Monday, 26 October 2009

Civic nationalism

From the exalted watch-tower of Bradford University, Professor Tom Gallagher has cast his beady eye at the activities of Alex Salmond and declared that Salmond is in the process of “junking civic nationalism for an emotion-laden ethnic variety”. This surely can't be the same Professor Tom Gallagher who used an article in the Washington Times in April 2008 to argue that "Mr. Salmond is mobilizing different campaigning groups and minorities and promising them multicultural rights designed to sharpen an ethno-religious rather than a civic identity", can it? Is it the same Professor Tom Gallagher who recently wrote
But in light of the Scoto-American splat that has developed over the fate of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al- Megrahi, convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, it may now be time to sell Scotland abroad on account of its cussedness. ‘Welcome to Scotland the Land with Attitude’ springs to mind. Perhaps the Highland Stag could promptly be replaced with the Porcupine as a defining national symbol.

and
By contrast to the US democracy with its access points for citizens, the relatives of the eleven killed in the small Scottish town over which the plane exploded, have no effective access to political power.

and into the realms of humour with
But don’t expect much investigation or analysis from a largely supine Scottish media. Not a few of the BBC’s political journalists see their job as merely a preliminary posting before they use their political connections to secure a parliamentary seat, with the SNP being the favoured choice. The Scotsman newspaper, supposedly Unionist in orientation has as its features page editor an SNP parliamentary candidate who ensures that the opinion pieces in the newspaper cause few problems for his party. Increasingly many Scottish journalists see the need to defer to the SNP because, as its grip on power tightens it might become their employer while some of their own newspapers might go out of business,

A supine Scottish media? Where, exactly? But he can enter the bizarre as well:
The 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation is not having a penny spent on it by Alex Salmond: it emphasises the British link.

I tried to work out how he could get to this thinking but just couldn't - the Reformation was Scotland creating its own church and, as a result, influencing other Presbyterian churches around the world.

It would seem that self-publicisation through the peddling of prejudice, mistruths and misconceptions rather than serious academic research informs the good professor's forays into the media. He appears to have some special loathing reserved for Alex Salmond, though, almost as if the First Minister used to nick his sweets in the playground.

Professor Gallagher has been answered by Iain McWhirter and by he who worries peat today and has been addressed in the past by Gerry Hassan, but it may be instructive to note how one of his peers interprets his views on democracy:
Tom Gallagher fears that unrestrained political debate could be too much for East Europeans to handle: ‘Agreement about the management of political competition is essential if nascent democracies are not to be tested beyond endurance by heavily adversarial parties’

and
Tom Gallagher writes that Western civil society is necessary, otherwise Eastern states are merely ‘adapting the outward forms of north Atlantic democracies’.
A wee touch of xenophobia there perhaps, or imperious snook-cocking? How can it be argued that only we have the ability to handle political debate and that others must learn from us? The vaulting vanity of that is quite breath-taking.

You'll notice in the herald piece that Professor Gallagher claims to have been sympathetic to the SNP until the 2007 election. His ardour cooled quickly. By the beginning of August he was critical of the First Minister attempting to ensure that conflict did not result from the attack on Glasgow Airport and allowed his quite clear dislike of Islam to colour his judgement on the rally which was organised by young Muslims. He also attacked Osama Saeed, but he can defend himself. The interesting bit of Professor Gallagher's piece is where he makes it clear that his personal enmity towards the SNP has lasted for at least a decade and it's difficult to see how his recent comment that he was “broadly sympathetic to the party up to its assumption of office” chimes with his 2007 comment that "The SNP is a grievance party par excellence".

Let's be charitable and assume that he just has a shockingly bad memory, shall we, rather than suggesting that he uses the truth sparingly. Either way, though, the book he's promoting with his vitriol can't be very good, can it?

Mind how you go!

Thursday, 22 October 2009

Lockerbie bomber not dead

Seems Sky got a bit over-excited yesterday and perhaps so did I.

Not as bad as Richard Baker though

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

Lockerbie bomber dead

Sky news is reporting that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has died. His family will be grieving, but at least they had the opportunity to spend some time with him before he died - an opportunity he denied to each and every one of his victims.

Update: Tony Kelly, Mr Megrahi's lawyer is saying that the reports about his death are not correct.

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Iain Gray - tougher than you think

Labour's Scottish leader, Iain Gray, wants to institute a policy that means automatic imprisonment for carrying a knife. Or, in Iain's words:
Our proposal for a minimum sentence for knife criminals is the right way to send a clear message. That message is – carry and knife and go to jail.

I'm sure that Iain and the rest of the Labour party in Scotland will be delighted to know that they're being even tougher than Downes Elementary School in Newark, Delaware, USA where a six year old boy has been told he should serve a 45 day sentence in a remand school for taking his favourite camping cutlery to school to eat his lunch with. I can imagine the puffed chest as Labour's Judge Dredd says "45 days in a remand school? No, laddie, 45 weeks in the big hoose!" If you were a Labour party member would you be happy to have this guff associated with your name?

Shall we take the 14 or 15 year-old boy who carries a knife because his mates do and send him to prison rather than showing him that he doesn't need to? What about a 17 year old who carries a knife because he really needs it for protection - should we just jail him and start him on a criminal career rather than letting him let go of his fear? What about a 21 year old who has been a bit wild, fighting in the street, getting a bit out of hand, carrying a blade to make himself feel harder, bigger, more important? Do we chuck him inside with violent offenders or should we maybe think about ways to address his anger and frustration and let him release that and become a valuable member of society? Iain Gray would send them to jail - enormous cost to the taxpayer, enormous damage to them, possibly turning them to a life of crime when they might (might) have a chance of making a better life for themselves.

Does Labour seriously think that a police officer on patrol doesn't want to think about what they are doing? Process them and send them down! I suspect that a majority of police officers are fully aware of the implications for a young life of an arrest, of a criminal record. I suspect that a lot of police officers will look at the situations that come in front of them every day and always consider the effects of their actions - some people won't be arrested who could be, sometimes it might be thought better to take the teenager home or to have a wee chat with them where they are, some people might get away with minor crimes, but society might be better off. Would automatons make better police officers than the ones we have?

Similarly, does anyone really think that mandatory sentences make our courts better? The sheriffs and judges who sit in our courts - does anyone think that they sit there wishing that someone had told them exactly what sentence each of those convicted in front of them should get? These legal bods who have spent years in the great theatre of court to supplement their study of law to become a mere subsidiary of pornography politics - I've got a harder penal policy than you have? Perhaps we should trust them to do their jobs, to look at what's in front of them, to decide what the legal position is and to temper that with common sense and human decency. Perhaps we should look at our penal policy on a regular basis and ask what is working rather than what will harvest a few votes.

Let's think about a teenager; out knocking around, doing whatever legal things teenagers are wont to do, perhaps in the company of a love interest. Let's say that, for whatever reason - being in the wrong place, looking funny, or just unfortunate - he is set upon by another person or more than one person and, in addition to the physical injuries he sustains, he is humiliated. In his shame and burning embarrassment he goes home and grabs a big carving knife from the kitchen and sets out in the red mist to avenge himself. The probability being that, if he does not come upon his assailants soon, he will run out of steam, think better of his rage and return the knife to the kitchen. If he makes contact while raging the tale may be different in all kinds of ways, but bear with me.

Let's introduce a police patrol. Police officers encounter the youth while he is in a rage and engage him. It becomes apparent that he has a knife. As things stand the officers can talk to him, give him time to calm down, give him time to think about what he is doing, give him the benefit of their experience, set him off on a different path, take the knife from him if they think it necessary, perhaps give him a lift home so he's safe and out of trouble, exercise their duty of care to him as well as to the other members of this society, make life a little better all round. They'd also be able to think that he was a danger to society and to take him into custody where he could calm down and be released later, be examined for mental illness if thought necessary, have kith or kin called to take care of him, or perhaps other avenues. It's police officers acting as members of, and servants of, society - a role I think most of them perform regularly and well.

If the police saw fit to send a report to the Procurator Fiscal similar decisions take place, is it in the public interest to prosecute or to take one of the other routes open to the Fisc? Then into court and the Sheriff or Judge will sit through a trial and, if and on conviction, will consider how to dispose of the case - admonition because that is what will ensure that the lad will think twice in the future; community service because he needs to learn a harder lesson; prison because a message needs to get through; or another disposal? How many cases come before the people on the bench and how much do they pack into their gullet? How often do they think that they would like to send someone to prison but it would serve no purpose (alternatively, how often do they think that their powers to imprison do not go far enough?) What does someone presiding over a sentence have to consider? While I'm as sure as every taxi-driver that I could do a better job (I used to drive a taxi), I'm really quite glad that it's not me there - it's a fair responsibility.

Now take Labour's position - the police would find the knife and have no choice, they would have to process him for the Proc Fisc. The PF would have no choice, they would have to prosecute. Providing there was evidence that a knife was present, the sheriff or judge would have no choice, the kid would have to go to jail. Who benefits? How is that an improvement? From the time the police found the knife there was no other outcome - is that not just a wee bit scary? Where are all the checks and balances that you and I rely on to make sure that we are not unjustly or unproductively prosecuted and convicted? Remove them from the daft laddie with the knife and you've removed them from us.

Take that story back a bit and let's introduce the police patrol at a later point - the young lad is on his way home having realised that he's being a fool, having thought it through, and having thought that a night in his bed is just about top-notch just now. The police spot the knife and pull him over - the same choices are currently available, and this laddie will most likely go home with a wee lesson and a bit of respect for the polis who said "think about it first", he'll wake up still humiliated but not in prison. In Labour's world, though, the guy could be opening his door and stepping back inside when the police catch him - from there he's going to jail.

Let's make a deal, Iain, let's let the police decide how to handle crime prevention and detection and how to keep the peace, they're trained for it. Let's let the PF and the courts prosecute, convict and sentence, and let's spend our time working out how to make this a better country instead of regimenting it. If someone has a knife let's ask why, let's put the violent people in jail and give the daft laddies a second chance. Let's not condemn people for acting in the heat of the moment when they might still have the chance to think again.

Justice may have to be blind but it doesn't have to be stupid.

Tuesday, 13 October 2009

If politics confuses you ...

Any time you find politics a little confusing, take a trip into physics, it's marvellous. In a tremendous scoop, theorists Holger Bech Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya have speculated that Higgs boson particles are travelling back through time in order to destroy the Large Hadron Collider and prevent their existence being proven. Almost the antithesis of The Flipside of Dominick Hide isn't it?

Jings, crivvens and help m' Boab!

What a day to pick

Michael Martin took his seat in the Lords today - nice timing!

What sorcery is this?

I carry a small box in my pocket - almost everywhere I go it goes with me. Sometimes it will vibrate and light up with a strange ringing noise, and then you can hear voices coming from it. "What sorcery is this?" I hear you ask. In all honesty, I must admit that I do not know exactly how it works.

Recently I listened to one of the voices "Hello," it said, "this is one of the voices."
"Aha," I said, "and how can I help you?"
"Have you read Stephen's Linlithgow Journal recently?"
"I read it often. Is it the bit where he admits that the SNP is right and he'll be voting Nat from now on?" (It's coming soon, have patience).
"No, no, no. The bit where he's regaling us with tales of Lib Dem conference."
"Yeah, that was quite funny - training candidates at conference? Does that mean that they aren't confident in their candidates' abilities?"
"Probably, but that's not the part I'm talking about, I'm referring to the fact that he appears to be arguing that the Lib Dems debate policy in public. How does that square with the decision of the Scottish Lib Dems - the party to which Stephen belongs - to review its policy on an independence referendum but hold the debate in private?"
"What sorcery is this?"

Mind how you go!

Thursday, 8 October 2009

Lib Dem councillor says "scrap the tram"

On Friday a Lib Dem councillor said "My name is Charles Dundas and I say Scrap the Tram". I was there, I heard it. He was the quizmaster in a fundraiser quiz and I was a member of the SNP team whose team name was ...

"My name is Charles Dundas and I say Scrap the Tram".

I blame Councillor David Beckett.

Mind how you go!

Tuesday, 6 October 2009

Annabel Goldie wants more power for the Scottish Parliament

What else could you think? In her speech to Conservative conference she said
And there’s more. Oh yes, once we get started there’s no stopping us! Today I can announce - to support and protect our dedicated and responsible staff in our Scottish NHS we shall bring forward measures to strengthen protection for Whistleblowers. Our doctors, our nurses, our health workers must not be afraid to speak up about anything which compromises patient safety or patient care.
The first email came from a man obsessed with Irish politics (he's a fan of the tallyman), and he asked, quite rightly, "what about whistle-blowers in the banks, why's she not supporting them?" He's got a point. He was trumped, though, by m'learned friend who pointed out that Annabel was either calling for more power for the Scottish Parliament or doesn't understand devolution. Here's how he did it:
Scotland Act 1998
Schedule 5 - Reserved Matters
Head H1 Employment and industrial relations
Employment rights and duties and industrial relations, including the subject-matter of-
...
(g) the Employment Rights Act 1996

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (better known as the whistleblowing legislation) works by amending the Employment Rights Act 1996.
You can see the structure here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980023_en_1
So the subject matter is reserved - not devolved.

So there you have it.

Mind how you go!

Glasgow - well funded, by the way!

I see that Bob Doris MSP has had a Parliamentary Question answered which shows that Glasgow gets the highest funding per head of any part of mainland Scotland. The three island communities get more - I would imagine as a result of the special difficulties of delivering council services on islands. Do the bin lorries go on the ferries? I've just thought of that! Does each island have separate facilities for disposal of waste?

Anyway, here's the per capita figures for each council and the Scottish average in descending order:

Shetland Islands
4821
Eilean Siar
4769
Orkney Islands
4032
Glasgow City
2871
Argyll & Bute
2755
West Dunbartonshire
2533
Highland
2477
Inverclyde
2431
Dundee City
2427
Dumfries & Galloway
2321
Moray
2307
Scotland
2254
North Ayrshire
2251
Scottish Borders
2233
Stirling
2204
Midlothian
2186
Renfrewshire
2185
North Lanarkshire
2180
East Ayrshire
2157
Clackmannanshire
2145
Angus
2125
East Renfrewshire
2125
South Lanarkshire
2068
South Ayrshire
2062
Falkirk
2055
Fife
2032
East Lothian
2007
West Lothian
2001
Edinburgh (City of)
1994
Perth & Kinross
1973
East Dunbartonshire
1961
Aberdeenshire
1946
Aberdeen City
1876

Now, I know that Glasgow has special social problems that warrant this extra funding, but it's been pouring in there for years - surely we should be seeing some changes by now - what has the council been doing to address those problems?

44% per head more than Edinburgh? Surely that's not needed at that level. Other areas with particular needs aren't coining it either - Highlands, for example, sparse population but £394 per head less than Glasgow with its dense population. There may be some argument for Aberdeen getting almost £1,000 less than Glasgow on the grounds that Aberdeen has wealth around it from the oil industry (I doubt whether such a disparity can be justified, though), but even East Dunbartonshire is £910 adrift - it's true, but!

Yes, it's true that Glasgow has problems and needs extra funding to cope with them, but I can't help asking what Glasgow Council has been doing all these years with all that extra money - it certainly wasn't sorting out the problems faced by the people they're supposed to represent. Perhaps it would be fairer, actually, to ask what the administration on Glasgow Council has been doing for decades.

Anybody know?