into the equation if they can't even be bothered turning out to vote? But the problem here isn't just that people don't vote because they can't be bothered - although clearly some do fall into that category - it's also because many view party politics as an unattractive self-perpetuating oligarchy that's proferred on a take it or leave it basis, and which does its level best to ensure that alternative perspectives are squeezed out.

Thus despite the self-evident competition between the parties on one level, on another it's back to the 'narrative privilege' argument expounded by Professor Humes. Therefore a bit like the Tesco/Asda/Sainsbury/Morrison's oligopoly in retailing - although they rule the market roost a significant number of people don't like them, and even if they do shop with them it's effectively because they have little choice in the matter. And economically the market domination by a small number of big players means that it's effectively impossible for newcomers to make an impact.

But to that extent the apathy argument is often misleading, and confuses indifference regarding how government intervenes (or doesn't) in our lives with hostility towards party politics and the self-evident shortcomings of our democracy. I may not support any of the political parties, but at the very least this blog has surely demonstrated that its author is far from apathetic!

However, those of us who feel alienated and disenfranchised by the political process shouldn't really grumble, because domestic representative democracy can never really hope to produce a result that satisfies everyone, or even the majority. Indeed, domestic governments are generally elected by a minority of voters. Factor in the turnout figures and 'popular' mandates seem to confer even less legitimacy and true representation.

But in the contemporary Scottish context - and to quote one blogger at least whose words are apparently awaited with baited breath by the upper echelons of Scotland's opinion formers and movers and shakers - SNP strategy and policy guru Stephen Noon recently blogged that:

People want a Scottish Government that is working hard for jobs and is doing what it can to protect family budgets and generally make Scotland a better place to live. These are the issues that speak to voters no matter where they come from. And that is what the people of Scotland see, and like. This is the reality of the SNP - a party for all of the people of Scotland - rather than the crude caricatures presented by the opposition. [Emphasis added]

And without even the slightest hint of irony! But Mr Noon's paradoxical deprecation of his oppenents' exaggertion merely underlines his own. Barely one in five voting for the SNP may have translated into what's been called a de facto one-party state, but "a party for all the people of Scotland" it ain't. Thus while democracy may be inherently imperfect, it might be easier for the disgruntled to stomach the results if the political class refrained from what he himself calls "crude caricatures", which of course is just one aspect of the dishonesty and delusion which disfigures the political process. Indeed, if anyone should know that to win a Holyrood election a party only has to be endorsed by 1 in 5 voters then it's surely Mr Noon, and presumably it's helping secure this modest endorsement - a significant proportion of whom will in fact only vote for a particular party on a 'best of a bad lot' basis - that he's particularly good at, thus not only are such people largely unconcerned with the electorate generally, but the "party for all the people of Scotland" bull merely underlines this.

Well thanks for taking the time to read this post, which if it conveys even more of an impression than usual that it comprises a few random thoughts cobbled together in an unstructured fashion then that's because it indeed is! But if the foregoing provides a snapshot of some of the matters originally providing this blog's raison d'être, then sadly it also rationalises its demise.

Anyway, thanks to all readers over the last three years, and in particular those who took the time to leave comments, supportive or otherwise.

And a special thanks to the small number of fellow bloggers who have posted or sent complimentary messages over the last few days. It's at least gratifying that those have included some of Scotland's top political bloggers.

And while the politicians, elites and vested interests will no doubt continue to win the ongoing war, there may be a battle or two to be fought yet!

Farewell from below the radar screen (1)

Apologies for keeping the nation holding its collective breath in anticipation of the Planet Politics internment, but a double whammy of lack of motivation and increasingly unwieldy final post are to blame.

But the latter reason perhaps helps rationalise splitting the blog's epilogue in two, and this first instalment provides a decidedly personal account of political frustration and alienation.

It all really started twenty years ago when I moved to Dundee from London, having spent more than three years in the smoke as an aspiring young professional.

My career plan started to go off the rails soon thereafter, unfortunately, and after stuttering for a couple of years it finally hit the buffers. Politically I was still a Labour party supporter though (having flirted with the hard left during a more youthful and radical period, galvanised - as many others were - by the Miners' strike of the early 1980s), and also something of a so-called '90-minute', saltire-waving Scottish patriot, although when push came to shove the class struggle came before allegiance to country. On the other hand, I bore no ill will at all towards the SNP, and even flirted with the notion of supporting Scottish independence, and indeed at another time also considered that the Lib Dems could be 'my' party. Anyone, in short, but the dreaded Tories! (If born thirty years later, and hence currently in my late teens, then a scenario of the Greens perhaps followed by the SNP in a subsequent slightly less idealistic phase is an entirely plausible 'what if' hypotheses!)

However, I was never a Labour party member, nor politically active in any way beyond a greater-than-average interest in politics and current affairs. And at that point government wasn't really something I had much in the way of interaction with, what with trying to forge a career and the fact that I wasn't really the complaining type anyway.

However, in the mid-1990s I started a postgraduate IT course at Abertay University in the hope that this would help kickstart my (accountancy) career, and got a job as a part-time taxi driver to pay the bills. But my financial situation became increasingly precarious, and I dropped out of the course and worked as a full-time taxi driver in Dundee for a couple of years.

It was at that point that the rot started to set in, and instead of viewing the political process as a partisan struggle of good over evil I increasingly viewed the whole thing as morally bankrupt, and in essence it's been downhill ever since.

In particular, it immediately became apparent to me that the arena of taxi regulation played host to several glaring injustices the like of which I would previously have viewed as fertile ground for the political struggle, but instead were effectively ignored by mainstream politics.

Likewise, working as a nightshift taxi driver provided a completely different perspective as regards matters like liquor licensing, and law and order generally, and since the modest flat I had previously bought in Dundee became increasingly blighted by the same issues then this further contributed to my personal political conversion from left-leaning optimist and idealist to right-leaning sceptic and realist.

While the minutiae of that (slow moving) Damascence conversion has been touched on in numerous previous blogposts, as regards the process of government the taxi factor was more of a sudden epiphany. In particular, I've never really trusted local government since then, neither as regards Dundee nor more generally in relation to what I've learned from local authorities elsewhere. This distrust later spread to central government and the whole edifice of public sector bureaucracy as well.

However, having successfully studied various academic and more vocational subjects at degree and professional level - primarily law and accountancy, but also IT, economics, history and criminology - in taxi regulation I'd eventually came across something I thought I could contribute something really original to, not to mention hopefully helping to right several examples of manifest unfairness! And to a lesser extent this also applied to the law and order debate as well.

Of course, that wasn't to be, and perhaps this can be articulated in terms of what Professor Walter Humes calls 'narrative privilege', in essence meaning that political and bureaucratic elites use numerous means - whether fair or foul - to freeze out inconvenient counter-narratives, for example by employing sham processes of supposedly democratic consultation. Or, in less, er, elitist political language, those considered 'off-message' are effectively ignored.

Thus distrustful of party politics I submitted several hundred pages to several official consultations on taxi licensing matters. However, in essence I got the distinct impression that I shouldn't have bothered, and certainly won't be bothering again.

Trying a slightly different tack, in the subsequent ten years or so I wrote several hundred letters to the press on various politically-related subjects, and insofar as most were published then that should be considered a personal success.

But that's as far as it goes, because in the final analysis a letter published in a newspaper normally amounts to little more than tomorrow's mealy puddin' supper wrapper.

For example, relatively few of my letters ever generated a substantive response, which I generally viewed as symptomatic of having won the point being made. But perhaps the real point here is that the politicians, powers that be and movers and shakers consider that the best strategy is to ignore such correspondence - they may have lost that miniature battle, but it won't change the course of the war, and it's a mere gadfly as regards the dominant narrative privilege.

For example, a year ago a letter of mine published in the press made the point that legislative provisions allowing licensing authorities to limit the number of liquor outlets was pointless because this wouldn't reduce consumption, but instead would allow existing licensees to profiteer. However, a subsequent comment piece in the press praised the measure, ignoring the point about consumption being unaffected.

No great surprise in that, obviously, but my letter was published in the Herald, and the opinion piece was one of the newspaper's leader columns on the same pages a few days later.

Thus if a newspaper isn't even moved one iota by a letter published on its own comment pages a few days earlier, then what price the wider debate?

And it's perhaps also instructive that while some regulars in the correspondence columns of the press occasionally claim that they get a fair few letters sent to their home address - containing everything from praise to threats of violence - yours truly can only recall one such missive. This was (as I recall it) from the European Movement in response to a letter critical of the EU and one of its more prominent Scottish members. And it was an invitation to join the organisation, thus I assumed it had either been sent in error or was simply taking the pish!

Then there was my blogging period, lasting three years and around 700 or so posts. Naturally, while this might not quite change the world, it would certainly change my status in Scottish political discourse.

Nae chance! Of course, there have been numerous less successful blogs than this one, but outwith the confines of the MacBlogosphere its influence has been effectively nil. Again it's perhaps instructive, for example, that while some bloggers claim to receive numerous emails from others lavishly praising them and suggesting posts and suchlike, I can only really recall receiving one such latter missive. And an enquiry from one local journalist, but this was in relation to a blogging matter rather than anything more substantive.

Also, despite numerous Dundee-related posts I can't really recall any real interest from anyone in the city either, except one hostile comment that seemed to misconstrue what I'd said. Moreover, the small number of friends and relatives that I've shown the blog to - in essence those who I thought might be remotely interested - have never mentioned it again. Nuff said!

And while I'm not really one for the hard sell, my small number of attempts to court the press have been similarly unsuccessful. Most obviously, not long before my blogging period I stood as an independent candidate in the last round of Dundee City Council elections. Given the difficulty for independents in view of resource limitations and lack of publicity, I wrote several essays on pertinent subjects, posted them on a website and sent summaries to the local press in the form of press releases. Perhaps these were not hugely intellectual and insightful in terms of content, but certainly a bit different from the usual platitudes and banalities of the genre. Alas, this strategy was also, er, limited in terms of success, thus the 'Stuart Winton 4 councillor' campaign was effectively still born. (No, I didn't really use that annoyingly textish '4' abbreviation - perhaps that's where things went wrong!)

Of course, anyone(?) reading this might well consider the foregoing the worst kind of self-pity, self-importance and self-interest. After all, there are five million people in Scotland, so it's a bit arrogant and pompous to assume that one particular individual's views are of any greater merit than any others.

A fair point indeed. But while on the one hand I don't claim to have produced anything particularly original or insightful as regards mainstream politics, on the other hand I do feel more confident with regard to my own more specialist hobby horses. And indeed the blog and my other activities were intended more to provide a platform for those pet projects rather than the more mainstream comment, which is clearly a highly competitive and crowded field anyway.

But one such example relates to liquor licensing, an example of which was mentioned earlier. Another relates to the last official consultation I responded to, namely that concerning the Scottish Executive's proposal to licence taxi and private hire vehicle booking offices, which was eventually implemented by the SNP Government during its first term.

And indeed I did receive an acknowledgment for my submission - both by email and snail mail - which in itself was something of an achievement! On the other hand, my name was not included on the 'List of consultee respondents' in the 'Summary of responses to consultation paper'. Ah, but I wasn't actually a consultee as regards the original, um, consultation. But some of the listed 'respondees' weren't 'consultees' either, and in any case the exercise presumably wasn't confined to some sort of inner circle, or at least officialdom would try to avoid such a perception?

Anyway, the specific point I made concerned the road safety implications of allowing taxi firms to take calls from customers in the vehicle via a mobile phone and, more particularly, to then also control other vehicles via two-way radios. Thus as well as taking calls from customers while driving, the driver also despatches other vehicles to pick up the customers as well as having to consider other information from the controlled vehicles such as their position in relation to customers waiting to be collected, not to mention assisting drivers who may be unfamiliar with the geography or other matters. These tasks would of course normally be undertaken by a controller sitting at a desk beside a telephone and radio equipment.

However, the Scottish Executive/Government or whoever seemed unconcerned that a driver could be performing this task while at the wheel and while driving passengers around themselves. The matter was not mentioned in the 'Summary of responses to consultation paper', nor in the subsequent 'Equalities Impact Assessment' or 'Regulatory impact assessment', blah, blah. Or at least I don't think so, because by that time I'd lost interest.

Of course, again it's perhaps a question of balancing the views of a jumped-up member of the public with the, ahem, experts, but surely there's a self-evident road safety issue here - the Highway Code advises that "Using hands-free [mobile phone] equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road", never mind doing that and directing several other taxis by radio at the same time while carrying fare-paying passengers!

And indeed I believe the London private hire legislation precludes drivers from taking calls from customers in the vehicle, and also that some provincial local authorities in England and Wales have implemented such a prohibition in their local rules. But perhaps the point here is that in the former case the relevant framework legislation was enacted during the mobile telephony age, whereas the latter was not.

Thus the provincial legislation in England and Wales can perhaps be excused for not addressing the issue of modern communications equipment in its provisions, but Scotland can hardly be excused in this regard. So what is the excuse? Does anyone really care? And if the politicians and bureaucrats don't care then these matters are certainly below the media radar screen as well, or at least insofar as the new legislation related to issues other than the alleged infiltration of hire car booking offices by organised crime.

Indeed, a more recent example of 'narrative privilege' in this field relates to the rather messy taxi and private hire legislation pertaining to England and Wales, much of which dates from the days of horse-drawn Hackney Carriages in the mid-1800s, and which attempted to address contemporary matters such as the health and environmental hazards created by uncontrolled accumulations of horseshit in public places. (The reason for mentioning this mild expletive being of course that it's entirely appropriate in the context of this blog's stance on politics!)

Anyway, earlier this year the Law Commission doon there agreed to review the legislation with a view to addressing the "sheer bulk, complexity and inconsistency of the regulatory systems" (despite the fact that an Office of Fair Trading report nearly a decade previously had conveniently managed to ignore many of these issues in a report running to several hundred pages, despite many of the relevant matters being brought to its attention by yours truly and no doubt many others. Thus an object lesson in officialdom appearing to say a great deal without actually saying very much at all, or even exemplars of political expediency and our good old friend the narrative privilege).

But to that end and as a preliminary the Department for Transport recently assembled a meeting of the great and the good, er I mean 'stakeholders', in the taxi and private hire sector to discuss some of the issues. And in this context 'stakeholders' seems to mean just about everyone except those actually driving the vehicles.

But one particular cracker from that meeting came from a 'stakeholder' who remarked that because there were more taxi driver licenses in issue than vehicle licences then this "indicated strongly that many drivers had acquired driver licences in more than one area". Which is sheer and utter, ahem, horseshit, because multi-driver vehicles are commonplace in the trade, which anyone with even the remotest of connections with it should know.

But presumably this stakeholder's status as a former local authority licensing official, his current status as a self-appointed 'licensing consultant' and that he has instigated something by the name of the Private Hire Reform Campaign means he's regarded as some kind of expert. And this is despite the fact that his point outlined above is about as penetrating as someone saying that because a city's population exceeds the number of residential properties then this would indicate that some people had some kind of dual identity. Thus while narrative privilege is one thing, completely divorced from the reality of the situation is quite another!

But if that's to be the level of the input to the Law Commission's review then it hardly bodes well for the final result, but then again perhaps it will turn out like the Scottish Executive's consultation on the same subject almost a decade ago, which was kicked into the long grass where it has since presumably become totally obscured by the weeds of bureaucracy and politically expediency, particularly since the Scottish Parliament has been so busy over its lifetime addressing such matters as, er, not very much.

Oh aye, I got so engrossed there that I'd forgotten about the immediate task in hand, which was to close down this blog.

So cheerio then!

Until the final post, that is. And no jokes about watching paint dry and kettles boil, please!

Boo hoo!

Well the Total Politics blog awards (Scottish section!) caught me on the hop a bit (I had assumed they would be announced at a later date) because I wanted to close this blog before they were announced, lest anyone thought that it was being put out of its misery in a poll-induced huff.

However, in a way it's reassuring that Planet Politics has dropped from 20th place last year to who-knows-where, because this clearly helps rationalise its termination. On the other hand, part of me was hoping for a nudge up the rankings, because in view of the number of blogs which had either disappeared and/or amalgamated since finishing above this blog last year - Tom Harris, SNP Tactical Voting, Mr Eugenides, Stephen's Liberal Journal, Two Doctors, Malc in the Burgh - then Planet Politics would only have to tread water to gain a few places. And indeed others in a similar position but which more unexpectedly don't figure this year - Caron's Musings, Alex Massie, Al Jahom's Final Word (never a Scottish politics blog anyway!), Will Patterson, Blether With Brian, Rantin' Rab - provides further encouragement. That's twelve of the nineteen blogs finishing above Planet Politics last year not figuring in the results this time round!

Of course, some replacement/amalgamated/shiny new blogs were always going to replace the disappearing dozen anyway - Better Nation, Labour Hame, Burdz Eye View - and others - Bella Caledonia, Scot Kelly, Moridura, Munguin's Republic - have climbed substantially to enter the Top 20 (last year's results ranked the Top 50 Scottish blogs). Also, Kezia Dugdale and Gerry Hassan have gained a few places to enter the Top 20.

Less expected new entrants to the Top 20 are A Scottish Liberal, Newsnet Scotland, Suitably Despairing and SNP.org.

Other new entrants to the Top 25 are View From The Hills, Iain Macwhirter, Alba Matters and The Shoogly Peg, while The Universality of Cheese reappears at 25.

[bitching overdrive mode]Of course, as is usual in such polls some of the blogs and their positioning is questionable to say the least. For example, at least two of these 'blogs' - Gerry Hassan, Iain Macwhirter - are merely MSM articles reproduced on a blogging platform, which seems to defeat the purpose of the whole thing.

And, for example, Mark MacLachlan didn't post anything at all to his Universality of Cheese blog between May and the date of the poll (on the other hand, his omission from last year's Top 50 was questionable). Likewise Doug Daniel hasn't posted to his Alba Matters blog since June, and indeed has averaged only about four posts per month in the preceding half year. Moreover, the omission of Caron's Musings from the list proves beyond peradventure that the whole thing is fundamentally lacking in integrity(!).

But irrespective of these quibbles, the fact that the likes of a sporadic blogger such as Doug Daniel - erudite, knowledgeable and articulate chap that he is - can usurp yours truly just underlines the peripheral relevance of Planet Politics, hence the decision to shut it down.[/bitching overdrive mode]

Oh, aye, and the point about wanting to announce this before the poll results were published was in case (on the basis expounded at length earlier) this blog did in fact move up the rankings slightly, which might have lulled me into a false sense of optimism and prolonged its slow and painful death!

Anyway, heartfelt congratulations and commiserations to all those with an interest in the poll results, particularly to the lads (and Burd!) at Better Nation for their well deserved (and hardly unexpected) first place.

And while it's hardly worth bothering about now, my final post will appear soon, if only because - like yesterday's rambling effort - most of it was drafted a few days ago, and also because my self-indulgence and self-pity is difficult to quell!

Gesture policing and prosecutions (and political correctness)

(Long post alert!)

Not much comment around on the (now expelled) St Andrews University student who was convicted - and sentenced yesterday - of a racially aggravated breach of the peace in a hall of residence, despite the fact that such a case might have been considered meat and drink for the Scottish commentariat.

On the other hand, it's all a bit awkward in some ways, because the offence involved the student putting his hand doon his breeks and then wiping it on another student's Israeli flag and calling him a 'terrorist'. All of which resulted in the aggrieved individual feeling "utterly violated", anxious and fearing for his safety, consequently describing his term at the institution a "flop".

Thus while racism is one thing, the nation of Israel isn't perhaps a favourite of Scotland's so-called havering classes, hence the lack of opinion on the matter.

And the words 'state' and 'nation' should perhaps be read with care in relation to Israel, because prima facie denigrating a state can't amount to racism (or we'd all be racists!) but it seems that arguments about the Jewish race/religion or whatever being represented in terms of the Israeli state and flag - replete with the Star of David, of course - were axiomatic in relation to the prosecution.

This perhaps explains why a student who had never even been to Israel could reasonably be considered to feel sufficiently offended by the incident for the authorities to proceed with the case, because the whole thing seems little more than what might be expected to happen on occasion in a student hall of residence after a drunken night out.

Nevertheless, the evidence presented suggests that the Jewish student victim wasn't just crying wolf. On the other hand, this kind of thing does bring to mind Dundee's infamous puppy on a postcard incident, when one of my local councillors forced Tayside Police to apologise for distributing a promotional postcard featuring a black puppy, the sight of this "ritually unclean" beast apparently causing offence to those adhering to the precepts of the religion of Islam, at least according to the city's first Muslim councillor. But when the Dundee press sought evidence to substantiate the claim little was forthcoming.

But that Tayside Police felt the need to apologise at all perhaps provides an indication of their priorities. Not to mention the kind of matters preoccupying the good councillor, which are certainly at odds with those of this long-standing resident of the 'community'. Ironic, also, that police elsewhere in Scotland effectively ignored a significantly more self-evident case of racism in the case of murder victim Simon San.

Nevertheless, in general terms all this merely underlines the trend away from traditional definitions of policing and criminality. And also highlights in particular a more specific trend - in what might loosely be described as crimes of discrimination - for the victim to decide whether the offence is aggravated by an element of discrimination. Which in turn seems to drive a coach and horses though the principal that the application and definition of the criminal law should be for the state to decide objectively rather than be based on the subjective opinion of individual citizens.

But this shift in the law enforcement trend to what might be termed a politically correct basis was underlined by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill in a speech delivered to police officers, summarised thus by Gerald Warner(!) in a recent Daily Mail(!!) comment piece:

Early in his term of office he revealed his distorted mindset when he told the Scottish Police Federation conference in 2008 that the notion the police had a duty to protect the public from criminals was 'an anachronism in this day and age'. What mattered was that they should be recruited from diverse ethic and sexual backgrounds.

Of course, it's not just the victimisation of people on racial/religious/sexual grounds that's seen a shift in official priorities, but also the extent to which people are excused from their own more traditional criminal behaviour because they are perceived to be at the bottom end of the wealth/status/power political correctness pecking order.

Hence a Scottish Government/Executive document (from 2004) states that illegal gypsy/traveller encampments represent 'an expression of cultural identity'. Which - despite the typically ambivalent language about 'conflicting sets of rights, responsibilities and expectations' being involved - arguably gives such people the green light to flout the law and leave both public and private property in a state of, er, dishevelment, as many a news article in the Scottish (mainly local) press testifies.

On the national stage, moreover, taking this kind of thinking to its logical conclusion has resulted in overwrought claims that dismantling an encampment of Irish travellers constructed without planning permission would amount to 'ethnic cleansing'.

And these somewhat contrived cultural definitions don't end there. Consider this from Inspector Gadget's blog:

Spitting is a cultural issue. Young, jobless working-class men spit on the ground as a way of expressing frustration and powerlessness. It is also a way for young men from poor communities to mark territory, a kind of warning to other men in the street that they are present. For successful men, spitting on the ground is a way of demonstrating victory against the harsh realities of modern life, a challenge to others who may wish to rob them of their success.

It is judgemental for a police officer to challenge this behaviour. It shows an ethnocentric approach; why are the cultural norms of the young jobless community less acceptable than those of their more fortunate peers? To achieve the Public Confidence aspirations required by the National Policing Plan, police officers must begin to embed themselves in these cultures. This way, we can achieve our ultimate aim of policing our diverse communities with fairness and
understanding.

Well perhaps this is a well constructed spoof rather than an extract from a genuine police 'diversity training' session, but even if it is a caricature it certainly contains a large element of truth. Of course, the problem regarding these issues is that the facts of the matter are rarely articulated, and the official stance on such things is largely a question of conjecture. Indeed, there is probably no official stance on many of these things at all, and in view of the nature of policing and prosecutorial discretion it's probably often the result of a several-decades-old shift in individual attitudes, practices and day-to-day decisions rather than anything formally promulgated from on high.

Who, for example, decided that instead of slapping the wrists of kids who might cycle without lights - and wouldn't even consider using their bikes on the pavement - most children and adults probably don't adhere to either rule these days, and with total impunity. Well no one actually decided such a policy and promulgated it. Instead, the shift has been one of creep over several decades, and the result of thousands of police officers deciding millions of times to turn a blind eye, with the eventual result being that no one actually bothers now. Apart, of course, from the odd tokenistic example of enforcement, which like the approach to littering offences seems almost wholly pointless other than as perhaps a box-ticking or PR exercise rather than any real and genuine attempt to enforce the law and encourage adherence to it.

However, perhaps the rationale for the shift in attitudes is neatly encapsulated in a letter to the Herald last year, and maybe this represents the culmination and averaging of the myriad changes in attitude and practice which shift dominant thinking over time and society in a largely nebulous and imperceptible manner:

However, the latest views [regarding cyclists] are so extreme that they raise a paradox which extends to a much deeper malaise in Scottish society. Cyclists as a minority pose no significant threat to motorists, yet are the scapegoat for the most fervent of wrath.

Historical parallels of intolerance of minorities are so much more serious than this bias against cyclists that it would be offensive to compare them. However, the parallels are obvious. Let us pick out a vulnerable and defenceless minority, and pile all our troubles on them.

This curious attitude to the cycling minority, and the fear which it inspires in novice cyclists, is a considerable barrier to healthy transport. Much more seriously, it is a stumbling block to a fair and balanced society.

Hence, as in the case of gypsies and travellers, complaints about cyclists' disregard of and disdain for the law is elevated to a Nazi-esque threat to society. Never mind the rules, what's important is the status of the 'victim' in relation to the wider milieu, in this case the 'vulnerable' cyclist vis-à-vis those higher up the road user pecking order such as cars, vans and trucks. And indeed never mind the huge detriment to safety caused by the recklessness of cyclists resulting from this way of thinking, not to mention the self-evident conflict that this engenders, all of which actually represents a microcosm of a more lawless and conflictual society generally.

And this cultural sensitivity with the concomitant abandonment of more traditional legal norms is also nicely represented in the new SNP Government's approach to two of Scotland's most pressing problems, namely sectarianism and alcohol-fuelled crime and anti-social behaviour.

Thus despite the fact that both problems are largely - but by no means wholly - confined to working class males, the SNP's approach to the two in terms of legislative remedy are fundamentally different.

Therefore sectarianism is to be addressed directly, which accords with official distaste for and the approach to what is essentially conflict between different cultures.

On the other hand, drunkenness and the associated crime is to be tackled indirectly by way of minimum pricing for alcohol, with the ethos being that drunks are 'victims', indeed the victims of irresponsible large corporations considered to be selling alcohol too cheaply. Never mind that this mindset - and thus an increasing reluctance to tackle drunkenness directly - has very probably caused the problem to escalate in the first place. Hence the SNP's limited ambition here seems to amount to little more than stopping people getting drunk so often rather than providing a wider deterrence to getting drunk per se.

But as highlighted on this blog several times before, one manifestation of all this appears when journalists and members of the public find themselves in the middle of late-night policing in the UK's towns and cities, and usually express surprise at the light touch attitude of police:

The two officers I was with encountered a drunken brawl in the street between two groups of revellers, numbering a minimum of 12. Firstly, I was surprised they broke up a brawl that size without back-up, but then I was amazed to watch them send both groups on their ways with no more than a verbal warning.

Of course, there are many reasons for this approach - and indeed the article is about how paperwork and red tape generally impedes a more robust approach to law enforcement - but as with drug taking the zeitgeist seems to be expressed more in terms of victimhood rather than personal responsibility. (The word 'robust' is also interesting in this context, because like other words and phrases - such as ' the full force of the law' - it's often used by police to convey an impression for the consumption of a particular constituency that's perhaps at odds with the reality of the situation, and indeed this kind of misleading spin and soundbite perhaps reflects the politicisation of police, at least in terms of their approach to public relations rather than specific ideologies.)

Equally, the official narrative as regards crime often ignores all of the above to a greater or lesser extent, and instead the focus is simply on crime in the traditional sense, and of course the rationale here is often simply the political imperative of conveying a different narrative to a different audience. Hence the Scottish Government's soundbite-level message of crime being at its lowest level for 35 years, never mind that all of the above perhaps helps demonstrate the misleading nature of the bare statistics and their comparison over time (and clearly a proper appraisal of the figures is beyond the scope of this blogpost). By the same token, the Daily Mail looked at the same statistics from a similarly traditional but at the same time wholly different perspective politically, headlining something along the lines of 'A crime committed every minute' (the article in the Scottish edition doesn't seem to be online, but this in the context of England and Wales is effectively identical in approach.)

Indeed, Kenny MacAskill himself neatly demonstrated the differing approach to different audiences in this regard in the course of his 2008 speech, when he said: 'Too often we judge our police only on the numbers of arrests they make and the crimes they clear up."

Which, apart from casting doubt on the SNP's more recent approach, also underlines the lack of statistical efficacy and rigour in the whole crime debate as it is normally dutifully reported in the Scottish press. Which of course is often the bulwark against a lack of political scrutiny, but on the other hand here the politicians bicker and seek partisan advantage on the basis of the bare numbers, while at another level there's little in terms of critique and polemic at all.

And, moreover, despite the recent hand wringing and posturing as regards the centralisation of Scottish policing, the one place where accountability has often been largely absent is at the level of local police boards, which in Tayside at least seems to be merely an excuse to drink cups of tea and push the Gypsy Creams (oops, politically incorrect language alert!) around the table, at the same time telling each other what a braw job everyone is doing in an object lesson in self-importance, self-congratulation and self-aggrandisement. Indeed, even if there is a degree of scrutiny and accountability going on behind closed doors it certainly only very rarely makes its presence felt in the public domain, with the puppy on the postcard incident perhaps being the only such occurrence locally in recent years.

And when Audit Scotland accused Tayside joint board members of not understanding their role in terms of scrutiny, councillors harrumphed that everything in the garden was rosy. Hence what's the problem precisely, they opined, which seemed to fundamentally miss the point being made.

Thus as with the weekend post about councillors and criticism of municipal bureaucrats, it's all kept under wraps so that the voting hoi polloi aren't aware of the ugly truth. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions to that particular rule, particularly when there's a political axe to grind, as demonstrated when the often sleepy world of municipal politics was catapulted onto the national stage in the shape of the Edinburgh trams shambles.

But - and getting back to the core subject matter of this post - the culture of gesture, posturing, grandstanding, spin and soundbite isn't confined to mainstream politics. It's reflected to a greater or lesser extent throughout the public sector, and the often extra-democratic ideology of political correctness from police and prosecutors represents yet another facet of this.

An unethical conflict of interest in upholding ethical standards in Scottish public life

It might have been expected that a body like the grandly named Commission for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland would go out of its way to avoid any suggestion of conflicts of interest.

However, the quango - charged as it is with "making a visible, valued and lasting contribution to ethical standards in public life, thereby strengthening public trust and confidence in elected and appointed office-holders" - has as its Public Standards Commissioner for Scotland one D Stuart Allan (sic), who was Head of Law & Administration at Fife Council. Thus senior bureaucrat turned senior quangocrat. Or perhaps poacher turned gamekeeper. Or the other way round. Or gamekeeper turned gamekeeper. Yes, that's the one. Heaven forfend that it should be the other alternative!

Anyway, the Commissioner considers complaints regarding the actions of councillors (and others in public life) insofar as they may have breached the relevant Code of Conduct which governs their behaviour.

The code precludes councillors from raising in public "matters relating to the conduct or capability of employees", inter alia. A recent case concerned complaints by two heads of department at Angus Council, who alleged that a councillor had circulated an email asking “Since when has (sic) Council reports been based on friends of friends?”, and stating that “Past evidence proves beyond doubt that the estimates produced by our Economic Development department ever since they were formed, has been pie-in-the-sky, without foundation and clearly plucked out of the air to attempt to substantiate a report,” not to mention “I also want to know who authorised Economic Development to go seeking to fund sponsorship in this way without councillor permission – just who is responsible for this council, is this department out of control?”.

Oh dear. But ignoring the substance of the case, is a former council head of department really the best person to be adjudicating on complaints from currently serving council heads of department? Surely an obvious conflict of interest?

But it was surprising to read in the press that the Standards Commissioner had in fact exonerated the councillor regarding the alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct.

Hurrah - there is a functioning democracy in Scotland after all! However, on closer inspection things are not so rosy, since the decision was based on the narrow ground that the councillor hadn't actually named any official in his email. Unfortunately the Commissioner goes on:

However, in reaching this conclusion, I did not find that the respondent had acted appropriately in this matter. Whether or not his concerns had been justified, they should have been raised with the Chief Executive of the Council and not in the press. The respondent had shown a lack of responsibility by saying he had raised the issue at his Group meeting and had expected his Leader to take the matter up with the Chief Executive. It was at the very least surprising that a councillor with 12 years of experience had not realised this, and it was a matter of concern that he apparently still did not accept that his actions had been inappropriate. It was quite clear that the respondent’s conduct, rather than improving an existing state of affairs, had been a great deal more likely adversely to affect existing relationships within the Council and to diminish the Council’s reputation and of course his own.

The general tenor of which seems to be that every concern regarding public employees should effectively be swept under the carpet. So much for openness and accountability.

Of course, this is a difficult area, because ultimately the theory is that elected councillors make the decisions and to that extent municipal employees shouldn't be seen to be held responsible for these things in public. But the whole thing just seems too cosy considering the power that these officials wield, especially when seen in the context of the often lamentable scrutiny afforded by councillors, as many a legal case and ombudsman's decision testifies.

And, for example, if an official report is presented to a council meeting does all this mean that criticism of the report by councillors is considered off-limits? Thus it's all presumably stitched up beforehand and hence doesn't seem indicative of open and democratic decision-making.

And these kind of issues came to the fore recently in a more prominent environment when Edinburgh councillors Jenny Dawe and Steve Cardownie were accused of implying that officials had lied with regard to evidence cited in relation to the inquiry into the Highland Gathering fiasco.

Moreover, these two individuals - leader and deputy leader of the council respectively - have been up to their necks in controversy regarding the trams shambles, which of course is also steeped in questionable conduct from the paid bureaucrats.

Some of which may be highlighted in years to come, but does anyone really expect the unvarnished truth to come out or those responsible for the various shortcomings to be held properly accountable? Cover ups, blame shifting and hefty pay-offs seem more likely than anything more open, honest and accountable.

But, in the meantime, is a former council bigwig really the only person in Scotland deemed capable of adjudicating on complaints from serving council bigwigs? Or is this yet another example of Scotland's municipal old boy (and girl!) network emanating from local authorities and bodies like SOLACE and SOLAR, in this case slightly ludicrously claiming to uphold ethical standards in public life?

Why not just get on with it?

Obviously there was nothing in the SNP's legislative programme announced this week that hadn't been flagged up well in advance, so I didn't really pay too much attention to it all, but one or two items of pro-independence propaganda stood out.

First there was Alex Salmond's reference to the Claim of Right in his address to Parliament. Which appears to be substantively meaningless, thus it was particularly apt that the first minister should mention this in a speech consisting largely of spiel, spin and soundbite. Onywey:

We hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

Which means what, precisely? That Westminster simply does what Alex Salmond tells it to do on the back of an election won by virtue of the endorsement of barely 1 in 5 of the population, that was indeed secured by way of celebrity and tabloid newspaper endorsements, cash from cronies and even blatantly misleading the public in the ballot box? Of course, that's a bit harsh, because there was some substantive policy that no doubt helped sway voters, such as the sheer vision and reforming zeal of the council tax freeze, not to mention, er...

Thus the quote from the Claim of Right meant nothing other than yet another soundbite in a speech largely devoid of substance, unless it could be construed as referring to the indisputable sovereign right of the Scottish people to vote for independence if they so desire.

But Mr Salmond didn't really mention that either, thus underlining that it was all just another attempt to manipulate public opinion as regards a future referendum. Why not put the Claim of Right into practice by calling the vote rather than merely quoting something meaningless? Answers on a postcard to Bute House, please, except that of course Mr Salmond knows the answer to that question better than anyone.

Another one that caught the eye this week was Jim Crumley's Courier column, which managed to get a bit of pro-independence stuff in between the pro-sea eagles and anti-wind farm blurb. Thus, regarding Danny Alexander's "hysterically droning" speech to the Scottish CBI:

One imagines that there will be a great deal more of this from Westminster sages of various political hues as the independence referendum draws nigh. But don't you find it strange that the Westminster government goes to such extraordinary lengths to champion the cause of Arabs who want their independence half a world away...

Er, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think what he's referring to was anything to do with "independence", at least unless you subscribe to the mindset that effectively equates Scotland's relationship with the UK to that of Tibet's with China.

Mr Crumley "drones hysterically" on:

...but is so determined to bully Scotland out of the notion that it is capable of thinking and acting for itself, and (perish the thought apparently) it's just possible that we might be better at running our wee country better than they are?

Which is ironic in that the first part of his column consists of stuff about Edinburgh's inability to construct a glorified train set. Must be the Union's fault then.

"Bully" is also an interesting word, which of course does little more than emotionally reveal a preference, because given the context in which he uses it we must all be bullies, including Mr Crumley himself.

His penultimate word "they" is also interesting, since it seems to assume that everyone in Scotland has adopted the same perspective on such matters, like a 'them and us' sort of thing as far as the UK is concerned. Well, clearly Danny Alexander hasn't, and presumably there are others as well. Oh aye, it's generally the majority of Scots when anyone is interested enough to ask them.

But I think I've droned on hysterically long enough now with my own propaganda, so just a quick mention of my other favourite episode of the week, this time the priceless moment on Newsnicht when Nationalist Ewan Crawford accused opponents of trying to "pin the SNP down on individual questions so that the bigger picture is lost".

Aye, let's ignore things like the economy, the currency, pensions, defence, wind farms and sea eagles, and let's decide it all on the basis of things like the Claim of Rights, "forging our own destiny" and that David Cameron is effectively little better than Colonel Gadaffi, presiding over a totalitarian UK state. Saor Alba!

But if it's all so obvious then why just not get on with it?

Perhaps the problem in that regard is that Scots living in the real world are a bit more realistic and circumspect about these things than people living up in the hills and making a living from writing books and newspaper columns, say?

Frankly I'd be more impressed by the SNP if they simply said that they won't have a referendum right now because they know they can't win it and they're in the meantime trying to formulate a version of greater autonomy that the Scottish people will buy. Any other stated rationale for the delay represents mere contrivance and artifice.

But clearly they won't state explicitly what's blatantly obvious to even the dogs in the street, because the UK political imperative is not to be candid and honest, and the longer the SNP continue with this charade the more they revert to Westminster type.

Cash for honours in medieval Dundee

Gosh, it seems that even yours truly could become a 'burgess' in Dundee. For a mere £50 those associated with the city could adopt the title Burgess of Dundee, a civic order dating from medieval times, and which has been resurrected by a council-associated charity.

Naturally there is a catch. Potential burgesses have to be "committed to promoting community spirit and civic pride within the city". Ah.

I wonder where the jakie downstairs in our small tenement block fits into all of this? A few weeks ago he nearly burned the block down, with perhaps only a passer by noticing smoke in the early hours and calling the fire brigade averting disaster. But at least it's been a while since he's hollered abuse at me.

Or his junkie pal across the landing, who has twice (at least!) over the past few months had people attempting to cave his door in. Wonder what that's all about?

Then there was the attempted murder charge across the road a few weeks ago, not to mention several other incidents in the vicinity over the summer requiring the attendance of up to half a dozen police vehicles, including a drugs raid (false alarm!) and a mob of rampaging drunken teenagers.

Then there's the likes of the 'communal' area to the back of the tenement block next door, where the photo above was taken the other day. There's a couple of syringes in there if you look close enough. But perhaps that's what the 'City of Dundee Burgess Charity' means when they say it's "an exciting time to be a Dundonian".

Of course, the above wouldn't necessarily preclude me from "promoting community spirit and civic pride" surely, because I have nothing to do with all that?

On the other hand, I suspect the city's establishment would be more likely to accuse me of "doing Dundee down" by virtue of merely mentioning such matters, as opposed to the goal of promoting civic virtues.

I could always cite the fact that if you make the kind of mess pictured above at some of Scotland's major 'cultural' events, then the powers that be will praise your "behaviour and attitude" (which sounds as close as damn it to "civic pride") - as long as that's all you do. But no, I doubt if that would work either.

But perhaps instead of a 'Burgess of Dundee' title they could have a 'Gadgie of Dundee' for those residing in areas that wouldn't readily qualify for the former title. I'm sure the latter would suit me down to the ground!

No, Jade was spot on in context

As soon as Jade Richards referred to [wherever] as a "bit of a dive" it was obvious what the reaction would be.

Thus the Sun headlined that the X Factor contestant was in a "Scot of bother" over her comments during last weekend's edition of the show, but it's unfortunate the she's effectively apologised fully for her remarks, saying: "I didn't mean it the way it came out."

And of course those critical of her remarks - while at the same time for obvious not wanting to sound too condemnatory - have said that she's been quoted out of context and suchlike. But what precisely was the context, what did Jade say exactly and what was it about her remarks that made her say subsequently that she "didn't mean it the way it came out"?

Naturally, despite the hundreds of mentions of her comments readily found on the internet, it's not that easy to find exactly what Jade said, and indeed Google only throws up one example quoting her fully. Perhaps her precise words wouldn't make for such good headlines. However, after spending the best part of an hour trawling the internet*, your intrepid blogger can reveal that she actually said:

"It depends what part you’re in, but it’s a bit of a dive."

Which to my mind changes things substantially, because she wasn't merely referring to Fife or her home town of Buckhaven as a whole, but specifically to certain areas. And to that extent would anyone doubt that some parts of Fife or Buckhaven are, er, less salubrious than others or that indeed some parts could reasonably but pejoratively be described in the specified manner?

But as usual we had the likes of Fife councillor David Alexander wittering on about the "home of golf", that Wills and Kate met while studying at St Andrews University, "Scottish culture and heritage", "Scotland's jewel in the crown", "rugged cliffs", "sandy beaches" and "fantastic wildlife", blah, blah.

Indeed, he even managed to crack a bit of a joke on the back of Jade's remarks while doing quite a good job of trying to sell Fife's undoubted charms, saying: "Perhaps Jade was referring to the fact that you can go for a dive in one of Fife's six Blue Flag beaches."

Ho ho! Councillors cracking jokes - whatever next? And it's perhaps pertinent that from the various reports it's not wholly clear whether X Factor judge Tulisa asked Jade about Buckhaven per se or Fife in general. Which is important because in the latter context in particular it's clear - not least from talking to Buckhine (as they 'cry' it in that part of Fife) locals - that the town isn't really one of the jewels in the Kingdom's crown, at least taking the local area as a whole, and particularly in comparison to other parts of Fife.

And, for example, it's perhaps instructive to compare the periodic news articles about houses overlooking the Old Course in St Andrews selling for several million pounds with other recent reports that Buckhaven is Scotland's most "affordable" (euphemism alert!) seaside town as regards house prices. Of course, there are no doubt parts of Buckhaven that most of Scotland's population would love to live in, but like Dundee (say!) other parts will not be quite so desirable.

But all this is essentially part of the various identities that we adopt, which on a geographical basis encompasses entities like the state, the nation, the city or town, the housing scheme/estate, or even street, and which will be defended at all costs by those with a vested interest in such constructs.

Equally, since to a greater or lesser extent these identities are political/quasi-political rather than merely geographic then it's unsurprising that the politicians/quasi-politicians are among those most likely to take offence when such identities are questioned, and to which end the kneejerk spin and soundbite mode is adopted as a rebuttal.

Thus when SNP MSP George Adam commented, after campaigning in the Greenock and Inverclyde by-election earlier this year, that you need "jabs" as well as a passport to come out of the area, Labour MSP Duncan McNeil accused him of "talking the area down", while of course both parties are always unremittingly positive about all things Scottish, at least when it's politically expedient.

All of which has particular personal resonance, because around 15 years ago I recall being incensed when radio football pundits and wags (as opposed to WAGs!) Tam Cowan and Stuart Cosgrove remarked that you need a tetanus injection after visiting Dundee, and indeed such was my incandescence that I can still vividly recall their throwaway remarks to this day (was never quite sure which of the twosome actually uttered this, but the other certainly didn't demur amidst the predictable bout of laughter after the comment).

But of course times change, and opinions also vary with the effluxion of time, and today my reaction to such a remark would be substantially different.

But without getting bogged down in the minutiae of that, suffice to say that there's no need for misinformation and gratuitous offence, but very often the politics of ID get in the way of indisputable fact and reasonable opinion.

*Including looking at three different versions of the STV News on the STV Player, until it became obvious that the relevant piece - which was where I first became aware of Jade Richards' precise comments - had been edited out, which can be detected right at the end because of the lack of continuity between Sean Batty's weather forecast and the three presenters' concluding remarks! All of which wasted well over 100MB of my precious monthly mobile broadband allowance, which would thus cost me at least a ludicrous £10 in penalty charges if I exceed the limit this month!!

Murdo's separatist agenda and other ironies

A few days ago the papers were reporting Murdo Fraser's Scottish Tory leadership bid as based on a "new Unionism" which would "kill independence and break the SNP". To which end the Sunday papers were then reporting that he was proposing to break his own Conservative & Unionist party with an independent, rebranded entity north of the border. Talk about separatism!

Indeed, today's Scotsman lead story is headlined "Tories at war over move to kill off party in Scotland". Which hardly seems the basis for a cohesive and positive campaign to save the union in the run up to the referendum. Indeed, there's always been a bit of a paradox between UK-wide political movements and devolution, and to that extent Murdo Fraser's proposal seems to lean a bit too far towards devolution being a "process, not than an event", or perhaps even coning off another slip road on Tam Dalyell's "motorway without exit" towards independence.

Meanwhile, for the SNP Pete Wishart has been lambasting Unionist use of words and phrases like "separatism" and "wrenched out" to describe Scottish independence, perhaps forgetting that he recently described as "nasty" and "just wrong" a motion on same-sex marriages promulgated by one of his party's MSPs.

Of course, no doubt Mr Wishart would posit that same-sex marriages would help promote the equivalent of what he calls his party's 'inclusivists' or 'togetherists' in relation to a reformulated notion of Britishness. But in his Scots Independent article he also claims it's the "Union that 'separates' Scotland from a proper and equal role in Europe", which seems to underline the old paradox about jumping from the United Kingdom sovereignty frying pan into the European Union sovereignty fire, particularly with the likes of Labour's Catherine Stihler MEP talking about an EU "Economic High Representative who can transcend nationalists agendas".

Which indeed perhaps echoes Duncan Hamilton's claim that a successful eurozone requires "proud nations accepting a European uniformity rather than responding to the instinctive desire to protect and promote their national interest", which would even militate against greater Scottish autonomy if we retained the pound sterling post-'independence'.

By the same token, an even more prominent SNP adviser seems to have got his sovereignty underwear in an uproar when asking "Who benefits from positive Unionism?", with the "clear" answer: "It is Westminster and certainly not the people of Scotland." The likes of which seems to assume that Westminster is like Washington vis-à-vis Scotland rather than akin to Holyrood vis-à-vis Dundee.

Indeed, Stephen Noon also plays the EU card, thus it's surely legitimate to ask, "Who benefits from positive (European) Unionism?" To which the answer would presumably be Brussels and certainly not the people of Scotland, to echo what he said in relation to Westminster.

Finally, poor old Kenny Farquharson's most recent Scotland on Sunday article hasn't gone down too well with the cybernats. His questions in relation to what degree of Scottish autonomy the SNP is aiming for and how they will approach that with regard to the referendum questions seems to have generated particular ire (was that one of the threads going on about Unionist "hoors" - not to mention a pejorative reference to KF's Dundee roots, which of course will never do! - and suchlike before the more vituperative comments were removed?).

Which seems strange, since another article a few days earlier from one of his Scotsman newpaper group stablemates seemed to answer many of the questions posed by Mr Farquharson, and indeed with a nod towards fiscal autonomy/Home Rule prima facie even more likely to engender cybernat abuse:

Alex Salmond is shouting through a political megaphone that he wants a referendum with three questions: the break-up of the UK, fiscal autonomy (de facto Home Rule), or the creaking status quo. Does anyone disagree on the likely outcome?

The SNP has stated unambiguously that in any constitutional settlement it will keep the pound sterling and share common (but non-nuclear) defence arrangements with England.

But which ironically doesn't seem to have attracted the same level of reaction as Kenny Farquharson's article, no doubt because the author was prominent Nationalist and former Newsnet Scotland board member George Kerevan.

But as Alanis Morissette nearly sang:

An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay
It's the SNP's approach to sovereignty
And isn't it ironic...don't you think?

More municipal blame-shifting

Following Monday's post which suggested that the Edinburgh trams shambles was little more than much of normal municipal government writ large, it's perhaps appropriate that the Courier this week has been highlighting another failed local government infrastructure project.

This time it's the replacement for the Madras secondary school in St Andrews, which is unsatisfactorily spread over two separate and dilapidated sites. Fife Council and the University of St Andrews have been embroiled in protracted negations to build a shiny new replacement on university ground, but this week the whole thing has collapsed in acrimony and ignominy.

But at least, unlike the trams, this happened well before anything concrete had been concluded - and thus the council has only wasted a six-figure sum on the project - but what's perhaps instructive is the blame shifting which has taken place since the whole thing hit the buffers. (Or perhaps some kind of schoolkids/playground analogy is more appropriate in this case!)

Thus reporting that a "war of words has erupted", the Courier quoted the council's depute leader Elizabeth Riches as saying she had been "dismayed and disappointed by the manner in which the university attempts to conduct business", while the university countered: "Regrettably, over the course of protracted negotiations and repeated changes of emphasis by the council, the original vision for a new school physically and academically bound with us had become substantially and irrevocably diluted."

Thus quite apart from the matter of an SNP/Lib Dem coalition running Fife Council, all this seems reminiscent of the earlier conflict in the trams imbroglio between the council and the contractors.

Naturally, opposition councillors in Fife have stuck the boot in, with Labour's Alex Rowley calling for an inquiry and describing the matter as "quite shameful", while the Jenny Dawe-esque Mrs Riches responded to suggestions that she or other council representatives should stand down over the debacle by saying, "Absolutely now way."

Thus much the same politicking, failure to take any responsibility and blame-shifting that has been so self-evident regarding the Edinburgh trams recently.

Also interesting is that Fife Council leader Peter Grant "angrily dismissed" suggestions that heads should roll over the "disastrous collapse of the official plans". He said: "The determination and professionalism of chief officers is beyond reproach".

Which again brings to mind one of the matters raised regarding Edinburgh councillors Jenny Dawe and Steve Cardownie during the post mortem on the Gathering, in the course of which it was claimed they had alluded that officials had lied to them and that this breached a code of conduct which prevents elected representatives criticising council officials.

Interestingly, regarding the trams Ms Dawe certainly appeared to defend officialdom from any criticism on Newsnicht this week, while opposition councillors seemed to some extent at least use the bureaucrats as part of their blame-shifting exercise. However, this interface between councillors and officials raises fundamental questions regarding scrutiny and accountability in local government, surely underlined by the trams fiasco. As I averred/havered (depending on taste!) regarding the Gathering:

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

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

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

By the same token, in a Herald article yesterday about the trams and the implications for local democracy, Iain Macwhirter said:

The reason so many public-sector projects like this go so disastrously wrong is that there is no clear line of accountability and culpability. No one is to blame. No one pays any penalty. Why should they worry; it’s not their money after all. Civic administrations are suckers for fancy projects like trams. Their officials show them glossy brochures and take them on trips to Seville and Amsterdam where they see trams trundling along sunny streets and they decide that they want them too. It’s like having your own big train set. The councillors then get their officials to provide fantasy figures to justify the project. This is handed it over to arms length organisations like Transport in Edinburgh (Tie) who are taken to the cleaners by the private contractors. Then everyone runs for cover.

In theory, of course, the elected members are collectively responsible, but in councils like Edinburgh accountability is blurred by coalition. Edinburgh is run by shifting alliances of parties led by nonentities. The hapless Jenny Dawe, the leader of the Lib-Nat coalition in Edinburgh, is a well-meaning individual totally out of her depth who behaves like an innocent bystander at a car crash. She clearly feels no sense of personal responsibility for what happens on her watch, because she can always blame her coalition partners, or the other lot, or Bilfinger Berger.

But of course even assuming that councillors were uniformly intelligent, knowledgeable, honest and generally competent, it would still be beyond them to properly evaluate the actions of officialdom and third parties involved in council business, since non-specialists and part-timers cannot realistically hope to possess the requisite skills and knowledge.

Indeed, that's a deficiency of democracies generally, but two particular points are perhaps worth mentioning.

First, Iain Macwhirter claims that "councillors feel intimidated and inferior to officials", which is indeed a recurring theme on this blog. For example, there was Dundee's social work convener - and also Alex Salmond - praising the city's social work department in the wake of the Brandon Muir tragedy before any sort of investigation into the case had even begun. Contrast the political dimension to the Sharon Shoesmith case.

Then there was Fife councillor Maggie Taylor's predictably fawning attitude towards police, and indeed Ms Taylor was one of those more than willing to put the boot into St Andrews University this week in the wake of the Madras shambles. Which again seems to underline how often councillors seem to operate in a false dichotomy of opposition politicians and third parties regarded as being beyond the pale while public servants are viewed as beyond reproach (in turn highlighting the ludicrous notion of local accountability predictably being bandied about in the debate about police reorganisation).

Indeed, to the extent that administration councillors will identify their own interests with that of paid officials then this would also preclude criticism, and thus to a degree praise of officialdom represents councillor self-congratulation.

Second, perhaps all this demonstrates a degree of arrogance from our elected representatives, who seem unwilling/unable to recognise their own limitations. In turn, maybe this also explains their unwillingness to take responsibility for their deficiencies, which of course is a problem hardly confined to municipal decision-making.