Break for the Border

A More Free West Lothian Question?

I was quite excited when this BBC article popped up on the news reader, detail the UK government's truly abysmal ranking in a report by Privacy International league table on protection for civil liberties and how much better Scotland, when considered alone, ranks.

I'll have to be honest and say that to an extent I was disappointed when I got round to reading the report in question today, as it did seem to be based on rather subjective criteria, even if it's conclusions are very much in line with other similar studies and commentary from both within and without this country.

On so many issues, from the size of our DNA database, to the number of surveillance cameras, to the scope of the proposed ID card database coupled with it's cousins that are even closer to being a reality for the NHS and the country's children, there is pretty clear tangible evidence that the UK is light years ahead down the track to the complete surveillance society.

As such, any report that spells it out so clearly is to be welcomed, even if it could have punched harder with solid facts and a less arguable methodology behind it, especially from an organisation which is traditionally very sound on both.

Our relative wealth, and commensurate ability to break through technical barriers is rapidly overcoming the head start that certain former more authoritarian regimes had in reversing the roles of citizen and state in the last century. Indeed, amongst the new European democracies covered by the report there is are clear signs that their citizens and possibly even their governments have learned the lessons that our own masters arrogantly think do not apply to them; lessons which a distressingly large, though mercifully dwindling number of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' sheep are too stupid to ponder even for a moment as long as it 'keeps the immigrants out'.

The report's findings on Scotland are also interesting and once again they do at least bring some structure to the general impression that they at least care about the aspects of liberty involved in many of these matters, even if in many cases their ability to act is severely constrained by the elements that are reserved to Westminster. It shouldn't be forgotten either that this sentiment is not constrained to the SNP, with the former Labour/Liberal administration already having made a number of hostile noises about the nascent Blair/Brown police state before they were turfed out office.

With all other parties north of the border united against most of Westminster's actions in these areas and the tartan wing of Labour itself hostile it does seem likely that Scotland, for the immediate future, will remain infertile ground for the growth of the NuLab surveillance society.

Perhaps in that there is some limited grounds for hope.

While I use the example I am about to quote with a due sense of dread, and understand that there are many huge differences between the cold-war era and the case in hand, some of the political calculus remains the same.

For all its greater size and supposed economic might, East Germany could never quite overcome the existence of a smaller, at least geographically speaking, more liberal state, more in tune with the instincts of its citizens, sat right on their borders, with a pretty similar culture and an even more similar language.

Many of the wonders proclaimed by the Scottish executive are, as anyone can see, as about as substantial as their own-brand mist. I do though wonder if we in England, might start to look over Hadrian's wall for an understanding of the proper role for the state and its agents, as others once looked over a newer and uglier concrete edifice once did.

Yes, I do go too far, but at least when I listen to MSPs of all parties on the box, they do still seem to understand that there is a balance to be struck, whereas this side of the border one of the major parties, sadly the the badly-governing one, seems to see it is a matter deserving only of lip service.

Counting the Cost

I hadn't intended to post this clip, which appeared on Iain Dale's Diary earlier in the week:



At the end of the day, most of the figures quoted have been floating around for quite a while and, in essense, there is nothing wrong with differential levels of public spending to reflect regional needs. However, having seen it posted in other places now where it always seems to attract the same kind of one-eyed comments I thought it was worth giving it another airing.

The issue, as far as I'm concerned is not that Scotland and, to a lesser extent Wales, may offer higher grade public services, but how they should be paid for.

Had an elected Scottish Parliament chosen to exercise their limited authority to levy additional taxes to fund this differential level of provision of services there would be no issue, but this has not been done. Had other services been cut so that these priority areas could be better funded that again would be a choice for Scotland, but most areas that both SNP and Scottish Labour MSPs would like to cut are reserved to Westminster, and as such there appear to have been no such cuts. If Scotland had discovered ways of finding efficiency gains of the order required to make these enhanced service levels, the world would have beaten its way to their door, but the world hasn't.

In the absence of any other explanation, the only plausible culprit for this discriminatory situation can be the inequities of the Barnett formula. It is an equation that is broken, having clearly gone before it's intent of creating a level playing field. Even when the genuine additional costs of providing services in Scotland are taken into account it is now clear that Scottish administrations have an enormous 'disposable income' that the rest of the county simply doesn't have.

Surly, even considering how important Scottish votes may be to Brown at the next general election, he cannot be blind in both eyes to the dangers of allowing the inevitable anger that such patent unfairness will inevitably engender.

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1805-1859

Today de Tocqueville's words may have more relevance to the Union than an American Republic already well acustomed to the taste of pork barrel polictics.

Measures of Success

Something else to ponder?

Oddly enough I was out and about in the Village a lot of the weekend. In amongst the boozed-up rugby watching there was actually a degree of serious political debate until we found out that Brown had wussed out.

I say serious, but I soon understood why politics and religion are subjects allegedly best kept out of the pub, when a friend who up to this point I had always assumed to be an intelligent person, declared that Neil Kinnock was, and I quote, "the best Prime Minister this country never had". So much for in vino veritas.

Inevitably predictions were called for on the likely outcome of a snap election. While I wished it were different, the best outcome I could back with any reasonable level of hope of it coming to pass was a very substantially reduced, but probably just about workable, Labour overall majority.

It's, all academic now, but it was interesting to consider what a 'workable majority' for Gordon Brown would have been. Conventionally figures of around 15-20 get bandied about, but I feel his target, even regardless of image problems, would have been much higher. For one simple reason; Scotland.

I've got absolutely no issue with Gordon Brown being Scottish whatsoever. The imbalances in public spending do not concern be greatly, reflecting as they do in the most part, real issues of need. The West Lothian Question is a more significant issue, being as it is at heart, one of fairness.

With the Conservatives securing a plurality of the vote in England in 2005, the prospects of this turning into a plurality, at least, of seats in England must have been a very real risk. Add in the fact that for all the best of SNP efforts that Brown would still have retained a significant portion of his 39 Scottish seats, Labour voting being at least as tribal north of the border as it is south of it, life could have got very difficult for Brown.

Blair managed, more or less, to avoid genuinely needing Scottish votes to secure the passage of English, or English and Welsh only measures. The few times this may have statistically have seemed to be the case it was possible to show that it would have been possible to whip it though without these votes being necessary.

To be seen to be passing such legislation on nearly every occasion with the votes of Scottish MPs whose constituents were unaffected by it would create an outcry, and on each occasion it happened the same clunking fist of political reality would land fair and square in the middle of Brown's ugly face.

With the effect of boundary changes, and a general improvement in Tory fortunes, it's actually very difficult to see how a Brown government would be able to function with much less of a majority than their current 68 were the Conservatives to make any further progress in England whatsoever.

It might seem strange to post on something that is now somewhat of a counter-factual effort, but I think it underlines how badly Brown has played his hand recently. There have just been a few short weeks when the polls suggested a similar or enhanced Labour majority, and without this level of support, a Labour government could end up in a self-destructive nightmare of it's own making.

If the Conservatives manage to avoid another bout of infighting then I've got a feeling that it's still going to be a tough decision for Brown even if he does put it off until 2009.

I've got a feeling the events of the last week or two will weigh very heavily on Brown long after the media have finally moved on.

In or Out?

Sorry No Offensive Images

In the shadow of Ming's suicidal tax policy of punishing the greedy rich, such as those with a combined household income of over £70,000, the remainder of the Lib Dem conference has been a relatively staid affair culminating in a very staid performance by Sir Menzies in his keynote address.

There was even one session that I am full of praise for, but I think that deserves a post of its own that shall follow anon. This therefore will be the final bit of Lib Dem bashing for their week in the spotlight.

It comes courtesy of their Scottish Liberal Democrats leader, Nicol Stephen from the BBC yesterday:

Scotland should be given a greater role in hosting events for the London 2012 Olympics, the Lib Dems have claimed.

…

[Mr Stephen said] "Also, Scotland needs to get wider benefits from the Olympics than are currently planned.

"Great opportunities in terms of tourism, business and sport, but at present they are simply not being delivered."

Source: BBC News

The report goes on to highlight that the only direct involvement that Scotland will have in the hosting of the games is the playing of a few games of the Soccer tournament at Hampden Park.

I've commented on Scottish issues several times on this blog and I don't think anyone could accuse me of having an anti-Scottish bias, I couldn't if I wanted anyway, as my Scottish mother still has a good right hook for her age.

I'm actually on balance a supporter of the 2012 games being in London too.

Yes, the costs are huge and I'm sure the ability of the current Government to break records in mismanagement of major projects will push them higher still. My low-tax, small state instincts baulk at this but for all that I'm still looking forward to the chance to live through the experience of living in an Olympic host city.

Yes, the logo is repellent and doesn't seem to be 'growing on' anyone yet, but I'll still be very proud to see the Queen and Mayor Johnson opening a games. I'm sorry that Rugby Sevens didn't get its chance to take its amazing successes at Commonwealth games levels to even greater heights, but I've also got every confidence as a country we can stage a truly memorable event. Memo to RFU…perhaps a little tinkering with the scheduling of the Twickenham round of the IRB sevens circuit could be arranged to demonstrate to the IOC the error of their ways?

Nicol Stephen,
Selective Memories?

Despite my general support of many Scottish positions and of the London 2012, I have little time for Mr Stephen's position. Is this the same Scotland which is refusing to take part, along with the Welsh, in a British team for the Olympic soccer tournament, thereby possibly jeopardising public support for the host nation's own team at their own tournament? The home of the SFA whose justification of their stance is based on what, according to both FIFA and UEFA is a completely baseless assertion that their voting rights within both these organisations may be compromised if they ever played in a combined British team.

A survey suggested that two thirds of Scottish football supporters supported the idea of Scottish players taking part in the British Olympic team, yet the Scottish Football Association refused even to attend meetings at which the football assocations of the Home Nations were to discuss the possibility. As is so often the case both in sport and politics it appears that lions are once again being led by donkeys.

Under the circumstances some Scottish politicians and SFA should be making it clear that they understand it is no longer appropriate for even their limited role in hosting events, especially in the soccer tournament, to continue. They should really be voluntarily waiving their rights to stage games at Hampden, rather than demanding more.

Mr Stephen went on to criticise the way that so much lottery funding was being directed towards London 2012. In this, I have at least a little sympathy with him. It is certainly true that the current government has twisted and politicised the way lottery funding is used to such an extent that many of its original worthy aims are just a distant memory.

If, however, we consider the lottery as it now is, just another form of state funding, then Mr Stephen is on less firm ground. For years we have listened to, and at least in my case have understood, the need for unequal distribution of state funds, very often in Scotland's favour, on the grounds of special needs and situations. Now we have a case where the special need pertains to a situation in the south east of England.

There is certainly a case that less state money should go to the Olympics in total, but given that some would be required in even the most ideal of situations, the concept that the nation as a whole contributing to an events affecting just one region applies just as strongly to London as it does to Edinburgh. I'm sure there was significant central government funding when Edinburgh won the rights to host the Commonwealth games, and I don't recall any special local taxes being raised as is the case with London 2012, and it is only right that equal treatment be offered south of the border.

Perhaps the most glaring hole in Stephen's contribution though is the one fact he forgets to mention. These arrangements for hosting events were not made in the last year or so. They would have been made under the last Scottish government. As much as Mr Stephen and his colleagues may wish to pretend it was otherwise on so many matters, that Scottish government was a coalition of the Labour party and Mr Stephen's own Liberal Democrats.

Perhaps a little note of regret from Nicol Stephen on his own party's involvement in the settlement that he now criticises may have been appropriate, since I don't recall any real dissent over the actions of his own government's sports ministers at the time.

A Debate Without Substance

Is Scotland being offered an honest choice?

So then, Alex Salmond has revealed his white paper addressing the future constitutional settlement for Scotland.

To be fair he does offer a 'national conversation' on series of options, before any referendum should be called:

• The Status Quo


• Further devolution of powers to Holyrood


• Full independence

I'm not sure how the first of these options squares with the position attributed to him by the BBC that "no change is no longer an option", but compared with the flagrant dishonesty of the Westminster government over the upcoming. European Treaty it's pretty small beer. What I can't quite see yet is what the nature of his 'National Consultation' with the Scottish people is likely to be. I must say, first and foremost, that I cannot, and do not accuse Mr Salmond of any intent to deceive or mislead in his approach. His is a principled position about which he and his party are perfectly open, and I'm glad to see that many of his political opponents and most of the media have also acknowledged this fact and have delivered their response to the white paper in a considered and reasonable manner. It's interesting to compare this to the hysteria that is whipped up by certain national broadcasters when ever someone has the temerity to suggest a devolution of powers from Brussels back to nation states, but that's a posting for another time.

I still can't help thinking though that the kind of 'National Conversation' that Mr Salmond seems to anticipate falls some way short of addressing the issues that worried me in my previous posting. Certainly the grand debate should take place, but as things stand it would take place in an arena of ignorance and empty rhetoric.

The type of exercise I was speculating on yesterday was not the same as what Mr Salmond proposes, it is a precursor, and in my opinion a necessary precursor to it. The analysis of the economic consequences of independence and to a large extent those of the political consequences on the world stage should not, insofar as is possible should not be become a political football in the course of the debate, they could be, and should be, largely a matter of accepted fact.

The type of exercise I envisaged was something more along the side of a Royal Commission, vested with every power possible to make as many politically incontrovertible analyses of the facts of the case for and against independence. I would expect it to be manned by economists, lawyers and experts in the field of international relations, not politicians. Government departments, both British and Scottish, should be called upon to contribute, but at the level of the real experts, not their political masters. The only way the big political beasts should involve themselves is in making it possible for the commission to do its job, for example making it clear that EU officials should make themselves available to discus the potential shape of a post-independence relationship between Scotland and the EU, including the financial consequences.

My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that Scotland can clearly stand alone as an independent state; my instincts are that economically it would be somewhat poorer, but possibly only to an extent that many Scots would see as an acceptable price of independence, while the consequences for Scotland's influence in the world, especially within the EU would be more serious, but possibly acceptable again to some as a price worth paying. That's just my gut feeling on the matter, and when I hear politicians speak on the matter I always get the feeling that they are working off a base of knowledge that is hardly any sounder. That is why I am so convinced the expert analysis is needed first so that any public and political debate can be around a body of solid fact.

As an aside, I think some of the lines being pushed in some parts of the mainstream media, and the world of blogging, that the rest of the UK should be consulted in a referendum, is misguided. While it is possible to wrap up such an idea in a mantle of high sounding principle, it is feel it is simply wrong. I might be half Scottish, work there from time to time, and love the place, I really don't feel I have any great right to demand a say in how the government of that part of the country should develop. Certainly there would be an impact on the rest of the United Kingdom, but due to the weight of relative sizes it is almost certain that it would be insignificant in comparison to the effect on Scotland itself, and so to demand a vote of equal weight is not really justified.

Exactly the same arguments could be made for offering the rest of Europe a vote on whether the UK should adopt any EU treaty. I seem to remember that when that referendum was still on the table, even the suggestion that UK resident Non UK EU citizens be allowed to take part in the vote had many of the same mouthpieces spitting blood in indignation. The possible accusations of hypocrisy raised in the article by Guido quoted in the previous vote must be avoided at all cost.

Back in the Fold

Murrayfield rejoins the
international rugby community

I might be only half Scottish and live in London, but the SNP is really beginning to grow on me. It's not even just the fact that Alex Salmond seems vaguely human by politician standards and some of their supporters post great campaign songs on YouTube. It's early days, but they really do seem to be setting the Scottish nation free and seem in no great rush to turn the country in to the hard left hell hole'paradise' that some of their erstwhile policies suggested they might. They even seem to be more concerned with getting on with governing Scotland than making cheap shots at their southern neighbours.

Their latest act is to announce that it might once again be allowed to have a beer during rugby games at Murrayfield. Kenny MacAskill, the SNP justice secretary announced:

"There is a world of difference between people drinking a bottle of cheap cider in a park to get drunk and enjoying a pint of beer at half-time of a rugby match.

"We've listened to representations from fans, Scottish Rugby and the police.

"The fans can't understand why they can have a drink at Twickenham and at Millennium Stadium and at some rugby games and not others.

"They want to be able to enjoy a civilised drink during international matches at Murrayfield."

Quite right Mr MacAskill. Flint and Hewitt please note this is not 'Blue Skys Thinking' this is what normal people call 'Common Sense', that part of higher brain function whose absence is a prerequisite for high office in the NuLab ranks. Sadly I can only imagine the low hum of excitement that would go round the Department of Health if someone got it into their minds that there was half a chance of getting away with banning alcohol in the whole of TW1 on match days.

It's true that Murrayfield will still need permission from Edinburgh Council, but after the recent elections this should hopefully not be too much of an issue. ScotNuLab lost half its seats, losing overall control, the Nats went from 1 to 12 seats, and the Lib Dems gained 3 to 17. The Lib Dems are now the largest party, but they've done an almost complete Pontius Pilate act on the actions of the last Holyrood government, of which they were part, so this should be no obstacle. It shouldn't be forgotten though that the 'Liberal' Democrats were part of Jack 'Best Wee Numpty in the World' McConnell's government, which could have done what the Nats have now done, but instead saw fit to some introduce Nanny State legislation that would make Westminister NuLab's busybodies blushfeel green with envy.

The ban was introduced after an old firm clash in the 1980 Scottish Cup final which saw an on pitch battle between Rangers fans, their Celtic opponents and the police. It was not originally intended to cover Murrayfield, but was extended to cover all major venues after representations from the police, demonstrating once again their regrettable tendency to seek ridiculous new powers off the back of sensible attempts to tackle a real problem.

I'm not going to have a pop at kevball this time around. To be honest from the little I know on the subject most of the clubs seem to have improved immeasurably in recent years and this seems to have been accompanied a gradual slackening off of alcohol restrictions. The only time I've been to a football match I enjoyed my beer both at the Emirates Stadium and in the first pub we came to outside the dispersal zone after the match, despite what was apparently substandard Arsenal performance. Even the remaining restrictions on having alcohol within sight of the pitch seemed slightly absurd, with various shutters and blinds having to be closed at half time to allow us to consume our free beer while staying within the letter of the law.

The key thing is that while there were a few ill considered knee-jerk reactions to the problems in the English game, over time pragmatism has prevailed. Local solutions have to local problems has taken the place of sweeping catch-all national diktat. The clubs and authorities played their own part in proving they deserved such pragmatism by taking responsibility for the problems, and taking their own initiatives to deal with them. In areas like this, national legislation should constrain itself to setting basic minimum standards, while giving legal basis for further more draconian action where it is warranted on a local level, with a clear presumption that such action should only be taken where circumstance demonstrably prove it to be necessary.

Having said all that there is still a bit of pride in me every time I see the "No Alcohol Beyond This Point During Football Matches" signs at Vicarage Road when I go to watch Saracens. Also, having praised the Nats, it should be noted that there may be a little self-interest in play. According to BBC,

'Mr MacAskill was arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly before the England versus Scotland Euro 2000 play-off at Wembley stadium.

'He had intended on going to the game but spent the night in police cells. He was not charged or cautioned and later claimed his arrest was due to a misunderstanding.'
BBC News

I'll put it down to enlightened self-interest, not that it really matters anyway. Even if it wasn't a misunderstanding, it is history, and anyway, it's outcomes that count, and this can only be a good outcome for Edinburgh. I suppose that in this case, in the words of Blur "I'm a professional cynic but my heart's not in it". I've been to the Calcutta Cup game at Murrayfield, had a great time, and the alcohol ban, while not an especially big deal, was just plain silly. There were thousands drinking into the early hours afterwards, without any incidents I could see that wouldn't happen in any city centre on any Saturday night.

Despite now living in one of the 'World Cities' I find the 'Burgh something special. For me it was a place where as a young boy, heading up to visit grandparents, you'd emerge from the strange semi-subterranean world of Waverley station to be confronted with everything to a child’s eye that a city should be. It was often near Christmas so the imposing and garishly illuminated shop façades of Princess Street to the right tended to catch the eye first of all, as they were designed to, followed by the soaring buildings that seemed to cling improbably some kind of mountain to the left, and, best of all, a real castle dominating the skyline at its summit. Work now takes me up there from time to time and even as an adult there’s something I love about the place. Some of it is a nostalgia I suppose, but there are also great people, great bars, pubs and eating spots, all mingled together with the great historical sites and the places where the modern business of the city takes place.

Lets hope that, come the next internationals, we'll hear Auld Reekie say nae mair pish to this particular bit of Nanny State nonsense.

Update 10th June: Oh dear the SNP seem to making worrying noises on retaining DNA samples from the innocent...I'm going to have to come back to that one.