Planet Politics

The (bad) language of Scottish politics

2011-10-29T10:21:00.004+01:00

(This was originally drafted for another purpose, but since it's become a bit unwieldy and otherwise unfit for purpose it seems a better idea to post it here instead of merely deleting it.)

A few weeks ago the SNP's John Swinney described UK spending cuts as "malicious" and "disturbing", language perhaps more appropriate to describe a violent psychopath than politicians attempting to balance the country's books.

Ironic, then, that at the end of his TV interview Mr Swinney condemned the "silly rhetoric" of opposition politicians, but he was certainly right to question the tiresome use of exaggerated language in politics, albeit that there was a self-evident element of hypocrisy in making his case. And in view of his claim, what words would the finance secretary use to describe his £75,000 gain on the sale of his taxpayer-funded second home, a sum that would take someone on the minimum wage six years to earn?

By the same token, however, at around the same time Alex Salmond used FMQs to highlight what he described as a "threatening" letter from Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander, which conjures up images of promises of violence rather than political spats about legislation and public spending.

And which in turn perhaps provides a bit of context for the first minister's use of the word "threatening" to describe comments from Labour MP Ian Davidson, who told the SNP's Eilidh Whiteford that she risked (or had received) a "doing" regarding a private meeting of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

Thus Mr Salmond seems to consider Ian Davidson's comments as on a par with the "threatening" letter from Danny Alexander. Of course, looking past the hyperbole no objective observer would do likewise, but in view of the faux outrage and self-righteous reaction to Davidson's remarks, what precisely did the MP mean by what he said?

The most obvious meaning of giving someone a 'doing' is to inflict physical violence on them, but I personally doubt if he meant that in the literal sense. Or at least no more than when we perhaps say that someone got 'skewered' or 'crucified' in debate, sport or other competitive environment, or even that they got - or maybe deserved - a good 'hiding' or 'kicking'. Indeed, in relation to Danny Alexander's letter Alex Salmond claimed that the Treasury was “holding a gun to the head of the Scottish Government". Really? Did he call the police? Oh, I see, he was talking figuratively.

Thus although I consider Ian Davidson to be a bit of a clown (no, not because he's funny, or at least in the sense that we're laughing with him rather than at him), a loose cannon (another metaphor, believe it or not!) and that his words were inappropriate, on the other hand the reaction to his remarks has been typically overblown and - for many at least - clearly politically motivated. Hence a rather convenient way to ensure that the predictable conclusions of the select committee's investigation into the SNP's independence referendum are discredited in advance.

In particular, does Dr Whiteford's reaction perhaps demonstrate that she's ill-suited to the rough and tumble of Westminster politics? Why not tell Davidson to 'do one' or at least ask him to clarify his remarks at the time rather than subsequently making a complaint to the Speaker with Angus Robertson holding her hand?

Of course, the obvious response (casual sexism alert!) to that is that Dr Whiteford is a woman (good to know that the feminists still expect us chivalrous males to treat the fairer sex differently) and that there should be zero tolerance towards this kind of thing, blah, blah.

All this smacks of double standards. For example, many of those coming over all zero tolerance in relation to what's said in the House of Commons are the same people shouting 'ethnic cleansing' or 'petty rules and bureaucracy' when travelling (sic!) people are brought to book for riding roughshod over planning laws.

More specifically, it's interesting to compare blogger The Burd's literal interpretation of the disputed phrase (in a call for "zero tolerance") with her own figurative (presumably!) construction and use of the same words in an earlier piece on Scottish politics, as cited by Dave Hewitt in a Caledonian Mercury article:

“Scotland’s political press pack has form here when it comes to its treatment of women politicians. I don’t recall David Steele [sic], George Reid or Alex Fergusson getting a doing after their initial performances convening Holyrood setpieces”; and “But worst of all, was the doing Susan Deacon got on the front page of the Daily Record at the height of the section 2a furore”.

And in relation to violence and intimidation per se, when I drove a taxi in Dundee a few years ago I was regularly threatened (with violence, not a letter from Danny Alexander), but never even considered making any kind of complaint to authority. Indeed, once I was kicked and punched in the head - while the perp's pal caved one of the taxi's doors in - and didn't even report that to police.

Why? Well an obvious lack of evidence in the latter case, but more to the point a lack of confidence in the authorities to do anything about such matters. For example, a few years later I complained to police about an individual who had threatened me on a couple of occasions. This was outwith Dundee, but the officer I spoke to seemed to think I should be able to deal with this myself because I lived in a tough city rather than a one-horse town!

More recently I managed to record on my mobile phone someone threatening me with violence, but a teacher of my acquaintance said it wasn't worth bothering about and that he got that sort of thing "all the time" at work. The powers that be are sometimes not particularly sympathetic to such complaints; they might not fit the narrative.

Indeed the last time I sought the assistance of police - who were standing in the street beside an individual who had earlier been making threatening and abusive remarks towards me - I was totally blanked. The message was obvious: please go away!

Meanwhile, things are different for the upper echelons of politics as compared to the great unwashed and two-bob bloggers. The first of my two favourites in this regard concerns Education Secretary Mike Russell's complaint to police regarding a stroppy email from his erstwhile employee and errant blogger Mark MacLachlan, which resulted in a breach of the peace charge and suggestions of extortion!

The second concerns Dundee's Lord Provost John Letford, who got riot police sent to the door of a city resident who had called him an "embarrassment" in an email!!

Thus excuse me if I'm unsympathetic to the hypocrisy surrounding much of the reaction to a bit of robust debate in a House of Commons committee room, which seems born of oversensitivity and political point scoring rather than proportionality and consistency.

Of course the overblown use and misinterpretation of language is hardly confined to the SNP. Witness, for example, Lib Dem Willie Rennie's recent mention of SNP "intimidation" of businesses and charities, and his claim that this represents a "sinister" development.

Equally, this kind of hyperbole is hardly confined to politics either. For instance, recent proposals for a lap dancing club saw the Dundee Women's Aid group describe this form of 'entertainment' as amounting to "violence against women". Er, hello?

But whatever your opinion on lap dancing and the like, the use of such overblown language distorts the debate and merely ups the rhetorical ante, as indeed does similar exaggeration in the political context. When Alex Salmond raised the supposedly "threatening" Treasury letter a contributor to a certain Scottish 'news' website responded thus:

"I was deeply disappointed when reading a history of Edinburgh to see that all the public hanging spaces in the city have been done away with. Criminals were frequently to be seen tarred and swinging from the Gallows as a public reminder not to err! Frankly, I'm not a football fan and I would much rather of a Saturday, head along to the Mercat Cross to watch a Danny Alexander, traitor to Scotland, swing! If they needed anyone to attach the noose, simply let me know or, would we all have to draw lots?"

Of course, while the hangman's noose is deemed appropriate for someone because of political differences (surely not what Mr Salmond was alluding to a few years ago when he threatened to "hang Westminster by a Scottish rope"), the same contributor is now getting all sanctimonious over silly remarks from an MP.

Thus maybe Mr Swinney should use words like "malicious" and "disturbing" to describe things other than public spending cuts.

And, more generally, perhaps our politicians should mind their language rather than irresponsibly stirring things up and in turn exploit synthetic outrage for partisan ends.

(Note that the above was drafted before Dave Hewitt's article, other than - of course! - the section referring to his Caledonian Mercury piece.)

A final farewell from below the radar screen!

2011-09-30T06:47:00.002+01:00

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)

2011-09-22T06:07:00.000+01:00

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!

2011-09-15T06:24:00.003+01:00

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)

2011-09-14T08:22:00.002+01:00

(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

2011-09-10T07:49:00.001+01:00

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?

2011-09-09T06:51:00.002+01:00

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

2011-09-08T07:33:00.002+01:00

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

2011-09-07T07:28:00.000+01:00

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

2011-09-05T07:36:00.001+01:00

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

2011-09-02T08:39:00.000+01:00

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.

The tram Gathering

2011-08-31T14:27:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

All hail 'certainty in governance'!

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

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

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

Why no Asda 'Roll forward'?

2011-08-31T07:25:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trams: same old, same old

2011-08-29T08:10:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elites, experts and narratives

2011-08-26T07:13:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalking donkey or thoroughbred contender?

2011-08-24T06:48:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expect more taxing questions ahead...

2011-08-23T06:27:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The politically correct Dr Starkey(!)

2011-08-20T08:26:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

Well done that man! Or person.

The Bill resurrected in Dundee!

2011-08-20T07:31:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

Which presumably means they were late for their shift.

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

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

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

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

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

It's that 'community spirit' again!

2011-08-18T06:41:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A statistical crime

2011-08-17T07:12:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The gangsta rap riots?

2011-08-15T08:42:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or:

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

Or:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European uniformity trumps the Scottish national interest?

2011-08-13T10:54:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why no White Riot?

2011-08-11T08:41:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly, in today's Scotsman Michael Kelly says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-08-10T07:16:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like Murdoch, like Souter

2011-08-09T07:25:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But they won't. Of course.

McLeish defending Salmond or McLeish?

2011-08-07T09:04:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotland the banana milkshake republic?

2011-08-05T08:13:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Borrowing an idea from Gordon Brown

2011-08-04T08:07:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, the big unmentionable - borrowing powers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-08-03T07:12:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another big bang in Dundee's Hilltown

2011-08-02T08:23:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A multi-faceted demolition job

2011-08-01T07:52:00.001+01:00

Dundee's Alexander Street multis in the Hilltown area have had their comeuppance. As I live just beyond the edge of the exclusion zone, and am quite high up, I could have had some decent video footage, but since my camera phone is one of the earliest models the poor quality recording isn't worth putting up. However, anyone who's interested can have a lookie via the links to some of the more interesting YouTube videos below.

As a near neighbour of the multis and long-time resident of the area I clearly wanted to witness the big event, and there was a fair bit of information available, including a map of the area and exclusion zone on the Courier's website, together with a Tayside Police Facebook page.

Of course, everyone wanted to know when the necessary would actually take place, but the only timings available were that the exclusion zone was supposed to be evacuated by 10am, and that the demolition was scheduled for around lunchtime, but that would depend on everything going to plan - 'elf and safety, innit? Apart from that there were suggestions on the internet that it was provisionally scheduled for 12:30pm, this information apparently via Radio Tay.

Fair enough, but surely there would be some sort of procedure to alert everyone to what was going on? After all, there were thousands of people standing on the Law Hill and at other vantage points both in Dundee and in Fife - the size and location of the multis meant they could be spotted from numerous locations - and after a few hours gawking at the scene attention could start to wander slightly. Blink and you could miss it, almost literally.

Anyway, I could see the whole thing from my window, so assuming there would be some sort of warning I turned my attention to the EastEnders omnibus (don't worry, I've got it taped!). However, a loud siren sounded at around 12:15, which I assume meant the whole thing would soon be over.

However, after a few minutes I got bored holding the camera up, and decided to try searching for information on demolition timings and warnings etc. After only a minute or two I found the necessary relating to Dundee:

There will be a warning prior to the demolition. There will be a siren sounded 15 minutes before. The siren will sound again further into the countdown and a warning shot will be fired when there is about 30 seconds to go. With regard to the time, the evacuation of residents begins at 8am. There are over 600 houses and a nursing home to evacuate which could take a while. It difficult to say exactly how long this will take given the possibility of delays arising in this process. However, late morning is a reasonable bet, i.e. its pretty unlikely to be before 11am.

Fantastic! The timings weren't bang on(!), but the procedure was. The siren I'd heard was the 15 minute warning, thus the big bang would happen at 12:30pm or so. Therefore I started filming after hearing the warning shot (which is why there's so much noise from the gulls on some of the videos closer to the site - the warning shot had alarmed them!) and the explosion came bang on schedule.

Thus as is so often the case the most important information for a lot of people wasn't readily available, or at least I couldn't find it on either the police's Facebook page or in the Courier. I actually found it - yes, you've guessed it - on MoneySavingExpert.com. Don't know why I didn't think of that in the first place! On the other hand, it's clear from the commentary on some of the video footage that many people did know about the procedure, but where precisely they got that information from is unclear.

Contributors to the Facebook page seem to be almost unanimous in their gushing praise for it. And indeed while there was lots of useful information on it and the contributors obviously liked the interaction of it all, what seemed to me the most important piece of information (at least for those not in the exclusion zone) was missing.

And perhaps it's just me (and I certainly haven't used it much), but a busy Facebook page seems cluttered, clunky and confusing. Why not a simple blog-style site, with obvious links to important information? And anyone minded to could contribute their thoughts via the comments function?

Anyway, here are four YouTube videos of the demolition:

1 From the vantage point of the Law Hill. Bet the person who took this one is a tad annoyed at the kid being lifted up in front of him!

2 From the Fife side of the River Tay. This also clearly shows the remaining two Strathmartine Road multis, which are even more prominent, and are also scheduled for demolition.

3 This shows the cloud of stoor which enveloped the area for a while. Even the summit of the Law Hill - a good mile or so from the demolition site and a good bit higher up - disappeared from view for a while!

4 This is a more professional production, with views from various locations, and most of it represents a reverse perspective with the multis being resurrected rather than taken down! Clever stuff.

Where Tesco meets politics - every gimmick helps!

2011-07-31T07:53:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norway and the SNP

2011-07-29T08:22:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said it, Jenny!

2011-07-28T07:28:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wishart flying kite for independence-lite

2011-07-27T08:18:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mob rule v zero tolerance

2011-07-26T07:19:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*The online version is slightly different.

The View from the political bubble pt 45,239

2011-07-25T07:04:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A further threat to 'independence in Europe'?

2011-07-23T08:13:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where Tom Harris may agree with Kenny MacAskill

2011-07-21T07:51:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Augean stables of public life

2011-07-19T07:01:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The political bubble pt 2: Rank double standards

2011-07-18T07:52:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Out of tune' at a 'sorry site'

2011-07-16T06:54:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011-07-15T09:34:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Toilet in the Park'

2011-07-12T06:56:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salmond, Sir Sean and The Sun

2011-07-10T09:57:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separatism and Newsnet Scotland

2011-07-09T08:16:00.005+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO2ID

2011-07-06T09:30:00.001+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The political bubble pt 1: Sixth-former politics

2011-07-02T08:54:00.000+01:00

Today's Scotsman news article on the Inverclyde by-election highlights a split in the Lib Dem camp following the disastrous performance of candidate Sophie Bridger, who polled a mere 2.2% share of the votes, as compared to the party's 13.3% in 2010.

In the interests of not kicking a party when it's down, it's probably not a good idea to say too much about the private and public grief that is the Lib Dems, but in a nutshell some are blaming the party's Westminster coalition with the Tories generally and Nick Clegg in particular, while in turn the Lib Dem leader's camp thinks they would have done better in Inverclyde if his role in the coalition had been emphasised on the doorsteps rather than being discreetly ignored like some sort of embarrassing relative.

But whatever the reasons for the Lib Dems' performance - the ongoing coalition/Clegg factor, the classic two horse race by-election squeeze etc - what's abundantly clear is that these factors can't wholly account for Ms Bridger's woeful poll figures.

However, surely the elephant in the room in this regard was that Ms Bridger basically came across as not even meriting the pejorative jibe of 'student politics', with perhaps the term Head Girl being more appropriate to the image she projected.

Thus with the public fed up with out of touch politicians and the otherworldliness of the whole process, Sophie Bridger was basically unelectable as regards any voter outwith the hardcore Lib Dem vote.

However, that's not to criticise her substantive performance, if only because the essential irrelevance of the contest nationally and my lack of interest in matters pertaining to Inverclyde meant I didn't really pay much attention to the debate, which would of course have been well below the media radar screen in a general election.

But a local Lib Dem constituency member made it clear in a television interview that for obvious reasons no experienced politician was interested in fighting the seat for them, thus to that extent the result should hardly come as a total surprise, even accounting for the not unexpected steep decline in the party's vote share presaged by May's Holyrood poll. And to that extent Ms Bridger should also be admired for stepping into the breach.

Of course, the obvious comparison regarding Ms Bridger is the still youthful but effective former "Baby of the House" Jo Swinson MP, and indeed it might only be a few years until the former is elected to parliament herself.

But in the meantime the public seem unlikely to choose as their representative in parliament someone who seems more like the jumped up school prefect than someone with gravitas and experience, irrespective of whether appearances can be deceiving.

Logic deficit on GERS

2011-07-01T06:18:00.001+01:00

SNP policy guru Stephen Noon is right to highlight the importance of the recently published Government and Expenditure Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures, not to mention the efficacy of getting the quantification methodology right, although clearly he outlines these matters with a partisan axe to grind.

Similarly, Alex Orr underlines the fact that Scotland's putative public spending deficit is marginally better than that of the UK generally, but at least the Westminster government has acknowledged the need to get this under control.

On the other hand, the SNP wants to see a Scotland with fiscal policies like slashed corporation tax, significantly reduced fuel duty and tax breaks to favoured sectors such as the computer games industry. At the same time it is clearly reluctant to raise income tax or council taxes, or to impose a windfall tax on oil companies. Meanwhile, it makes lavish spending commitments such as free higher education for all students based in Scotland.

In that context it surely ill behoves the Nationalists to favourably compare Scotland's deficit to that of the UK. No wonder the SNP is so keen for Scotland to have borrowing powers.

Moreover, Mr Orr highlights the role of oil revenues in an independent Scotland, but this merely underlines yet another future drain on Scotland's public purse, namely the subsidy-hungry renewables industry and the SNP's barely credible targets in that regard, which would also entail a stealth tax on consumers in the form of rocketing energy bills.

And the SNP's attempts to depict themselves as the planet's environmental saviours while at the same time portraying oil as the key to Scotland's future shows that the party wants to have its renewables cake and eat it.

(The latter part of the above was sent as a response to Mr Orr's letter in the Courier.)

Fuelling zero price transparency

2011-06-29T08:01:00.000+01:00

No doubt my recent post bemoaning Tesco's cynical price rise and marketing gimmick regarding its Cola Zero product has been the talk of the steamie. But for those in need of a reminder, the two litre product had been retailing at around 45p, while a hefty rise a few weeks ago had increased the price by 10p or so. And more recently this had rocketed to 78p, with even an accompanying three for two offer leaving the basic price well above what it had been until relatively recently.

Not to worry though, because there are other large supermarkets and competition is intense, what with price wars and all that malarkey. Indeed, Tesco's main rival locally is Asda, and the Scotsman reported thus earlier this week in the context of the price of fuel at the forecourts:

Andy Peake, Asda's petrol director, said: "Customers shouldn't have to buy into gimmicks and promotions to benefit from cheaper petrol - no-one should have to pay a premium on food to lower the cost of fuel. Once again, Asda is leading the way in saving drivers money and, in only 72 hours, we've taken up to 5p a litre off the cost of filling up."

Obviously Asda has a rival product to Tesco's Cola Zero and its "every little helps" philosophy (although how that squares with a near doubling of the price in a few weeks is anyone's guess), thus I thought I would give that a try, bolstered by the former's ethos on petrol pricing.

Surprise, surprise, Asda's cola product had also been ratcheted up to 78p, thus identical to the Tesco price, and to add insult to injury there was no three for two offer.

Hence hardly consistent with Asda's waffle regarding fuel prices, but of course it's quite normal for the large retailers to price match like this, with the supposed intense competition between these behemoths often being little more than a misleading marketing gimmick itself.

Naturally price matching like this might be indicative of a price-fixing cartel, but one theory is that in an 'oligopoly' dominated by a small number of big players there is little incentive to compete on price. A simple theory is that if one charged cheaper prices then the others would just follow to retain their customers, while if one charged higher prices then it would lose all its customers. Thus charging higher or lower prices than competitors is pointless, so the tendency is to price match.

Thus when Asda claims to be leading the way in saving its customers money it might just as well be claiming to be leading the way so that its competitors follow.

Political shift, legal status quo?

2011-06-28T06:50:00.001+01:00

It was interesting to listen to Kenny MacAskill on BBC Radio Scotland following yesterday's interim report from the expert group set up to review the UK Supreme Court's relationship with the Scottish criminal justice system in the wake of the Cadder and Fraser cases.

The group, set up by Alex Salmond, is recommending that the 'asymmetry' between the Scottish and English systems be ended, thus access to the UKSC on human rights grounds would require leave from Scotland's criminal courts, as is currently the case in England. But politically it is axiomatic that the group is not proposing that UKSC be bypassed completely in favour of direct access to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Nevertheless, the language and tone adopted by both the first minister and justice secretary following the Fraser ruling seems to have been replaced by a more conciliatory approach, with Mr MacAskill eschewing talk of UKSC intervening "aggressively", "ambulance chasing lawyers" and the ridiculing of its judges' knowledge of Scots law in favour of an almost welcoming approach to the expert group's recommendations.

But the justice secretary conceded that even if the Cadder case had gone to the ECHR then the decision of that court on the human rights convention would have been substantively similar to that of UKSC.

Hence Mr Salmond's formation of the expert group managed to douse the political flames engulfing him and Mr MacAskill following their rather intemperate remarks, and its recommendations have enabled them to deflect attention from those earlier events and now strike a more diplomatic tone, but as was the case at the outset it's not entirely clear what substantive advantage would be conferred by the SNP's preferred solution of displacing UKSC's jurisdiction entirely with that of ECHR.

But yesterday Mr MacAskill reiterated the point that the considerably longer timeframe associated with an ECHR referral would allow the requisite changes to be made to Scotland's criminal justice system at a more considered pace as compared to the emergency legislation necessitated by the UKSC's Cadder ruling. As indeed - as he later made clear on Newsnicht - would be the case under a reformed relationship with UKSC, thus neither court could "open cell doors", using the phraseology employed earlier by Mr Salmond.

But how would this work in practice? Does this mean that Holyrood would make changes to Scots criminal law while waiting for an ECHR judgement, even when any changes required could obviously not be known until the judgement is delivered? Or if an ECHR judgement several years down the line found that a convicted criminal's human rights had been breached, could they remain in jail until whatever remedy Holyrood deemed necessary was enacted, with perhaps MSPs' lenghty summer holidays taking precedence over the rights of someone denied a fair trial?

Thus with the various different opinions from our learned friends on the practical effects of all this bringing to mind that old joke about umpteen economists proffering umpteen different perspectives on the same scenario, even if the procedural inconsistency between Scotland and England was ironed out it remains to be seen precisely what advantage would be conferred by ECHR over UKSC, other than placating the SNP's innate dislike of the UK as compared to their more favourable disposition towards all things European.

However, as well as Mr MacAskill's self-evidently more moderate approach, the Scotsman also reports thus: "A spokesman for the First Minister declined to say whether the Scottish Government "still hoped to see appeals heard in Strasbourg rather than London, saying the government would "take things a step at a time"."

Which arguably reflects the SNP's more accommodating stance towards the UK generally as regards the forthcoming referendum and what voters will consider palatable in respect of Scotland's future in the Union.

Alex hung Roseanna out to dry?

2011-06-26T07:22:00.000+01:00

Contrasting the Westminster coalition's U-turn on prison sentences last week with the SNP Government's Holyrood volte-face on the anti-sectarianism legislation, Duncan Hamilton quotes Ken Clarke as saying that U-turns should always "be performed with purpose and panache when you have to do them".

The SNP supporting Scotland on Sunday columnist says that while the SNP's change in direction had purpose, it was devoid of panache: "Sending Roseanna Cunningham into the Chamber to defend, with her usual vigour, the necessity of immediate action before the start of the next football season, only to then have the First Minister perform a handbrake turn wasn't political management of the highest order."

But didn't the way it was handled limit any political damage to the First Minister, while leaving the hapless Ms Cunningham to carry the can?

After all, if the justice minister had made the announcement prior to FMQs that would have allowed the opposition leaders to maximise Alex Salmond's discomfiture on the eleventh hour U-turn. Likewise, if the First Minister had defended the legislative timetable at FMQs, then to subsequently announce the more measured approach would have provided an open goal for opponents and the press.

However, by announcing the change in direction under the FMQs' spotlight Mr Salmond managed to both sound statesmanlike and nonplus the opposition leaders. As the Peat Worrier says: "It also made for a bizarre edition of FMQs, with Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Willie Rennie left flailing, totally wrong-footed - their raft of critical questions about the detail of the Bill suddenly losing their political vitality."

Or as Alan Cochrane says in the Telegraph, it was a "masterful piece of politicking by the First Minister".

Thus from the perspective of Ken Clarke's statement, the SNP's U-turn was surely performed with purpose and panache, at least from Mr Salmond's perspective, if not the SNP Government as a whole, and regarding Roseanna Cunningham in particular. The precise timing of and venue for the announcement allowed the First Minster to maximise his political advantage while at the same time limiting any damage.

But in any case Duncan Hamilton says last week's events at Holyrood demonstrated the First Minister's adherence to the 'Prestonfield principle', thus "pledging a consensual, respectful and intelligent approach to governing".

Except, of course, in relation to his own minister. As Cochers says: "All serious politicians have only one answer to the question: "What are junior ministers for, if you can't let them down?""

In defence of Indygal's defensiveness on defence

2011-06-25T06:47:00.000+01:00

It's about time the politicians and media stopped giving completely disproportionate attention to by-elections. For a start, how about banning past and present elected members of either parliament from visiting the constituency? Or stopping the likes of STV's Politics Noo from devoting a whole programme to the candidates interrogating each other?

Of course, it won't happen, because the status quo suits all concerned, and the public can largely ignore the whole thing and carry on regardless.

Anyway, Thursday night's offering on the Inverclyde by-election was always one to watch in bed, if only because I usually watch the programme on STV+1 just before midnight so I can also see if there's anything interesting on Newsnicht earlier, but mainly because the bedclothes would be useful for hiding under at the inevitably cringeworthy moments, and I'm not just talking about the usual 'fighting for jobs, pensioners and hard-working families' soundbites.

However, I felt a bit sorry for the SNP's Anne McLaughlin - Indygal in the MacBlogosphere - who couldn't really be blamed for her inability to answer presenter Bernard Ponsonby's fairly straightforward questions on defence in an independent Scotland.

After all, despite defence being a reserved matter and the by-election in question being for a Westminster constituency, and despite one of the SNP's constant campaign themes being the retention of defence jobs in Scotland, and despite the SNP's several decade raison d'être being an independent Scotland, and despite four years at the Holyrood helm thinking about an independence referendum, and despite the promise of a referendum during the party's second Holyrood term, the SNP bigwigs clearly don't have much of a clue about how an independent Scotland would be defended.

Indeed, such is the SNP's lack of clarity about what an independent Scotland would look like, it's of course still not entirely clear whether an independent Scotland's defence capability would be independent at all.

Thus poor old Anne was left to carry the can and eventually revert to the "whatever Scotland needs" non-response - redolent of Nicola Sturgeon's "best interests of Scotland" reply on the sterling/euro question - but at least she was otherwise reasonably honest: she didnae ken!

But fortunately Bernard Ponsonby had the good sense not to utter the n-word in the defence context, since that would surely have precipitated an outpouring of righteous indignation from the SNP candidate.

Instead that was reserved primarily for the possibility of compulsory redundancies at Labour-run Inverclyde Council.

But what about SNP-controlled Fife, led by Peter Grant? Of course, once upon a time Mr Grant also had high hopes in a by-election as well...

Zero transparency

2011-06-24T07:14:00.003+01:00

About a year ago I developed a bit of a thing for extra mature cheddar on toast washed down by low calorie coke, in fact a whole two litres of the stuff. And as regards the latter I quite liked Tesco's Cola Zero, which retailed at forty-something pence, so was a good deal.

Of course, shoppers will have noticed some huge price increases in recent months, and indeed some of Tesco's pricing is bizarre at the best of times, so it often pays to pay close attention. Thus my Cola Zero seemed to be edging up in price by a penny or so all too often, and then a few weeks ago it suddenly rocketed to something like 56p, hence a rise of around 20%.

Which put me off buying it slightly, particularly as two litres of coke in half an hour or so is perhaps excessive for someone weighing nine stone-something - OK, all that cheese on toast has made me gain a few pounds and I'm now over ten stone - and it's certainly not advisable if you won't have access to toilet facilities for the next few hours.

Nevertheless, in true Tesco style the 20% price rise was soon followed by a 'buy two, get one free' offer, thus it was game on again for the bulging bladder!

Wait, though. The three for two offer detracted attention from yet another price rise - a further 40% had been added to the basic price, hence a rise from 56p to 78p! Thus even with the stupendous mega bargain deal the price was still significantly higher than it was a year or so ago.

Another one I noticed recently was the price of Tesco's Value range lavy roll* (OK, I'm not fussy, and my budget is limited). The price of a four-pack seemed to rocket a few months ago, resulting in a pack price of £1.20, which if my recollection of the previous price is correct means that it had more or less doubled.

Not to worry, though, because in true Tesco style the twelve-packs weren't much dearer, so it was a bit of a no-brainer - twelve rolls rather than four for little more cost.

However, one day subsequently I was sitting in a, er, contemplative environment and noticed that the hole through the middle of the roll seemed to have increased in size significantly. So I checked the packaging and it transpired that the twelve-pack rolls comprised only 200 sheets, as compared to 400 sheets in the four-pack rolls.

Thus while the packs gave the impression of comparing the price of four rolls with twelve, in actual fact the four rolls were effectively comparable with six in the bigger pack. So while buying the bigger pack seemed significantly better value, the reality was that the price per, ahem, wipe was largely similar.

The moral of all this of course being that the figures being bandied about in relation to the Edinburgh trams fiasco should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Or several pints of coke.

Marketing gimmicks and political spin. Not much difference, just a change of environment.

*Officially 'toilet tissue', terminology which I doubt the average purchaser of the Value range uses much.

A Morrissey gig and that sectarianism crackdown

2011-06-23T06:39:00.002+01:00

No, this post isn't about long-standing allegations that Morrisey is racist, or his unfortunate association with English nationalism; let's not go there. Instead it's partly about my experience at last week's Moz gig at Perth's Concert Hall, the first in his 2011 tour.

Sat up in the balcony I extracted my elderly low-tech mobile phone to take a couple of photos, which seems to be accepted practice at such events these days. Although such photos that I've taken in the past are usually blurred and generally of poor quality, I knew that if I took a few then the camera's autofocus would get it right once or twice, despite its difficulty in doing so in such poor light scenarios.

But before I'd managed to take more than a couple a member of staff had put a halt to my endeavours. Which was doubly annoying because there were plenty of other people taking photos and videos unhindered, and many of the latter can be found on YouTube. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people managed to video the whole gig, and using equipment self-evidently far more sophisticated than my own.

I daresay others were also stopped from recording the event, but there was certainly significantly more evidence of people flouting the ban - assuming one actually existed - than of staff stopping them.

So why was I 'persecuted' in this way, to use the language often deployed by those subject to selective or arbitrary law enforcement.

Of course, in the wider context of law enforcement such behaviour can be rationalised in several different ways. For example, political posturing; to provide a more general deterrent; the 'revenue raising' argument when a fine is levied; a box-ticking exercise; the 'easy target' scenario; or perhaps arbitrary enforcement based on something like racism (or, as a corollary, avoiding enforcement against someone who might 'play the race card'). Or perhaps the individual or agency performing the enforcement is untypically zealous - the 'little Hitler'-style scenario - or poor communication means that they lack awareness of the rules being policed or established enforcement practice.

Hence at Perth's Concert Hall there was clearly no revenue raising rationale and there didn't seem to be much in the way of a general deterrent. Thus perhaps sat near the end of the aisle I was an easy target, while those near to the stage in the standing area downstairs - where there was clearly plenty of video recording going on - were a more difficult proposition as regards being brought to book. Perhaps the member of staff was ignorant of the rules and enforcement practice, had an attitude problem or just didn't like the cut of my jib.

All of which brings to mind the Government's crackdown on sectarianism, and in particular the much-maligned bill currently making its way through the Holyrood legislative process at a pace that by the usual standards of these things seems positively frenetic.

The learned Peat Worrier has expressed his extreme legal and political scepticism on the proposed law over several posts, an excoriative Alex Massie examines the bill in the context of sectarian sing-songs, while Ideas of Civilisation highlights the unseemly political haste regarding the process. Last week academic Stuart Waiton (no misspelt relation!) lambasted the proposals from a libertarian perspective, while yesterday's Scotsman lead story examined the possibility that singing God Save the Queen or Flower of Scotland could come within the ambit of the proposed offence of offensive sectarian behavior (rather than offending against good taste!). Kenneth Roy of the Scottish Review represents a rare voice among the commentariat in actually supporting the measure.

But the political context of the bill and the obvious difficulties regarding definition and enforcement perhaps suggests that the legislation is more about kneejerk political posturing and subsequent gesture policing as a reaction to a few adverse newspaper headlines during a particular period rather than genuinely attempting to address the problem. Indeed, that's not to say that the politicians aren't genuine in their intent - for example, thinking that the law per se would provide sufficient deterrent without much enforcement required (like the smoking ban in pubs, say) - but the obvious lack of clarity about how the new law would be enforced in practice perhaps demonstrates that it mightn't be enforced much at all.

And as regards any enforcement per se it could well be largely similar to the Morrissey scenario, thus while most carry on with their sectarian misbehaviour regardless, one or two individuals will be picked on to prove some kind of political/policing point and will thus feel persecuted and resentful. In effect, then, the legislation could serve little useful purpose other than to make the authorities look as if they're doing something - anything - and by the same token they will subsequently do their best to portray the introduction of the measure as a resounding success.

Also interesting is to assume that ongoing law enforcement difficulties in this regard could be addressed by the new law, and to compare this to the SNP's approach to another - and not unrelated - of Scotland's major problems, namely that of alcohol abuse and related crime.

Thus in the latter case the approach is not to deal with enforcement difficulties regarding longstanding laws, but instead to take an indirect approach to the problem by way of minimum pricing for alcohol.

In the context of football-related sectarianism the equivalent approach might be to raise the gate prices of Old Firm matches or the level of Sky Sports subscriptions. Which might alleviate the problem of sectarianism slightly - indeed perhaps more so than the proposed law would in practice - but in the wider context of the problem would be next to useless.

And indeed whenever the words crackdown or clampdown are associated with a particular issue it often alludes to years of failure to address a problem and then a portrayal that the powers that be are doing everyone a favour by riding to the rescue, only for things to revert to normal in short order. Until the next crackdown, that is.

But of course there's no end to posturing and gestures in politics.

(The Morrissey photo - not that you can tell! - represents the best of my efforts before I was rudely interrupted. Incidentally, I last saw him live as frontman of The Smiths in Dundee the best part of 30 years ago. Which thought makes me feel very old! And no comments please suggesting a link between Morrissey and this blog's 'miserablism', as Gerry Hassan might term it!)

The new Scotland?

2011-06-21T07:09:00.001+01:00

Somehow the media managed to find out about Donald Trump's low-profile visit yesterday to his under construction "best golf course in the world", hence there's a fair bit of stuff about it in today's newspapers. But from the purely political perspective it was interesting to hear Mr Trump's remarks on last night's STV News:

We are really honoured by Alex Salmond...what he's done...just to make sure that Trump and other people come to this country, and that means jobs and it means economic development, so Alex has been fantastic and Sean Connery came out in favour early on when it wasn't in vogue, and I will always appreciate Sean, he's a great man, he's a great guy.

Gosh, wasn't the first minister supposed to have nothing to do with the planning decision, and didn't he get into trouble over suggestions of undue influence?

Of course, Mr Salmond countered these claims at the time by saying that he was only acting in his capacity as an MSP showing an interest in a matter of importance in his constituency. But Mr Trump's remarks certainly seem to suggest that his role in the granting of planning permission to build a slice of the USA in Scotland was more significant than conceded at the time.

On the other hand, 'The Donald' does seem to have a propensity to haver at times, thus also saying in the interview that the "small controversy with literally a couple of people" had helped publicise his venture, and that "the people of Aberdeen, the people of Scotland love it". Well perhaps those objecting to Trumpland are disproportionately vocal as compared to their actual strength, and the significant numbers supporting the project - if not Donald Trump per se - are maybe more inclined to keep their heads down, but Mr Trump's statement certainly exaggerates the support while understating the opposition.

But - and continuing yesterday's theme of money, power and influence in Scottish politics - it's interesting to note the juxtaposition of the first minister with Donald Trump, and with SNP supporter Sir Sean Connery thrown into the mix for good measure. Thus the wealthy tax exile and knight bachelor is here Trumped by the filthy rich rapacious capitalist American.

And even more interesting is that Mr Trump wants Sir Sean and Mr Salmond to open his shiny new golf course next year, which would neatly crystallise the juxtaposition.

Which would in turn either neatly represent the new Scotland that the first minister wants to portray and thus help pave the way to winning that independence referendum, or would represent a PR disaster for Mr Salmond and the SNP.

Thus something of a Souter-esque dilemma for the Nationalists, and indeed Telegraph readers might be forgiving for thinking that the three online articles centred around yesterday's visit are being used as a stick to beat the first minister, even though Mr Salmond's name is only mentioned once.

Or perhaps yours truly is just imagining too many conspiracy theories!

He who pays the piper...

2011-06-20T07:41:00.001+01:00

Pro-independence columnist Duncan Hamilton recently invoked the words of Burns regarding spending in the forthcoming referendum campaign. Recalling 1707, the bard wrote that many were "bought and sold for English gold". Mr Hamilton says "the Scottish Government seem determined it won't happen again", comparing Burns' words to the claim that "apparently a raft of southern donors will dig deep to save the Union".

Thus Mr Hamilton cites the Scottish Government's proposals from the last parliament which make it plain that spending will be closely regulated by a new and independent body called the Scottish Electoral Commission*.

But this seems a slightly hypocritical point to make in view of the SNP's reliance on wealthy donors during both the 2007 and 2011 Holyrood campaigns, with the size of the Nationalist war chest - and consequent gloss and glamour - being widely regarded as instrumental to the party's electoral success.

Thus there clearly seems to be a different approach to buying democracy in a parliamentary election as compared to a referendum on independence. So why would the SNP be willing to risk opprobrium by taking the likes of Brian Souter's shilling in the Holyrood context in view of his bigo..er, socially conservative views - which seem at odds with concepts like civic nationalism and inclusiveness - while presumably being unwilling to accept similar largesse to campaign for a 'yes' vote on independence?

Well perhaps Mr Souter's recent acceptance of a knighthood from our colonial masters in London shows which way the wind is blowing as regards his contribution to a campaign for Scottish independence. And of course some of those who provided support previously in the hope of an SNP administration in Edinburgh may be less willing to contribute to the break up of the Union.

Thus since the Holyrood campaigns indicate that the SNP is no more principled on the matter of campaign donations than any of the other major parties, perhaps the proposal to control spending in the referendum context is simply an opportunistic recognition that in this particular contest the SNP's opponents are likely to amass a bigger war chest.

However, an article in this morning's Scotsman says the Tories are complaining that the proposed Scottish Referendum Commission* will "hardly inspire confidence" because it will be monitoring spending rather than the UK's established Electoral Commission. Annabel Goldie echoes Duncan Hamilton's invocation of Burns, but instead cites Kenny MacAskill's recent warning to the UK's Supreme Court that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

But this is said in the context of news that the late makar Edwin Morgan has bequeathed almost £1 million to the SNP, and the Scotsman's article suggests this is "expected to be the first of many large donations coming the party's way as it gears up for the referendum".

So if the SNP is going to be able to amass a significant referendum war chest anyway, then what precisely would the new commission be controlling? If it's the level of expenditure, then presumably this will just be set at the SNP's desired amount to ensure the Unionists don't exceed it.

On the other hand, Duncan Hamilton's reference to Burns' "English gold" and to the origin of donations points to something other than the amount of expenditure.

Thus perhaps the intention is that donations from the rest of the UK will be disallowed, but those from a so-called homophobe, subsidy-junkie cronies, tax exiles and recipients of the awards and baubles from the residue of the British Empire will be OK.

Or if the donations keep rolling in then perhaps the SNP won't regard the regulation of expenditure as quite so important after all.

*The nomenclature in the two articles is slightly different, but presumably they're talking about the same thing.

A question of balance

2011-06-16T07:32:00.002+01:00

(Published as a letter in today's Scotsman)

Finance secretary John Swinney (Letters, 15 June) states that his SNP administration has "run a balanced budget every single year". But the Scottish Government can't borrow money and thus has to balance the budget, so would it have mattered which party or coalition formed the administration?

And Mr Swinney wants his government to have borrowing powers, thus he's making a virtue of balanced budget necessity when he actually wants to put Scotland into debt.

Indeed, Mr Swinney was more than happy to indulge in the spending spree that contributed to what he calls "Westminster's economic incompetence in racking up record debt", and of course he'd have spent even more given the chance.

I can't really recall the SNP complaining about Westminster's ballooning debt when Holyrood was spending the money.

Debt delusion

2011-06-14T07:23:00.001+01:00

Reacting to yesterday's Scotsman story that an Institute of Economic Affairs report had estimated Scotland's post-independence share of UK debt at £110 billion - putting it on a par with Greece and Portugal - Margo MacDonald today claims that this is the "best argument for independence" and the sum would be "worth the end of the UK". Says the independent MSP: "The IEA is saying that we would have an economy like Portugal or Greece, while I would point out that it's the British government that has been running Scotland's economy and the state they've got it into is the best argument for independence there is."

Funny that it's the SNP who take the credit for running Scotland's economy when it's good news, but the British Government takes the blame when it's bad. Thus a bit like the Andy Murray 'British when winning, Scottish when losing' thing in reverse.

Anyway, the point regarding the UK's appalling debt levels - and now for the technical bit - is that it's all down to government spending in excess of government revenues. And Scotland has had its fair share of this largesse, hence the doubling in public spending since Holyrood's inception. And of course the SNP supported this and indeed wanted more, as broken manifesto spending promises from 2007 indicated. And now they shift the blame when the bills have to be paid.

But that's why an independent Scotland would have to shoulder its fair share of the UK's national debt. And in the meantime the SNP Government is been granted borrowing powers by Westminster. Naturally, Alex Salmond and Co want more. Debt, that is, although it's normally dressed up as 'borrowing for investment', or suchlike.

So Margo acknowledges the problem of Scotland's share of UK debt, but wholly blames the latter, while Scotland is taking on as much additional new debt as it can.

Of course, she predictably points out how well off Scotland would have been with all the North Sea oil revenues, but 300 years of post-Union hindsight is a wonderful thing, and now we're moving from the cash cow of oil to subsidy hungry renewables, or are the SNP just making a virtue of dwindling oil reserves necessity on this issue?

Equally, there's nothing wrong with government borrowing during a recession with a view to paying off the debt in better times, but something just doesn't add up with the SNP's low tax/high spend vision for Scotland.

Of course, it was Gordon Brown who demonstrated the folly of such a delusional strategy, but even despite the legacy of this the UK still has a triple-A credit rating. On the other hand, Ireland's borrowings cost several times more than the UK's to service, and of course it had to call in the EU and IMF when its debt became unmanageable.

The danger for Scotland is perhaps that Alex Salmond still thinks of Ireland as being part of the arc of prosperity.

Scotland trumps principles

2011-06-12T09:22:00.002+01:00

Amidst the lack of both realism and economic rigour surrounding the SNP's proposal for a lower corporation tax rate to attract investment to Scotland, the supposed progressives in the Nationalist movement seem to have conveniently forgotten the stock response to such measures, namely that it's done by business-oriented parties on behalf of their corporate cronies. Thus if George Osborne had been proposing such a measure UK-wide you can imagine the reaction from many supporters of Scottish independence.

Indeed, the same could be said about SNP support for the oil industry and Alex Salmond's recent proposal that oil companies should be guaranteed a specified rate of return on their investment, which seems to be a convoluted way of saying that they would be guaranteed a profit. Thus all very moral hazard-ish, but certainly sounds better for public consumption than underwriting their profits. But at least this demonstrates the paradoxical air about the SNP wanting to lead the world in the renewables revolution while oil companies are encouraged to extract every last marginal drop of the dirty black stuff from the North Sea.

But in any case the general point was made by opposition MSP Neil Findlay at the most recent FMQs, when he reminded the first minister of the time when as a firebrand new MP 23 years ago he branded the then Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson's budget speech pledge to reduce the rate of corporation tax an "obscenity", leading to Alex Salmond's suspension from the House of Commons.

Mr Salmond refuted this, claiming he was referring to something else, but the point of principle was nevertheless well made by Mr Findlay. But irrespective of what actually happened in the Commons all those years ago, the air of hypocrisy surrounding all this was neatly demonstrated in the related question by new SNP MSP John Mason, who asked: "Does [the first minister] agree with Jim McColl [OBE] of Clyde Blowers Capital, whose company works around the world in many taxation systems and who says it has no problems with a reduced rate of corporation tax in Scotland?"

In fact I've paraphrased this slightly and Mr Mason actually said that Clyde Blowers Capital has "no problem operating in different tax systems", which is about as useful as asking whether a business or individual would like to pay a lower rate of tax, but of course spinning us a different - and less obviously self-serving - line.

Indeed, as a Chartered Accountant Mr Mason will also be more than aware that the SNP-supporting Jim McColl OBE is resident in Monaco for tax purposes, thus clearly has no problem "operating in different tax systems", the rationale of course being to maximise his personal wealth, thus underlining the true nature of Mr Mason's question.

And indeed Mr McColl is also an OBE (did I mention that?) which it should be recalled stands for Order of the British Empire, thus it's good to know that endorsement of the remnants of imperialism is still alive and well in the Scottish Nationalist ranks. Which of course we all knew already à la Sir Sean Connery, who scurried off abroad rather than pay tax here and fight for his principles, unlike Iain Gray (say).

All of which may hardly seem worth mentioning, but of course the big news in imperial Scotland this weekend is that SNP sugar daddy Brian Souter has been knighted for his services to the paradoxical position of being a predatory capitalist and subsidy junkie at the same time. Or something like that.

But all this merely underlines that the transformation of Scotland supposedly ushered in by last month's SNP victory at Holyrood is a mere fantasy, as indeed the Scottish Parliament itself has arguably demonstrated since its inception a dozen or so years ago.

And that prominent Nationalists are still prepared to accept Her Majesty the Queen's titles and baubles when it suits merely underlines that Scotland will always be a mini-me version of Westminster, independent or not, and that's even before considering the issue of corporate cronies and the like.

Thus when Scotland and nationalism is at stake then clearly this trumps any notion of ideals or principles. And speaking of Trumps....

Mandate for what?

2011-06-11T07:03:00.006+01:00

Politicians don't half haver some nonsense at times, and an exemplar of this was provided by the first minster last week regarding his London trip to demand more Scottish Government powers be devolved from Westminster. The Scotsman reported thus:

At the JMC meeting yesterday, Mr Salmond made it clear to the Prime Minister that the SNP had "an overwhelming mandate" from the Scottish Parliament election, having won a majority for its six demands to be included in the Scotland Bill.

He said: "I put forward the six points as improvements and enhancements to the Scotland Bill. These are not just SNP points, they are not even just Scottish Parliament points, but the view of the people of Scotland."

An "overwhelming mandate"? Well less than one in four of the electorate endorsed the SNP last month, and as pointed out here there are good reasons to suggest that many voted for Mr Salmond's party for negative rather than positive reasons.

But having endorsed the SNP, what precisely were voters providing a mandate for? No doubt Mr Salmond's six demands were detailed somewhere during the campaign, but it's surely stretching credulity to suggest that this was the "view of the people of Scotland". It seems unlikely that, if asked why they endorsed the SNP, the average voter would answer something along the lines of: "Inter alia, I'd like to see corporation tax and excise duty devolved to Holyrood, along with broadcasting powers. Oh aye, a guaranteed greater role for Scottish ministers in EU discussions as well, and the Crown Estates revenue is a 'tartan line' issue. And borrowing powers would be braw as well, ken?"

Dinnae think so somehow. I certainly can't really recall these issues being addressed during the campaign, and while far from being an expert I probably pay more attention to these things than the vast majority of the "people of Scotland".

And this election leaflet (for example) probably contains many more pledges than the average SNP voter could articulate as a voting rationale, but there's certainly no mention of any of Mr Salmond's six demands.

Similarly, in a Scotsman opinion piece the SNP's George Kerevan says: "But sensible folk do accept that such an overwhelming mandate indicates the Scottish electorate wants more powers transferred to Holyrood."

Again the characterisation of an "overwhelming mandate" is questionable, but Mr Kerevan rightly points out that opinion polls suggest a clear majority want more powers devolved.

However, the hugely sophisticated Scottish electorate will be aware that the devolution of powers to Holyrood is for Westminster to decide, and at the last vote for the latter parliament the SNP polled how much compared to the Calman parties?

Thus presumably the real "overwhelming mandate" for the transfer of more powers to Holyrood is for the Calman proposals as per the Scotland Bill currently being considered by Westminster.

But at least Mr Kerevan has the grace to conclude: "The SNP won an overwhelming victory in the Scottish Parliament elections. [...] I'm happy to accept it was not a direct vote for the break-up of the UK."

But one Scottish blogger, in relation to the stushie on the independence referendum, says: "A great and legitimate expectancy has been created by the mandate given to the nationalists on May 6th 2011". And in a slightly sinister tone talks about India, Kenya, Rhodesia and Ireland, and the more recent Middle East "revolution", in the context of Unionists "playing with fire" as regards "overplaying their hand" and being "deliberately provocative" in opposing independence.

Of course, this has to be seen in the light of only around 23% of Scots voting SNP for the devolved government, and it wouldn't be surprising if only two thirds of these actually support independence. Thus this "great and legitimate expectancy", seemingly justifying some sort of direct action if thwarted, is based on the support of perhaps 16% of the electorate. And of those, how many share the, er, passion on independence that perhaps explains (if not excuses) this decidedly radical perspective? Relative to the electorate as a whole, little more than a small coterie, I suspect.

Indeed, and apropos yesterday's post about the possibility of a 'third way' option on the ballot paper which would preserve the Union, Mr Kerevan says: "[The Unionist parties] will seek to keep the question limited to "For" or "Against", ruling out a confederal third option of fiscal autonomy within the Union. It will be the old, "imperial" default position of keeping power at the centre."

It seems to be this kind of Unionist spoiling tact that the good blogger thinks could lead to some kind of "Scots summer". Ironically, however, the possibility of the third option suggested by Mr Kerevan - which would very probably preserve the Union - could well tip our blogger over the edge.

Paradoxically, therefore, he could well prefer the kind of simple question on retaining the UK apparently being considered by David Cameron, rather than the triple-option that Mr Salmond and Mr Kerevan seem to be suggesting.

Salmond the Union's saviour?

2011-06-10T06:54:00.001+01:00

One (baby) elephant in the room during the most recent days of discussion on that referendum was the omission of any mention of a third option on the ballot paper, since that alternative was included when the SNP Government published its Bill during the last parliament. The most recent debate has generally assumed a simple choice between the status quo and independence, with the big unknown being precisely what the latter would amount to.

But today's Scotsman lead story is highlighting the possibility/probability of a third option again, this based on comments made yesterday by Alex Salmond. Thus Scots could chose to lead the country towards either independence-lite or the full monty. And according to Tom Peterkin's article. the middle way would represent something a bit closer to the status quo than my understanding of what independence-lite amounted to:

However, most analysts agreed that independence-lite would be a settlement similar to what used to be known as Home Rule, with Scotland remaining in the Union yet having power over domestic affairs including the vast majority of tax-raising powers and benefits. Policies such as defence and foreign affairs would remain with Westminster.

Which seems closer to my perception of full fiscal autonomy or devo-max than independence-lite, but it's not clear from the article whether this interpretation is based on Mr Salmond's remarks, or merely what the analysts think it will amount to. On the other hand, if the third option is to be proffered as an alternative to full independence then presumably it would have to be demonstrably distinct from it, hence pushing the option towards FFA or devo-max.

Of course, rebranding these latter two options as independence-lite would allow Mr Salmond to continue to associate himself with the i-word. But while this third way would certainly make a referendum more winnable for the SNP (in view of the established desire of the Scottish electorate for more Holyrood powers), on the other hand it would probably be detrimental to support for the full independence option.

Which would be consistent with Mr Salmond's gradualist agenda, albeit that assuming it paved the road to full independence this presumably would only happen once the first minster had relinquished control of his party.

But this interpretation of independence-lite would see the Union remain intact, thus however Mr Salmond dressed it up there would be a considerable element of discontent within the Nationalist movement.

Thus his essential problem is a delicate balancing act between the public and the fundamentalists. He has to water down independence sufficiently to attract public support, while if he takes this too far then he could split the hardcore Nationalist movement, which would in turn not impress the electorate more generally. Hence in trying to win the public round in one way, he could end up alienating them in another.

Meanwhile, in this regard it's interesting that the Telegraph reports that David Cameron is considering the possibility of a more straightforward Westminster-organised referendum if Mr Salmond "tries to confuse voters with a complex series of choices", and the prime minister's move is presumably what the first minister refers to as an "imperial seizing of questions" in the Scotsman.

Which indeed might explain why Mr Salmond has highlighted the possibility of three options on the ballot paper: perhaps he thinks that if Mr Cameron was goaded into organising a referendum then that would play into pro-independence hands.

Of course, if the issue continues to dominate the agenda in the way it has in the last couple of weeks then the public could perhaps start to get a bit fed up with it all - after all, this wasn't really what the SNP's mandate was all about, despite what many Nationalists think - and the whole thing could backfire on Mr Salmond and his party.

This is all getting very messy, but at least things should become a bit clearer in, oh, five years time perhaps?

Maybes aye, maybes naw...

2011-06-08T06:43:00.001+01:00

While the real world seems as usual to have largely carried on regardless, the Scottish body politic has been a bit exercised this week by the question of whether there should be one or two independence referendums.

Let's ignore the constitutional and legal niceties. If the "people of Scotland" want independence, independence it should be. But how to get there?

Well that's more about politics than law, and unfortunately this week's debate has been largely about each side jostling for political and strategic advantage as regards winning the referendum, as opposed to being straight with the voters, say. And as usual that's irrespective of whatever selfless motives they attempt to portray their stance as being about.

Oh aye, what was the question again? Yes, it was about whether there should be two referendums on Scottish independence. But that question depends on the question, the latter being the question in the first referendum.

Thus if it's clear, unambiguous and free from uncertainty, then perhaps there's no real need for a second question. But if it isn't, then for the sake of clarity, transparency and fairness, a second vote should be considered, whether via Holyrood or Westminster.

Thus this proposal in a draft referendum Bill seems to do a reasonable job of fitting the bill as regards clarity:

I AGREE/DISAGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.

Of course, some might argue that the word 'independent' is not value-free, and perhaps prefer instead something more neutral like 'tear the glorious United Kingdom asunder in an economically illiterate, culturally divisive and socially disastrous manner', but as a whole the question isn't bad.

However, the caveat is perhaps that, as recent debate demonstrates, what precisely is meant by independence isn't entirely clear, and even from the Nationalist perspective it can mean fundamentally different things, thus the efficacy of the question as a whole - and thus whether a second plebiscite would be required - would depend on the extent to which the concept of independence was adequately defined, and the degree to which this would be acceptable to the Westminster government in subsequent secession negotiations.

On the other hand, consider this other draft question from the published Bill:

The Scottish Government proposes that, in addition to the extension of the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament set out in Proposal 1 [either Calman or devo max], the Parliament's powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved.

And while I don't really like to self-quote lest it seems a bit too self-regarding, here I'll make an exception since I can't really be bothered rehashing the argument, which would be a bit pointless anyway:

[The draft question] could certainly be construed as asking whether additional power should be sought as some sort of stepping stone to independence rather than as a question about independence per se.

...the question also twice refers to the extension of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and could this repetition, combined with a conclusion to the question which seems to stop short of asking about full independence, be worded to exploit the established desire of the Scottish people for more powers short of separation?

Thus as a whole the question, which purports to be about independence, could in fact be intended to downplay the concept and to that extent encourage the more sceptical to vote for it?

Or, in extremis, could the word independence perhaps not appear on the ballot paper at all, as Michael Portillo suggested, hence exacerbating the ambiguity of the whole thing?

Either way, a question along the lines of the second draft above would at the very least suggest the necessity of a second referendum. For example, imagine the SNP win a first vote with the question of EU membership unclear (it's been suggested that new member states have to join the eurozone, but with the SNP's position on the euro uncertain, Scotland's status as a new member unclear and indeed the future of the whole single currency project questionable...), and Alex Salmond significantly dilutes the idea of independence and negotiates a settlement prima facie detrimental to Scotland (regarding share of oil reserves and the national debt, for example) merely to secure agreement and hence his legacy, then a second vote on a more certain future might just be a good idea.

That's it all cut and dried then, so could someone please wake me up once it's all over?

The independence question and a democratic deficit

2011-06-04T07:21:00.000+01:00

One manifestation of the often lamentable state of our democracy is the attempts by the parties to manipulate the ballot paper, as argued here in relation to the SNP's 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' slogan.

Thus an article in this morning's Scotsman about the forthcoming [insert description as appropriate] referendum provides some indication as to the likely stushie surrounding what will be on the ballot paper. Of course, the point is that a depressingly significant amount of people will be influenced to vote one way or the other by what precisely they are presented with in the polling booth, never mind the substantive arguments that will be repeated almost ad infinitum and ad nauseum between now and [whenever].

Thus it's not only slightly concerning that many people will enter the polling booth not having made their mind up on the issue, but that they might be influenced merely by what's on the ballot paper is more worrying still. But of course it's this superficial approach to politics - often characterised by soundbites, manifesto gloss and photo opportunities, for example - which seemed to give the SNP the edge a month ago in the Holyrood poll. And it's not that the SNP are the only party to indulge in this kind of thing, it's just that they seemed to be better at it than the rest of them.

Anyway, the main focus of today's article is (apart from the selection of MP Angus Roberston to lead the SNP's campaign) who should get to ask the 'yes' question, the reasoning being that whichever side of the Unionist/Nationalist divide gets to ask the voters to answer the relevant question in the affirmative enjoys an inbuilt advantage; presumably it's similar psychology to the SNP's 'positivity' which was claimed to be instrumental to its decisive victory last month.

The Tories are suggesting the eminently sensible - and fair to both sides - option of allowing both sides to ask a 'yes' question, but in other respects they seem to be missing the point a bit. Thus the Scotsman reports:

Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie is known to be sympathetic towards a question that could simply see Scots tick a box for "yes to remain in the union" or "yes to split from the UK".

A Conservative Party spokesman said yesterday: "We're floating the idea why can't you just put your cross against the box of the statement you support: Yes, I wish to remain part of Britain, or Yes, I wish to become independent of Britain."

Spot the contradiction? Ignoring the union/UK/Britain nuances, the, um, pro-independence 'yes' attributed to Annabel Goldie refers to a 'split from the UK', while her party's spokesman portrays the question as Scotland becoming 'independent of Britain'.

Of course, those who know about such things always seem to tell us that - and ignoring the yes/no aspect - a question referring to negative words such as 'split' (or 'separate') will always be looked upon more negatively by voters than one using more positive words like 'independent'.

Thus while the Tories are right to emphasise the need for a positive 'yes' question, their spokesman seems to have completely missed the point about other aspects of the positive/negative debate, something that I'm sure the likes of the Telegraph's Alan Cochrane would have picked up immediately, and indeed which Ms Goldie herself clearly appreciates.

Thus while it's a bit sad that the electorate will be sufficiently moved by these effectively subliminal messages that the wording of the ballot paper will cause much debate and division during the next couple of years, if the Tories are making such fundamental errors detrimental to their own case then this will only encourage Mr Robertson et al, not that they need much encouragement after May 5.

More generally, it'll be interesting to see how the Unionists organise themselves, because the independence agenda is SNP-driven and thus to a large extent the campaign machinery is ready made and ready to roll.

On the other hand, the Unionists are clearly a disparate and divided bunch who spend a lot of time fighting amongst themselves, thus putting an effective campaign together is clearly a different proposition altogether, and Unionist journalists like Cochers and David Maddox are equally clearly unimpressed with things thus far, and see no obvious solution.

Which perhaps brings to mind the likes of the 'multi-agency approach' so beloved of many arms of government, which often amounts to little more than buck-passing and hoping the others are actually doing something, but in reality no one is doing anything other than lauding their 'partner agencies', and by the time they wake up it's often too late!