Scotland small?
Scotland is often referred to as a small nation (I think that it's just the right size, but there you go) and that can obscure our actual position. Our population is 5,168,500 or thereabouts making us about the 113th most populous country in the world with about 124 countries smaller than us. We've got 78,722 square kilometres, putting us about 116th in terms of land mass, 121 countries being smaller than us. We are, as it were, about the middle in terms of size, we fit in nicely.
Size is all-important, apparently ...
Saturday, 6 March 2010
STV Homecoming programmes
There is an attempt to create a stooshie and a fuss over the Homecoming programmes aired by STV, as you'll recall. It has been widely covered in the inky fingers press and you might have imagined that the Labour-supporting Daily Record would be eager to jump on that particular passing bandwagon. You'd be surprised if you did.
Why would the Record not be covering the story in great depth? Well, the Daily Record was another sponsor of the programmes and was a partner with the Scottish Government in the whole adventure. SNP propaganda sponsored by the Daily Record? I think not!
Mind how you read
Why would the Record not be covering the story in great depth? Well, the Daily Record was another sponsor of the programmes and was a partner with the Scottish Government in the whole adventure. SNP propaganda sponsored by the Daily Record? I think not!
Mind how you read
Friday, 5 March 2010
Leave Purcell alone
The strange Steven Purcell saga is a private tragedy for the man (tragedy in its Aristotelian definition, of course) and his fall is huge. What I have found most distasteful, though, have been the reactions of his Labour Party colleagues. Brown, Murphy and Gray refused to pay any tribute to him as he left office as leader of Glasgow Council and the statement today after he left office as a councillor was made by a party spokesman rather than by a named politician, there is still nothing on Scottish Labour's website giving thanks of any kind to Mr Purcell (although there is a childish jibe at George Osborne), he got a passing mention from his erstwhile deputy who has temporarily taken over the reins at the council and some more fulsome praise from Alex Salmond, but nothing from senior members of his own party. Indeed, Labour members seem to be keen to get themselves into the newspapers telling him to divulge details of his personal life.
I don't think that his expensive PR team and lawyer have been useful to him throughout this and he must have a huge bill to settle with them for all their services, but he shouldn't have needed to lean so heavily on them at all. Whatever Mr Purcell's tragic flaw that has brought him to this end, he should have had support from his party and from his party colleagues - they seem, instead, to have been intent on doing him down.
There are people now saying that the public have a right to know the details of Mr Purcell's health, a right to know why he resigned. No we don't. We have no right to his personal information, no right to rake through his private life, prurience does not equate to the public interest. The administration in Glasgow might take a look over the decisions he made recently, just to check that nothing went awry but we have no right to probe into his private life - he was not owned by the public, he was employed by the public. I believe that the newspapers will be carrying more bad news for him tomorrow, news unconnected to his resignations. In a week his life has been turned upside-down and dropped on its head.
I find myself in the unusual position of feeling some sympathy for a Labour politician. By all means examine what his decisions in office were and whether they were good, but leave the man alone. He'll be needing time and space and the support of friends to recover from whatever he has been suffering. In the name of common human decency, leave the man alone.
I don't think that his expensive PR team and lawyer have been useful to him throughout this and he must have a huge bill to settle with them for all their services, but he shouldn't have needed to lean so heavily on them at all. Whatever Mr Purcell's tragic flaw that has brought him to this end, he should have had support from his party and from his party colleagues - they seem, instead, to have been intent on doing him down.
There are people now saying that the public have a right to know the details of Mr Purcell's health, a right to know why he resigned. No we don't. We have no right to his personal information, no right to rake through his private life, prurience does not equate to the public interest. The administration in Glasgow might take a look over the decisions he made recently, just to check that nothing went awry but we have no right to probe into his private life - he was not owned by the public, he was employed by the public. I believe that the newspapers will be carrying more bad news for him tomorrow, news unconnected to his resignations. In a week his life has been turned upside-down and dropped on its head.
I find myself in the unusual position of feeling some sympathy for a Labour politician. By all means examine what his decisions in office were and whether they were good, but leave the man alone. He'll be needing time and space and the support of friends to recover from whatever he has been suffering. In the name of common human decency, leave the man alone.
Same again?
Once again the opposition parties in Scotland are hoovering about saying that a European ruling on minimum pricing on tobacco gives the Scottish Government some problems on alcohol pricing.
I say it just goes to show that they don't understand the European ruling, and here's a blog-post I wrote on Burns Day (I chose that day just for the piquancy, you understand) reproduced in its entirety (near enough):
Monday, 25 January 2010
Minimum Pricing
Now that a major brewer has joined the campaign to bring Scottish alcohol consumption under control, let's dispose of the 'illegal under EU law' argument. The argument goes like this -
1. The European Court has ruled that minimum pricing for tobacco contravenes Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco so minimum pricing on alcohol is illegal.
2. Er, that's it.
Here's the problem with that argument - the case to which they refer (it's actually three cases but the Advocate General issued one Opinion to cover them all, delivered on the 22nd of October 2009) rests on the fact that tobacco producers and importers are permitted to set maximum prices for their products (it's about payable duty, they fix a maximum price and pay the duty on the maximum price in order to make sure they can't pay duty on a price lower than they sell it for - then there's another duty added on 'per unit' - the second one is the one you hear about in the budget) and that case law has indicated that this means that minimum prices for tobacco are illegal.
It's a wee bit tortuous but not too bad - minimum pricing on tobacco is not expressly forbidden but the opinion of the Court has been that imposing a minimum price limits inhibits the rights of the manufacturers to decide their own maximum prices (they couldn't decide on a maximum price lower than the minimum price), so the imposition of minimum pricing was illegal. The legal argument upon which the member states were contesting the action was contained in the reservation that the right to set maximum prices "may not, however, hinder implementation of national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices, provided that they are compatible with Community legislation" and you should expect that to come back to the Court in due course.
What's important, however, is that the Opinion is based solely on the right of the tobacco companies to set a maximum price and that right being infringed by the imposition of a minimum price - alcohol producers do not have the right to impose maximum prices.
Tobacco taxation (including the right of manufacturers to set maximum prices) is governed by Council Directive 95/59/EC while the alcohol taxation regulations are contained in Council Directive 92/84/EEC.
Meanwhile, the EU's strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm includes using taxation as a means of introducing minimum pricing (an option not open to the Scottish Government because of the restrictions of the current devolution settlement; but indicates that the EU is in favour of using pricing policy as a means to manage alcohol consumption); altering the ages at which alcohol can be sold (remember that one?); and lowering the allowable blood alcohol limit for drivers, including a zero rate for young drivers, public transport drivers and freight drivers.
There's lots and lots of information available through the European Alcohol and Health Forum for anyone who wants some light reading with their sherry.
Mind how you drink!
I say it just goes to show that they don't understand the European ruling, and here's a blog-post I wrote on Burns Day (I chose that day just for the piquancy, you understand) reproduced in its entirety (near enough):
Monday, 25 January 2010
Minimum Pricing
Now that a major brewer has joined the campaign to bring Scottish alcohol consumption under control, let's dispose of the 'illegal under EU law' argument. The argument goes like this -
1. The European Court has ruled that minimum pricing for tobacco contravenes Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco so minimum pricing on alcohol is illegal.
2. Er, that's it.
Here's the problem with that argument - the case to which they refer (it's actually three cases but the Advocate General issued one Opinion to cover them all, delivered on the 22nd of October 2009) rests on the fact that tobacco producers and importers are permitted to set maximum prices for their products (it's about payable duty, they fix a maximum price and pay the duty on the maximum price in order to make sure they can't pay duty on a price lower than they sell it for - then there's another duty added on 'per unit' - the second one is the one you hear about in the budget) and that case law has indicated that this means that minimum prices for tobacco are illegal.
It's a wee bit tortuous but not too bad - minimum pricing on tobacco is not expressly forbidden but the opinion of the Court has been that imposing a minimum price limits inhibits the rights of the manufacturers to decide their own maximum prices (they couldn't decide on a maximum price lower than the minimum price), so the imposition of minimum pricing was illegal. The legal argument upon which the member states were contesting the action was contained in the reservation that the right to set maximum prices "may not, however, hinder implementation of national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices, provided that they are compatible with Community legislation" and you should expect that to come back to the Court in due course.
What's important, however, is that the Opinion is based solely on the right of the tobacco companies to set a maximum price and that right being infringed by the imposition of a minimum price - alcohol producers do not have the right to impose maximum prices.
Tobacco taxation (including the right of manufacturers to set maximum prices) is governed by Council Directive 95/59/EC while the alcohol taxation regulations are contained in Council Directive 92/84/EEC.
Meanwhile, the EU's strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm includes using taxation as a means of introducing minimum pricing (an option not open to the Scottish Government because of the restrictions of the current devolution settlement; but indicates that the EU is in favour of using pricing policy as a means to manage alcohol consumption); altering the ages at which alcohol can be sold (remember that one?); and lowering the allowable blood alcohol limit for drivers, including a zero rate for young drivers, public transport drivers and freight drivers.
There's lots and lots of information available through the European Alcohol and Health Forum for anyone who wants some light reading with their sherry.
Mind how you drink!
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
How much money wasted?
How much public money do you think has been wasted by Labour Party members making entirely spurious complaints about the behaviour of members of the Scottish Government?
There was the lunches complaint (there was also a complaint made about this to the Standards Commission which doesn't investigate MSPs) - complaint dismissed; there was the escaped prisoners complaint - complaint dismissed; there was the Scottish Inter Faith Council complaint - complaint dismissed; there was the class sizes complaint - complaint dismissed; even the partisan inquiry into the Balmedie planning process dismissed the complaints.
Now more public money is being wasted on yet another inquiry that will result in the complaint being dismissed - Ofcom is to investigate the STV Homecoming programmes.
How much of our money has Labour (and the Lib Dems just a little) wasted on these complaints whose purpose appears to be nothing more nor less than the gaining of a few newspaper headlines and some scandalised reporting? No wrongdoing (intentional or not) in any one of these cases, just cheap headline-grabbing by politicians who have nothing positive to say. What a scandalous misuse of public money, what a sad way for politicians to end up - snuffling around the regulatory institutions of our public life looking for scandal like an olfactory-impaired boar hunting for truffles.
There should always be proper scrutiny of the actions of Governments, and opposition parties should forever be keening their political tools in the probing and testing of Ministers - that makes for good democracy, for good government, for a good legislature. What is not acceptable is for politicians to abdicate their responsibility for scrutiny and, instead, to attempt an ordure shower. Scotland deserves better from her opposition parties than this dreadfully poor attempt.
They should up their game!
There was the lunches complaint (there was also a complaint made about this to the Standards Commission which doesn't investigate MSPs) - complaint dismissed; there was the escaped prisoners complaint - complaint dismissed; there was the Scottish Inter Faith Council complaint - complaint dismissed; there was the class sizes complaint - complaint dismissed; even the partisan inquiry into the Balmedie planning process dismissed the complaints.
Now more public money is being wasted on yet another inquiry that will result in the complaint being dismissed - Ofcom is to investigate the STV Homecoming programmes.
How much of our money has Labour (and the Lib Dems just a little) wasted on these complaints whose purpose appears to be nothing more nor less than the gaining of a few newspaper headlines and some scandalised reporting? No wrongdoing (intentional or not) in any one of these cases, just cheap headline-grabbing by politicians who have nothing positive to say. What a scandalous misuse of public money, what a sad way for politicians to end up - snuffling around the regulatory institutions of our public life looking for scandal like an olfactory-impaired boar hunting for truffles.
There should always be proper scrutiny of the actions of Governments, and opposition parties should forever be keening their political tools in the probing and testing of Ministers - that makes for good democracy, for good government, for a good legislature. What is not acceptable is for politicians to abdicate their responsibility for scrutiny and, instead, to attempt an ordure shower. Scotland deserves better from her opposition parties than this dreadfully poor attempt.
They should up their game!
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Trams - are they hiding from me?
Way back in December TIE offered me a briefing on the tram project (along with the other interested SNP candidates) and said the same offer had been made to the other political parties. When I accepted it was scheduled for February. I met the chairman of TIE at the rugby against France (don't ask the score) and nudged him about it. February has come and gone and not another word.
Hmmmm....
Hmmmm....
What a day
What a day for politics:
Leaders' debates for the forthcoming election were announced and include two parties who are not in government at Westminster nor in any of the devolved nations (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) but don't include the party of government in Scotland (the SNP), one of the parties of government in Wales (Plaid Cymru), or any party of government in Stormont.
Dave Maddox beats me to the punch in pointing to Lib Dem hypocrisy (Alistair Carmichael criticising those who offer binary political choices while his own party is infamous for it).
Finally, I get a phone call from a friend of mine which went like this:
"Why do I never get any of your leaflets through my door?"
"Because you live in Portobello, it's way outside the constituency."
"I got one from your Lib Dem opponent..."
There's an enthusiastic leafleter who's got a bit lost then!
Mind how you go!
Leaders' debates for the forthcoming election were announced and include two parties who are not in government at Westminster nor in any of the devolved nations (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) but don't include the party of government in Scotland (the SNP), one of the parties of government in Wales (Plaid Cymru), or any party of government in Stormont.
Dave Maddox beats me to the punch in pointing to Lib Dem hypocrisy (Alistair Carmichael criticising those who offer binary political choices while his own party is infamous for it).
Finally, I get a phone call from a friend of mine which went like this:
"Why do I never get any of your leaflets through my door?"
"Because you live in Portobello, it's way outside the constituency."
"I got one from your Lib Dem opponent..."
There's an enthusiastic leafleter who's got a bit lost then!
Mind how you go!
STV and the SNP
Let's just jump back in the water of the daftness of the opposition claiming that it is somehow wrong for the Scottish Government to have supported Scottish culture by sponsoring programmes made by STV for the Year of Homecoming. In true l'esprit d'escalier style, it has struck me that the whole story was actually back to front. The Year of Homecoming was actually started under the Labour administration before 2007 (and a decent idea it was as well) under Jack McConnell, as Iain Gray was at pains to point out - the question really shouldn't be "why was STV involved?" but "why were the broadcasters not involved earlier?"
The earlier the involvement of Scotland's media companies (and corporations, Auntie, even with today's bit of slimming) in such things, the better the promotion and the historical record of them. The story shouldn't have been 'shock, horror, the First Minister met STV' but 'jings, crivvens, this is long overdue'.
We've got decent media in Scotland; the BBC will even change a piece when you point out the slight inaccuracies.
Mind how you go!
The earlier the involvement of Scotland's media companies (and corporations, Auntie, even with today's bit of slimming) in such things, the better the promotion and the historical record of them. The story shouldn't have been 'shock, horror, the First Minister met STV' but 'jings, crivvens, this is long overdue'.
We've got decent media in Scotland; the BBC will even change a piece when you point out the slight inaccuracies.
Mind how you go!
Monday, 1 March 2010
Bankrupt Britain?
The Financial Times is reporting that UK Government debt is being traded at prices that suggest that the investors are treating it as less than AAA rated. British bond yields have gone back above Italian yields and are approaching those of Portugal, putting the UK right in among those countries so condescendingly referred to as PIIGS for a time by some who thought themselves superior. As the FT says, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch have indicated that they are unlikely to re-rate the UK before the election but, since the agencies follow the markets in most cases, that's hardly a comfort, and the credit agencies are saying that the debt has to be reduced sooner rather than later.
The cost to the UK of servicing its debt is increasing while other European states are holding steady, and the UK's public debt now exceeds 60% of GDP and is predicted to keep rising. If memory serves, PFI and PPP projects have to be added to that debt figure as well. Some commentators warned as far back as January of 2009 that the debt was unsustainable and a month later the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission warned that debts were at 'Armageddon levels' - and debt has risen since then.
I guess Ted Hawkins isn't the only one searching -
The cost to the UK of servicing its debt is increasing while other European states are holding steady, and the UK's public debt now exceeds 60% of GDP and is predicted to keep rising. If memory serves, PFI and PPP projects have to be added to that debt figure as well. Some commentators warned as far back as January of 2009 that the debt was unsustainable and a month later the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission warned that debts were at 'Armageddon levels' - and debt has risen since then.
I guess Ted Hawkins isn't the only one searching -
That's the way to do it!
The Times is reporting a range of synthetic angers over the Scottish Government sponsoring three programmes made by STV. Here's the spouting:
Scottish Government encourages Scottish cultural shows shock...
So who hosted these shows which were undermining the impartiality of STV, which were an attempt to buy favour and influence, manipulated a commercial broadcaster, and turned STV into public relations consultants?
Kirsty Wark, Labour supporter, friend of former First Minister Jack McConnell MSP.
Charlie Kennedy MP, former leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Alastair Campbell, one time gentle persuader for Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair.
You can see how that twists it all towards support for the SNP, can't you?
Mind how you go!
Ted Brocklebank, Culture Spokesman for the Scottish Tories, said: “If the SNP government has being trying to use taxpayers’ money to undermine the impartiality of STV then there must be an investigation.”.
“If [Mr Salmond] has been using taxpayers’ money to buy favour and influence, then that would be a serious breach of power.”
Iain Gray, leader of Scots Labour, said: “The suggestion that Alex Salmond tried to manipulate Scotland’s largest commercial broadcaster is deeply concerning.”
Iain Smith, the Liberal Democrat Culture Spokesman, said: “Independent broadcasters aren’t there to act as PR agencies for the government.”
Scottish Government encourages Scottish cultural shows shock...
So who hosted these shows which were undermining the impartiality of STV, which were an attempt to buy favour and influence, manipulated a commercial broadcaster, and turned STV into public relations consultants?
Kirsty Wark, Labour supporter, friend of former First Minister Jack McConnell MSP.
Charlie Kennedy MP, former leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Alastair Campbell, one time gentle persuader for Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair.
You can see how that twists it all towards support for the SNP, can't you?
Mind how you go!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)