tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-208931842024-03-13T03:17:22.609+00:00The "original" BondBlokeThe Original. Accept no alternatives.Anon E Mousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09131020601786622244noreply@blogger.comBlogger365125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-18342320872463377282008-02-14T12:58:00.002+00:002008-02-14T13:02:43.042+00:00Another fine mess....Who would want to be a Tory or Lib Dem in Scotland these days? Not only does our redoubtable First Minister appear to be positively steaming ahead in opinion polls, but now poor Nicol S and Annabel G find that they’ve been mugged by the inability of Wendy ‘Shreek’ Alexander to deliver her much-lauded Constitutional Commission. How so?<br /><br />Dream sequence: let Scotland’s unionist parties take the wind out of Ecky’s burgeoning nationalist sails by announcing the setting up of a new Constitutional Commission which will consider what further powers (including over taxation) should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. And let that project invoke memories of the Constitutional Convention of the 1980s where a united Scotland stood firm in its determination to take on an unpopular Tory administration in London. Rekindling that spirit of national defiance against Thatchers’ “over-centralisation” of UK Government will effectively kill Salmond’s National Conversation for the “over-separation” (i.e independence) of Scotland’s Government. That will see off his so-called national conversation once and for all…<br /><br />Horrid reality: not only are Wendy’s well-trailed ambitions for further devolution of powers subject to extensive criticism by the UK-wing of her own party, but the Constitutional Commission project is taken over by the UK Government and managed by a senior civil servant whose professional coordinates lie somewhere between the UK Ministry of Justice and the Scotland Office. It quickly becomes crystal clear that not only is bailiff Brown really in charge of this Commission, but he is ready to leave no one in any doubt that he is in charge!<br /><br />The fine mess: Nicol and Annabel stick with this ill-fated Commission venture and find they are captured by the UK Labour Government. Self evidently Brown’s terms of reference for the remit of the Commission differ fundamentally from Wendy’s and, all the more so, from the terms that Nicol and Annabel thought they’d signed up to with such inelegant haste back in November. As rulers do, the bailiff has ruled. But he’s ruled <em>out</em> key reforms that Scotland’s unionist parties had persuaded themselves ('cause Wendy said so) had been ruled in! One can’t really imagine that being instructed the bailiff as to the conclusions this Commission will <em>not</em> be permitted to reach ahead of any meeting taking place is a situation that either Nicol or Annabel (or their UK masters) is likely to enjoy. But walk away from Wendy’s Commission on the grounds that you’ve been misinformed on its remit and scope, and the inability and incompetence of Scotland’s unionist parties collectively to discuss further any serious constitutional reform is laid bare for all to see. Upshot – not only is the constitutional debate handed back to the SNP – to be engaged through its still active national conversation – but the SNP Government emerges as the only political party capable of engaging this debate.<br /><br />And all this begins with an idea from Wendy who, we are constantly assured, has a brain the size of a small planet.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-14280811680492702502008-01-25T12:16:00.000+00:002008-01-25T13:50:35.910+00:00The Peter and Wendy show...In March 2007 the Association of Chief Police Officers for Scotland and the Electoral Commission agreed a Concordat covering, <em>inter alia</em>, procedures should potential violations of the rules on Parliamentary candidates’ spending and donations be uncovered. Appendix E, point 7, of that concordat states the following:<br /><blockquote>“In cases where the Electoral Commission has…information that indicates that criminal offences may have been committed…and the Commission has considered that the breaches <em>are of sufficient severity</em> that they believe prosecution action to be necessary…” these will be reported to the police. </blockquote><br />The key words are, of course, “…<em>sufficient</em> <em>severity</em>…” - this presumably being in the opinion of the Electoral Commission, notwithstanding any advice it may receive. RRR finds it somewhat strange that crime (and the law of the land) is to be enforced subject to what is, essentially, a <em>de</em> <em>minimis</em> test to be applied by a quango. But whether we approve or not, this process might well determine the fate of Wendy’s political career.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-40329362533864113042008-01-18T14:00:00.000+00:002008-01-18T17:19:53.267+00:00Three men in a newspaper...Today's Hootsman carries three stories that RRR thought worthy of comment.<br /><br />First, the great whinge by everyone's favourite pundit, Dougie Donnelly - recently removed Chairman of the Scottish Institute of Sport. A full 2 <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics/Dougie-Donnelly-slams-Scottish-Government.3686977.jp">pages worth of interview</a>, plus great big happy photo. My sole question in all of this national wailing and associated carfuffle about Dougie's dismissal - and one that has not yet been addressed - is whether the aforementioned Institute actually provided value for money in terms of the performance of our elite athletes? In short - was it doing a good job? Has anyone asked him? Not his pals on the beeb, that's for sure - <em>pace</em> GMS appallingly fawning interview on Thursday's show. And not the redoubtable Hootsman interviewer either. As far as I can see from its annual reports, it certainly was doing a good job of appointing experts - so full marks on the input (spending money) side. But what about outputs? No one seems to have had the audacity to actually ask Dougie to defend the "value-added" record of the Institute in terms of overall performance by our elite athletes. I don't know the answer, but for goodness sake would somebody please pose the question?<br /><br />Second, and this is a <em>very</em> unnerving moment for RRR, top marks go to Bill Jamieson for a very well written, sensible and balanced (yes, that's what I said...) <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/billjamieson/Bunkered-But-there-may-be.3686918.jp">piece</a> on the Trump issue. I can't believe I've just written that...I'll stop now lest I begin again to believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. But read it yourself.<br /><br />And finally we turn to Corporal Jones (CJ), hubby of Groaner Brankin, <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Is-London-not-Ireland-best.3686859.jp">writing </a>on how an issue (inward investment) described as one of the Government's strategic economic objectives. As per usual, in his haste to bash the incumbent government CJ's logic goes somewhat awry:<br /><blockquote>'...in the Government's budget statement there is the following strategic objective: "We live in a Scotland that is the most attractive place for doing business in Europe"'<br /></blockquote><br />While this text indeed does appear in the budget statement (see <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/203078/0054106.pdf">here</a> p46), it is presented not as an objective - I'd have thought the syntax kinda gives it away - but as a National Outcome to be delivered via the implementation of the 5 strategic <em>objectives</em> set out in the much earlier Government Economic Strategy (seemingly CJ doesn't know how to read a matrix). As usual, in his haste to catch out our new national government poor old CJ stumbles. And if that wasn't enough, he then undertakes some comparative analysis (<em>sic</em>) and compares the inward investment (under-)performance of Ireland with that of London - needless to say one is a country and one is a city. Following some <em>very</em> basic back-of-the fag-packet arithmetic (long-division, multiplication - that sort of stuff) and confused argumentation that I'll spare you, CJ comes to the breath-taking conclusion that "...the idea that tax cuts are a magic bullet for fixing the Scottish economy does not...stand up". Er, excuse me, but who said it did (stand up that is)? Like it or loathe it, I think the Government economic strategy is just a tad more sophisticated than that. Sadly, perhaps, CJ isn't.<br /><br />I never thought I'd come to the stage when I'd be awarding top marks to Bill J for his objectivity in comparison to other scribes on the Hootsman. Strange days indeed....RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-39133499709308874712007-09-07T15:52:00.000+01:002007-09-07T16:40:27.102+01:00Alf's OafishnessThere are many aspects to the copy that the Herald’s Oaf Young has been writing ever since a SNP victory began to look likely that are deeply irritating. Perhaps the most irritating is the intensely anti-intellectual stance he adopts over the matter of addressing Scotland’s contemporary economic performance (although a close second is his primordial west-of-Scotland Labour sectarianism). There are two aspects in <a href="http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.1671697.0.0.php">today’s</a> Herald piece that demonstrate what I mean.<br /><br />First, the attempt to entirely undermine the new Council of Economic Advisors some 2 weeks ahead of its first meeting as reflected in the utterly contemptible comment that its composition “…gives independence an inbuilt majority on the 11-strong group” – this because Messrs Mathewson and Beveridge have come out in favour of independence; Professors Hughes Hallett and Kay “…avowedly favour Scottish independence”, and Professors Kydland and Ruane “…would not be minded to deprive Scotland of what their own countries have so long enjoyed”. Oh - and do you really think the CEA will decide on the basis of a vote for goodness sake?<br /><br />Let’s look a bit more closely at our Council. Both Mathewson and Beveridge worked at various times in very senior public sector positions to improve the economic performance of Scotland. Both have concluded that Scotland lacks the necessary economic powers to achieve this – a conclusion also reached at by Robert Crawford, another former Chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise. RRR knows none of these individuals, but he’d be most reluctant to cast aspersions on their analytical abilities. RRR does, however, know the next two – Professors Hughes Hallett and Kay – and can assure Oaf that neither has an overtly political bone in his body. Both – and for entirely different reasons – have come to conclude that Scotland’s economic situation can be improved under a changed constitutional arrangement. Of the two, Hughes Hallett is driven by some heavy-lifting <em>economic</em> analysis. In a number of peer reviewed articles he has shown why Scotland’s economic performance is likely to be improved under an assignment of more economic powers to her government - it is the prevailing (mis-)assignment of economic policies, rather than independence <em>per se</em>, that is his starting position). Can this body of work simply be dismissed out of hand – or has Oaf read these and found the flaw in the underlying economic reasoning that other economists have missed? If so he’s keeping remarkably quiet about it. And as for his speculations on the independence-minded psychological state of the other two whom he seems not to have encountered (Kydland, because he's Finnish, and Ruane, ditto Irish, one of whom won the Nobel prize in Economics)…well, utterly pathetic really. One can only speculate why the remaining 3 economists – Jim Mirlees, Francis Cairncross and Alex Kemp – escape adverse comment, although if the afore-mentioned seditious-six are to get there divisive way they have to negotiate around these three…has Oaf <em>ever</em> met Jim Mirlees?…not something I’d be tempted to try).<br /><br />The serious point of course is that Oaf is systematically aiming to throw doubt on the integrity of some highly eminent individuals (who, unlike Oaf, have reached the very top of their respective professions) by implying they have reached their professional conclusions on the underlying causes for Scotland’s relative economic performance as a consequence of a political predisposition towards the SNP, rather than (if at all) the other way round. This is the very epitome of the ‘old’, bitter and ugly politics of Scotland, and demonstrates why Oaf is no longer fit for purpose. (Though RRR is willing to wager a large sum that Oaf would be entirely sycophantic and grovelling to every one of them if ever he met them…)<br /><br />The second irritating aspect of today’s piece is the oh-so-clever-clogs bit about the quality of the economic data on which any advice made by the CEA will be based. Here Oaf invokes the recent study by McLaren and Harris which raises a few very well founded doubts about the quality of the current economic data in Scotland, and which attracted intelligent comment yesterday from Gavin McCrone. But rather than criticising the quality of data produced by a string of previous occupants of New St Andrews House (most of whom were the political brethren of Oaf), he opts instead to try and be clever with words. I’ve lost count of the number of economists who have pleaded with officials to improve the quality of Scottish economic data. To set achieving this as an acid test by which the CEA will or will not be judged is simply bonkers. Statisticians in the Scottish Government will need to develop a range of new survey/sample methodologies to deliver a comprehensively solid set of economic data for Scotland, and I doubt this will be done before 21 September. I don't think this will prevent the Council from having an informed and useful debate.<br /><br />Wendy (Shreek) Alexander clearly is trying to begin the long process of returning Scottish Labour to the position in which it has policies that the public want to vote for. And RRR wishes her every success in that quest. Everyone benefits from having a credible opposition. But the type of political carping that has become Alf Young’s stock in trade will not help. This is a throw back to the era in which political bigotry ruled the roost; the “better dead than SNP” type of politics so characteristic of the deeper recesses of West of Scotland labourism. It is the same mind set that delivers the religious bigotry that has come to scar our national sport week in. week out. Alf Young clearly despises the SNP as Rangers "fans" despise Celtic "fans" and vice versa. RRR would like to see that this form of deep-seated journalistic sectarianism rooted out and exposed for what it is.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-3502153061763323742007-09-04T14:25:00.000+01:002007-09-04T16:17:43.727+01:00The Sad Tale of Dr Jones and Mister BrankinIs Peter Jones losing it? In <a href="http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1404832007">today’s</a> Scotsman this formerly balanced reporter is trailing a new conspiracy theory as follows:<br /><br /><blockquote>Is it part of the SNPs plan to deprive Scotland of the kind of big improvements that are eminently achievable now so that we become convinced that we must have independence in order to get them? In other words, is the SNP taking our toys away from us now and saying we’ll only get them back if we do as we’re told?</blockquote>What has prompted this bizarre outburst is a “contradiction” which Mister Groaner Brankin has detected “at the heart of SNP’s programme”. He argues that because the SNP accepts the proposition that better transport infrastructure will improve Scotland's economic growth rate, it is acting in a contradictory (read "conspiratorial") manner in axing the Edinburgh Airport (vanity) rail project.<br /><br />Upon interrogation on this by our redoubtable reporter, Enterprise Minister Jim Mather is quoted as having two responses explaining the Government’s position: first the Government needs control over income as well as expenditure if they are to embark on such huge capital spending programmes; second that the project is too risky under the current constitutional settlement. Mister Brankin finds neither explanation acceptable – on the basis that he sees no reason why this decision should have a “constitutional” dimension – and this leads him to his conspiracy theory as set out above.<br /><br />Let’s just unpick the conundrum which leads him along the false trail towards his conspiracy story. Both of Jim Mather’s responses are easily understood in fairly basic economic terms;<br /><br />(i) Controlling income as well as expenditure gives a government access to the full range of taxes (including - and this is crucial - future taxation) in order to fund capital spending programmes that are characterised by long pay-back periods (which is why the private sector won’t step in). Under the present fiscal arrangements the ‘block grant’ is set in London with scope for raising additional funds in Scotland solely via higher income tax (the ‘tartan tax’). Is Peter J suggesting that income tax in Scotland should be increased <em>now</em> to pay for a project for whom the main beneficiaries will be <em>future</em> generations? As matters stand the Scottish government’s task is to select spending priorities subject to the ceiling set by Whitehall. They cannot breach this ceiling – their budget has to balance. The Government has to select spending priorities within that ceiling, and the SNP made no secret of the fact that the rail project was not a priority. Other wealth-enhancing projects are of course being prioritised:<br /><br />(ii) Under the current arrangements a Scottish government has no scope to raise revenue by borrowing (i.e. by issuing government debt). The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown">bailiff’s</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_(fiscal_policy)">golden rule </a>when at the Treasury permits the UK government to borrow to finance capital spending (e.g. railway projects) – which it does – but not current spending. (Does PJ really believe that the 3 billion Euro he reports the Irish government will spend on a rail link to Dublin airport is coming out of the <em>current</em> spending account?) Scotland is unable to operate a golden rule, and so is further handicapped when it comes to funding expensive investment programmes, even where these are deemed desirable. Independence would enable a Scottish government to borrow in international capital markets and close this gap. In other words it can borrow now against higher revenues accruing in the future:<br /><br />(iii) “Risk” is a complex issue, and every investment carries with it some element of risk. Indeed, it is the existence of risk that requires governments to step in and invest where the private sector will not – because a private company will be spreading the risk over a small number of current shareholders while a government can spread the risk over the current and (crucially) future tax payers as a whole. If there was no risk then there would be no obstacle to the rail link being provided privately (the channel tunnel is a good example of what I’m driving at!). When we consider “risk” in this way it is clear that the degree of “risk” attaching to capital investment spending by a government indeed is directly linked to the constitutional situation. At present the risk attaching to the rail link falls entirely on this government and this Scottish population. The government cannot borrow against benefits accruing from the project in the future. This changes fundamentally if Scotland was to become independent.<br /><br />The type of conspiracy theory being pedalled by Peter Jones is feeble and reflects poorly on him. As someone who once worked for the Economist, one might have hoped he’d be better versed in elementary economics. But maybe Peter Jones is gone, and all we're left with is Mister Brankin? I really hope not...RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-42933845008839526062007-08-22T15:58:00.000+01:002007-08-22T16:18:52.534+01:00Yet more Tory Euro-toshOh dear, here we go again. Ill informed drivel coupled with wilful mischief making by politically reactionary forces in Scotland - a combination certain to get RRR irritated. I am referring to <a href="http://www.holyrood.com/content/view/1042/10051/">this</a> report from "the Tories" which is headlined: "An independent Scotland would be forced to use the Euro if it wanted to join the European Union as a sovereign country, according to the Scottish Conservatives." The content is cited in the following terms:<br /><blockquote>“It is now clear that we (i.e. Scotland) would have no choice in the matter and that membership of the Euro would be an automatic consequence of independence. There is absolutely no guarantee that the special status enjoyed by the UK would automatically transfer to an independent Scotland. This would create a very damaging situation for Scottish businesses, where they would be operating with a different currency from their major markets in the rest of the UK. Alex Salmond needs to stop misleading the Scottish people and now come clean, admitting that as an independent Scotland, we would have no choice but to join the Euro.”<br /></blockquote><br />It is, in fact, the Scottish Tories who should stop misleading the Scottish people.<br /><br />First: the facts. It is entirely true that all countries acceding to the EU since, and including, those who joined in 1995 have been obliged to sign up for eventual membership of the euro - the EU´s single currency - this being an integral part of the EU Treaties. The opt-out from the requirement to participate in the EU single currency which both the UK and Denmark secured in the run-up to the signing of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) back in 1992 has not been available to any country subsequently joining the EU. It was only agreed back then because of the particular circumstances of the day. It is highly unlikely (though not impossible - we are back in "successor state??" territory) that a comparable opt-out will ever again be available to a prospective EU member state (if that is the position in which an independent Scotland finds itself). However, even although obliged by the EU treaties to become a member of the euro-zone, a member state will only be permitted to adopt the euro if it meets the so-called convergence criteria as set out in the TEU, the most difficult of which traditionally has been reducing its budget deficit to below 3% of Gross Domestic Product. For the record, Slovenia became the 13th member of the euro-zone from January 1st this year, and Malta and Cyprus will take the number participating in the euro-zone to 15 from January 1st, 2008.<br /><br />Second: the actual position for non-members of the euro-zone as we know it to be. The UK and Denmark retain the opt-out and so are under no legal obligation ever to join the euro-zone. Both countries currently hold to the position that whilst in no sense ruling it out, they will not join unless this is supported in a national referendum. For the rest, and this includes Sweden where just such a referendum held in September 2003 went against joining the euro-zone (despite the fact that Sweden met the convergence criteria), there is simply no question that any country can be - or ever will be - <em><strong>forced</strong></em> into joining the euro-zone. Any suggestion to the contrary (including that made by Scotland´s Tories) is arrant nonsense and reveals a truly worrying degree of economic, political and legal illiteracy. The question as to whether an independent Scotland <em><strong>should</strong></em> exercise its right to join the euro-zone (subject to meeting the convergence criteria) is, of course, quite a different matter and (for the record) one on which RRR remains agnostic, this being a matter requiring further research.<br /><br />The apparent content of this report truly is bewildering and deeply troubling, and suggests that one or more of the following propositions must be true;<br /><br /><blockquote><p>ONE; that the Scottish Tories collectively are sufficiently stupid and ill-informed to have been duped into believing that an independent Scotland would be dragooned into the euro-zone against the wishes of either or both the Scottish government and its electorate; </p><p>TWO; that the Scottish Tories´policy-ideas cupboard is so bereft of constructive policy proposals that might help Scotland that they are reduced to wilfully misleading the Scottish public of the true situation vis-a-vis the Euro;</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>THREE; that the Scottish Tories have just discovered that all new member states (and not only those joining since 2004 but also those who joined in 1995) have had to sign an accession treaty committing them to eventual membership of the euro-zone. (Hell, if the Tories think that the SNP Government could have saved some money by not publishing the White Paper on Scotland´s constitutional future, RRR could have saved them a few pounds in consultant´s fees if only they had phoned him on this matter.) </p></blockquote><p>Fit to govern...?? Scotland needs an independent think tank on EU policy so that the type of rubbish coming out of this so-called "investigation" can be debunked as soon as it´s published!</p>RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-79228004213096939272007-08-21T23:02:00.000+01:002007-08-21T23:15:22.620+01:00Jack Straw: what a waste of an expensive (legal) educationD'ya know what? When Jack Straw was away from the Home Office and the administration of justice which he now taints, I actually missed him. No, seriously. Somehow my vision was tainted by the successive horrors of David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and John Reid, and I really missed Jack Straw's apparently reasonable approach to things. Not any more, not after today. I am pleased to see that Straw's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Straw_(politician)">Wikipedia entry</a> refers to my favourite snippet about him - namely that the Students' Union in Leeds, of which he was once a sabbatical officer before becoming President of the NUS, banned him from the student union building after taking exception to his illiberal policies. I remember seeing the lovely plaque outside the main entrance to the building. I am sorry to see that the policy has now apparently lapsed. However, the historical record appears to state that Straw took a law degree at Leeds University - my former employer... I am sure it was a very good law degree - all Leeds law degrees are. But it clearly appears to have gone to waste, because it was apparently his <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2153231,00.html">"expectation"</a> that Chindamo could be duly deported from the UK once he had completed his prison sentence. So now I mourn the passing of Charlie Falconer, who - as Lord Chancellor - would never have said anything so legally idiotic. Now, funnily enough, Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary at the time when the Citizens' Rights Directive was passed by the EU legislature, and as such he was effectively the UK's leader on all EU policy-making through his membership of the General Affairs Council. It is so blindingly obvious, I'm afraid, that the UK could never have an <strong>expectation</strong> of deporting Chindamo on release under EU law, and at most a <strong>hope</strong> that such an objective could be achieved, that one has to ask oneself the question whether (a) Straw has any understanding of the measures the UK is bound by, by virtue of EU law, and (b) whether his legal skills have so wasted away that he is no longer able to appreciate the clear effects of the provision of the Citizens' Rights directive which I cited in my last post on this matter. Anyway, it leads me to conclude that it was certainly a waste of an expensive (legal) education to send Jack Straw to Leeds University.BondWomanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09194225259521277589noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-90932728409161449482007-08-20T22:15:00.000+01:002007-08-21T14:31:32.400+01:00Leftist Pinko LiberalI've been involved in a bit of a debate with BondBloke over the last few days about which of us is more liberal. I think there is no contest, and now I intend to prove it, by blogging on a legal development which apparently receives universal condemnation by "right-thinking" members of society. This is the ruling by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal that Learco Chindamo, who convicted of the murder of the Headteacher Philip Lawrence in 1996, a murder he committed when he was 15, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6955071.stm">should not be deported when he is released from prison</a> (apparently this is expected some time in 2008). Reports state that this has been done on "human rights grounds", but in reality, I suspect that it is more a matter of applying EU law. As an EU citizen who had resided in the UK for more than ten years before his conviction, and the lawfulness of whose residence does not appear to be called into question, Chindamo benefits from the protection of Article 28 of the Citizens' Rights Directive.<br /><br />This provides:<br />1. Before taking an expulsion decision on grounds of public policy or public security, the host Member State shall take account of considerations such as how long the individual concerned has resided on its territory, his/her age, state of health, family and economic situation, social and cultural integration into the host Member State and the extent of his/her links with the country of origin.<br />2. The host Member State may not take an expulsion decision against Union citizens or their family members, irrespective of nationality, who have the right of permanent residence<br />on its territory, except on serious grounds of public policy or public security.<br />3. An expulsion decision may not be taken against Union citizens, except if the decision is based on imperative grounds of public security, as defined by Member States, if they:<br />(a) have resided in the host Member State for the previous 10 years;...<br /><br />Of course the text of this measure, which the UK has accepted as an incident of its EU membership, may be grist to the mill of those calling for withdrawal from the EU, on the grounds it contaminates "our" sovereignty. On the other hand, people should recall that these things work both ways: there may be people in the prisons of other Member States who are not deported back to the UK when released, on exactly the same grounds that Chindamo is arguing he should stay in the UK. Namely that his "family and life were in the UK".<br /><br />Unless one denies entirely the possiblity of rehabilitation, it also strikes me that such policies on expulsion are entirely rational. It can never be guaranteed, as I hinted above, that reform is "complete". But if one thing is likely to ensure than any rehabilitative effect of a prison sentence and any educational measures that have accompanied it is **not** successful, it is deportation to a country where a person has not resided since they were a very small child, the language which they may not speak, and where they lack family, other support mechanisms, and - crucially - employment opportunities which will reintegrate them socially and help to ensure that they do not reoffend. David Davis describes Italy as "his [i.e. Chindamo's] own country". But on what grounds is this so other than on the basis of holding a passport - which is something, effectively, he has been bequeathed by his parents (Chindamo was a minor at the time he was convicted and could not, therefore, have previously changed his nationality through his own actions)?<br /><br />Moreover, it strikes me that there is a more general moral argument to be made about foreign prisoners. Frances Lawrence has always struck me as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1837777,00.html">an interesting woman</a>, motivated amongst other things by her faith and her underlying liberal principles. Yet in the BBC report I linked to above, she is quoted as saying that she is "unutterably depressed", "depressed" and "devastated" by the ruling. These seem understandable personal reactions on the part of a victim, yet in the Guardian article I <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1837777,00.html">linked to</a>, she is shown struggling with the contradictions between her personal feelings and her underlying liberal beliefs. It is hard, and wrong, to generalise about foreign prisoners and deportation, but I think one point should be made - not least because it is probably an unpopular opinion drowned out by the cacophony of hardline views especially on the internet. This is the point that each individual foreign prisoner deserves to have individual consideration of his or her circumstances, in order to ensure that deportation does not become an arbitrary extra punishment imposed specifically upon them (and not upon nationals) not by the decision of a jury to convict and the decision of a judge to impose a particular sentence, but by an executive which claims the right to determine which persons who do not hold the magical badge of nationality are permitted to remain within the jurisdiction and which are not. Such an assessment is not a "human rights" issue as such, but rather a means-end calculation done on an individual basis. Interestingly enough, this is precisely what EU law mandates. Decisions on deportation must be based precisely on the risk which an individual poses to the host society, and not based on general precepts, and the decision must take into account issues about integration - not for human rights reasons, but for the perfectly good utilitarian reasons about propensity to reoffend if individuals are thrown into unfamiliar and hostile surroundings and are denied any meaningful support of family and friends. The UK and its residents no more wishes to see the mirror image of a UK passport holder in Chindamo's situation thrust upon it, than Italian residents would wish to see Chindamo sent there, despite his lack of a connection with the place other than the magical badge of the passport.<br /><br />I strongly suspect that this leftist pinko liberal sentiment will show BondBloke in his true colours. I await his reaction...<br /><br />Update: First, I have to report that entirely unsolicited BondBloke expressed a similar view to mine when he first heard this story on the Today programme this morning. So, I'll have to try harder. **This** isn't evidence of my being more liberal than him, but rest assured I will find evidence. Second, I am glad to see that I am not alone as a pinko liberal (armchair variety only) - see <a href="http://julietpain.blogspot.com/2007/08/frances-lawrence.html">here</a>. Perhaps predictably Jailhouse Lawyer takes a <a href="http://prisonersvoice.blogspot.com/2007/08/philip-lawrencelearco-chindamo-what.html">similar view</a>. And a utilitarian view on the "sharing" of those with criminal backgrounds is put forward <a href="http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2007/08/20/chindamo_judgement_reawakens_f">here</a>.<br /><br />Further update: a few <a href="http://blog.pint.org.uk/2007/08/human-rights.html">more</a> <a href="http://andymoore.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/life-a-political-commodity/">voices</a> <a href="http://athinkingman.wordpress.com/2007/08/21/learco-chindamo-should-stay/">raised</a>. They'll be shouted down by the "moral" majority.<br /><br />Final update: A <a href="http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/08/other-mrs-lawrence-outrage-into.html">good fisking</a>, by Chris Paul, of a typically rubbish post on the issue by Iain Dale, definitely appealing to the "moral" majority, which I won't link to. In fact, a surprising number of dissenters amongst the commentators on Dale's blog, suggesting that some sensible people still do read it (I would have deleted him ages ago from the sidebar here, except that the blog settings have malfunctioned and I can no longer change the template, sidebar, etc.).<br /><br />Enough is enough.BondWomanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09194225259521277589noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-69888809351093560172007-08-17T16:51:00.000+01:002007-08-17T17:22:47.464+01:00Red's RageSeems to me that an occupational hazard in all of this blogging is that one easily can begin to obsess about particular issues and/or individuals. In RRR case, this risk is particularly acute in the case of ‘Red’ Midwinter and his regular interventions on the topic of Scotland’s budgetary position and prospects. Yesterday’s performance, as reported <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1299692007">here</a>, reads like vintage Red. The trademark authority, the political side-swiping, the “<em>we’re doomed I tell ye</em>” predictions. Let’s face it – an optimist he is not. But particularly worrying is that he is quoted by the ever-fawning Hack MacMahon as repeating a comment he first made after the FM announced his <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2007/06/28162657">Council of Economic Advisers </a>– this being that the Executive has "no responsibility for managing the Scottish economy… and only has microeconomic powers". Of all the assertions he has made recently, this has to be one of the more revealing. As any first year student of economics (hopefully) will tell you, economic growth is defined <em>not</em> as year to year changes in GDP (which records the growth of aggregate demand and is heavily influenced by macroeconomic – fiscal and monetary – policy changes over which the Scottish government presently has virtually no control), but <em>is</em> defined as the (long term) growth of potential output of the economy. And the growth of potential output is substantially influenced by (supply side) microeconomic policy decisions over which the Scottish Government commands <em>considerable</em> policy authority. It is therefore incorrect, and indeed economically illiterate, to argue that Scotland's government has no responsibility for managing the economy because it only has control over microeconomic policy levers. These are the principal levers required to manage the economy in any meaningful sense.<br /><br />Such ignorance of an elementary proposition in economic theory might be forgivable if coming from a journalist, but is deeply worrying when made by Scotland's "leading" expert in public finance. And this isn’t entirely a matter of point-scoring vis-à-vis Red, fun though that is. It is also a reflection that in some of his pronouncements, as here, Red is simply confused and wrong (i.e. he doesn't know what he's talking about). Which itself suggests that the multiple “papers” of which he is an author (and which are devlishly hard to find in the public domain) have not been adequately reviewed by Red’s academic peers – peer reviewing being an entirely “normal” practice within the industry. As elementary an error as this one would certainly have been picked up in a proper peer review exercise. It is indicative of an approach to public policy commentary that is at best cavalier and at worst intellectually dishonourable.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-17211075001589952232007-07-27T10:40:00.000+01:002007-07-27T19:39:16.278+01:00University as LobbyistThose who, like RRR, have an interest in the Caledonian MacBrayne tendering issue should have a look at <a href="http://www.brocher.com/Ferries/hc.htm">this</a> blog, section headed "The EC-subsidised private lobbyists".<br /><br />Having read the "academic" report in question, RRR would have gone much further in his condemnation of the so-called Professor who, in exchange for the 40-pieces-of-silver, evidently was happy to sell to private shipping concerns the last remaining vestige of any intellectual respectability he may once have commanded. As far as RRR is concerned, those undertaking such crass political lobbying from within a Scottish University are guilty bringing the academic profession as a whole into disrepute and do not deserve the title of "academic" far less that of professor.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-74108960247358786162007-07-25T08:18:00.000+01:002007-07-25T08:27:43.795+01:00Ring the Changes...RRR was delighted to learn yesterday that Professor David Bell of the University of Stirling has been confirmed as adviser to the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament. This is, to be sure, a first rate appointment. As our regular readers will understand, RRR is equally pleased that - in this publicly funded capacity at least - Red Midwinter has been kicked into the long grass from where, no doubt, he will continue his role as adviser to the West of Scotland's Anti-Democracy Party.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-62470627339504687662007-07-12T16:44:00.000+01:002007-07-12T17:39:34.800+01:00Fishing for a fightOK - he's been in Brussels, he's met the EU Fisheries Commissioner and already Groanar Brankin is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6289602.stm">baying</a> for his blood. His crime? That is to insist that Scotland takes the lead on behalf of the UK in future Council of Ministers sessions dealing with the Common Fisheries Policy. Outrageous, screeches Groanar by way of measured response. She continues:<br /><br /><blockquote>"The UK coastline is shared between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland - all with major fishing industries. So the notion that Scotland should have the sole right to speak for the UK on fisheries matters is fanciful nonsense."<br /></blockquote><br />In fact it is Groanar who, in her unseemly though entirely predictable haste once again to pounce on the elected government of Jockland with all the elegance and grace of an elephant wearing wellies, is getting this wrong - possibly because she has never had any reason to read what the relevant concordats actually say (well, much easier to be told by London), far less that what it was that Ecky actually said last evening.<br /><br />On the latter, it is clear that Ecky was seeking the right to '<em><strong>lead</strong></em>' the UK delegation at the aforementioned Council, <em><strong>not</strong></em> be a substitute for it. And under Article 203 of the EU Treaty this is pefectly permissable - this Article having been inserted by the Maastricht treaty revision back in 1993 to placate the irritated (and more mature than Groana) German Lander who were seeing their legislative powers gravitate to Bonn as more and more devolved competences came under EU policy activity.<br /><br />On the more esoteric issue of the procedures elaborated in the 1999 <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/memorandum/#B4">Memorandum of Understanding</a> to ensure Scotland's EU-policy related voice is heard in Whitehall when UK Government is shaping the national negotiating position viv-a-vis an EU proposal it will represent in the Council of Ministers, Articles B4.12 to B4.15 clearly provide for attendance by Ministers from the devolved administrations at these Council meetings. But here control matters - not rights - in that the decision as to who appears where and when in EU Council meetings rests entirely with UK Government. Scotland's Ministers with responsibility for the devolved matters under EU-level discussion have to be 'invited' to attend the EU Council meeting by the lead UK Department (Minister) on a case-by-case basis. They have no right of attendance. This seems to RRR the imperious language of a by-gone era. Surely it is entirely wrong that the decision as to when a Minister from the Scottish Executive attends EU Council meetings rests solely with Whitehall? It must be for the Scottish Executive to rank EU-related issues according to their domestic importance, and attend when s/he decides this is necessary? After all, I can't imagine there will be an excessive enthusiasm for enduring hours of multi-lingual debate unless the matter is a pressing one. BMI is unlikely to profit much from that particular gravy-train!<br /><br />Ms Brankin clearly is from the old one-party-state school of thought, of which the established doctrine is that "whatever you do, do nothing". Heavans, even Donald Dewar accepted that the inter-governmental arrangements involving the governments of this Queendom would have to be adapted to suit new challenges and different contexts. We have new challenges and we are in a different context: and there is an urgent need to re-visit these EU-related concordats in order that Scotland's voice is properly heard in the corridors of Whitehall and the EU Council in Brussels. If not, then it won't be a case of Ecky picking fights with London, but rather the Bailiff's London team picking fights with Ecky. After recent head-to-heads, and on present form, not a smart move Bailiff.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-68559483726508781422007-07-11T17:00:00.000+01:002007-07-11T17:18:44.961+01:00Passchendale bluesTomorrow Queenie Brenda Windsor will travel to Ypres where she will form part of an international gathering to mark the 90th anniversary of the third battle of Ypres – more popularly known as the <a href="http://www.blacks.veriovps.co.uk/content/3138.html">battle of Passchendale</a>. She will be accompanied at this event by representatives of the devolved administrations. Oor Eck is already in Brussels wining and dining with the EU's big Commissioner boys and girls in readiness for the day when he rules the roost in an independent Scotland. And as a consequence of Rhodri M’s unfortunate health <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6292652.stm">blip</a>, the devolved Welsh government will be represented at the commemorations by the newly sworn-in deputy first minister of the Assembly and leader of Plaid Cymru, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6290480.stm">Ieuan Wyn Jones</a>. RRR is unsure if Northern Ireland will be represented at the event – though if so then Brenda might well find herself accompanied by a Scottish nationalist, a Welsh nationalist, and quite possibly a former leading light in the provisional IRA. As Ollie might be heard to muse on the vagaries of constitutional reform...“that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into Mr Blair.” All of this to be followed next week by a meeting of the British-Irish Council...strange, though interesting, days.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-83385261362801690112007-07-03T21:49:00.000+01:002007-07-03T21:54:35.210+01:00WhingeBondbloke and I are somewhat peeved to discover that we are sharing our hotel for the last couple of days of our mixed work/holiday stay in Malta with an <a href="http://www.epp-ed.org/Press/showpr.asp?PRControlDocTypeID=1&PRControlID=6236&PRContentID=11036&PRContentLG=en">EPP-ED Study Day </a>on EuroMed, Maritime Policy and Immigration. Admittedly the former two headings are not areas of European politics where I could legitimately claim to have more expertise than most MEPs, although I am supervising a thesis which is empirically, if not theoretically, focused on the Euro-Med. However, what peeves us most is that we have just returned to our room to find a card from the hotel management pushed under the door, informing us that our normal breakfast restaurant is unavailable for the next three days (this only affects us tomorrow as we are away early on Thursday). Ordinary hotel guests are going to find their buffet breakfast served in a smaller restaurant, which doesn't open out straight onto the pool terrace, and is infinitely less pleasant for breakfast. If we can't have our breakfast outside under a nice umbrella tomorrow morning, toys may be thrown... European politicians...who'd have 'em in the same hotel?BondWomanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09194225259521277589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-55392340992771168072007-07-03T11:48:00.000+01:002007-07-03T14:10:06.045+01:00Always check your sources...With the creation of a raft of new <a href="http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12189.asp">Ministers for the (English) Regions</a>, it is becoming fairly clear that Bailiff Brown is determined to review (and revise) the basis of the current intra-UK financial allocations to the devolved administrations. Just how he goes about this is unclear, although it is likely to be based on a UK-wide ‘needs assessment’ exercise. Despite the fact that we know from past experience that this type of computation is bedevilled by methodological difficulties, even those with no political axe to grind are coming to regard Barnett’s demise as inevitable – e.g. see <a href="http://www.scdi.org.uk/file.php?id=2688">here</a>.<br /><br />Developing a successor to Barnett will require clear thinking concerning the economic and the politics involved – the type of approach that is hardly apparent in <a href="http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.1514120.0.0.php">this</a> astonishing rant by President Bruce in today’s Herald. Have the Liberal Democrats lost their collective marbles entirely? But my favourite bit in the piece is the quote attributed to (right wing historian) Arthur Herman by a smug President Bruce where Herman opines:<br /><br /><blockquote>"By surrendering her sovereignty the first time in 1707, Scotland gained more than she lost. She has to be careful that, in trying to reclaim that sovereignty, she does not reverse that process." </blockquote><br />This the same Arthur Herman whose book on Joseph McCarthy published in 2000 was somewhat critically reviewed by <a href="http://www.umich.edu/~aflf/Schrecker.html">Ellen Schrecker </a>in the following terms:<br /><br /><blockquote>"For the work under review, the European historian Arthur Herman did not gain access to any important new archives or uncover any new aspects of McCarthy's past. On the contrary, his research is perfunctory, to say the least. With a few excursions into some Army files and oral history interviews, he relies almost entirely on the standard published sources. There is nothing new here-and more (I assume) sloppy factual errors than a reputable piece of scholarship should contain...But, sloppiness is hardly a cardinal sin. Far more unsettling is Herman's misuse of his sources...Rather than scholarship (or at least adequate scholarship), this volume seems to be an exhaustive attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of "America's Most Hated Senator," as the book's subtitle describes him."<br /></blockquote>Ouch...Read the remainder of the review <a href="http://www.jstor.org/view/00028762/di014876/01p0893a/0?frame=noframe&userID=81d7f445@ed.ac.uk/01cce4406000501be722d&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;dpi=3&config=jstor">here</a>. Quite - let's just switch "McCarthy" with "Union"...RRR would suggest that President Bruce checks out the credibility of his sources before citing them as self-evident truth. As EH Carr said, if you want to understand history first you have to understand the historian!RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-75067076002246906892007-07-02T17:11:00.000+01:002007-07-03T14:12:14.951+01:00Fanfare for the common (wo)manBefore the news broke about the horrific attack on Glasgow airport, RRR spent a pleasant, if somewhat damp, day enjoying the festivities that surrounded the opening of the third session of the Scottish Parliament. In part as a diversion from the rain, RRR decided to rank our political parties on a ‘mingling index’ according to which their score is determined by the number of a party’s politicians (relative to their overall parliamentary representation) spied mingling in the worsening weather with the great Scottish public in preference to partaking in the various ‘official’ receptions which were available indoors! The highest score by far was achieved by the governing party, with many SNP’s MSPs (including those occupying the very highest office) opting to brave the increasingly inclement elements and enjoy the entertainment on offer outside the Parliament building. While the Liberal Democrats’ score was buttressed by what seemed to be hordes of young Stephens, nonetheless the timely appearance of Cpt. Mainwaring did much to lift them into fourth place behind the Tories (3rd) and the Greens (2nd) – the latter managing to have a staggering 50% of their elected number out and about (Mr. Harvie – Patrick, that is. Sadly RRR's 'law of small numbers' denied the Greens top spot - they'll understand). Labour came in a lowly fifth as RRR saw just one member of the Labour opposition taking the outdoor air, and he didn’t look too happy (must have been the weather…). On the individual rankings RRR’s highest score – a perfect 10 – goes to Rob Gibson, MSP. For Robi G not only braved the hostile elements for the entire afternoon, he remained out there in front of the stage supporting the entertainers as the rain lashed down and men and women of lesser mettle (RRR included) huddled some distance away sheltering under the Parliament’s protruding roof. And this stunning performance comes only a week after the same Robi G had been spied by RRR stoically braving the even more miserable weather (not to mention mud) to take in much of the splendid music (though criminally high refreshment prices) on offer at the Outsider Festival in Aviemore. Well done Robi G!RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-7194647470392997252007-06-29T16:28:00.000+01:002007-06-29T16:47:22.629+01:00Regional Ministers - a clarificationFollowing <a href="http://holyroodchronicles.blogspot.com/2007/06/english-regional-ministers.html#links">this</a> post over on Holyrood Chronicles, RRR can perhaps offer some clarification - eh, maybe. This from the PM's spokesperson at yesterday's No 10 briefing;<br /><br /><blockquote>"The role of these Ministers was to act as regional champions within the Government, and to represent the Government on parliamentary debate and other forum focussed specifically on regional issues." </blockquote><br />When pressed by the assembled hacks, this clarification was offered...<br /><br /><blockquote>"Asked to say more about the Regional Ministers, and was it right that they would be championing their regions in the Government and not the other way around, the PMS replied that the idea was to ensure that the regional dimension was properly factored into the Government's decision making process in a cross-departmental way. Asked if it would therefore be more bottom-up than top-down, the PMS replied that it was more about ensuring that the regional dimension was joined up across Government. Asked if the Regional Ministers would all have other responsibilities as well, the PMS replied that everyone would have to wait for the detail tomorrow to see exactly how these posts related to other junior Ministerial positions."<br /></blockquote> Ok – got it?RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-20425947318875687672007-06-29T10:51:00.000+01:002007-06-29T12:13:40.681+01:00Red's RagRRR’s favourite, and entirely non-partisan, academic expert on all things economic in Scotland ('Red' Midsummer) is riding to our collective rescue again. This time Prof Red has, amongst others, a couple of economic Nobel laureates in his sights. In response to the FM announcement on his <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2007/06/28162657">Council of Economic Advisers</a>, Red <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1014592007">opines</a> in today’s Scotsman:<br /><br />"This is a waste of public money. The announcement is symptomatic of the SNP having greater concern for the trappings of office than problems of governing. Hopefully, Mr Salmond will soon stop the gesture politics and make a statement on matters for which he has responsibility,"<br /><br />That’s the boy Red - go get ‘em. Professors Mirrlees and Kydland (afore mentioned Nobel laureates) will be sorry they ever showed their faces in <em>this</em> town…What would they know about economics anyway? Professor John Kay – founder of the universally praised Institute for Fiscal Studies – a total joker, right? And as for the economy – well, I ask you – just what has improving the state of the Scottish economy got to do with the job of being First Minister of Scotland? Jack never saw it that way - right? It gets even worse. What an outrageous waste of public money - they are each being paid (and I hope you're all sitting down) the preposterous sum of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...unlike the adviser to the previous Finance Committee as indicated (para 17-19) <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/finance/reports-07/fir07-03.htm">here</a>. Hum-de-hum...RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-76944192139158636812007-06-27T13:56:00.000+01:002007-06-28T10:35:22.242+01:00Coffin lids creaking...As can be seen <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/finance/mop-07/fimop07-0626.htm">here</a>, yesterday the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament convened in private to consider who should be appointed budget adviser to the committee. Delphic or what? RoadrunnerReturns wonders <a href="http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=539472007">who</a> got appointed...they wouldn't, would they?RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-54994221473728392692007-06-20T21:57:00.000+01:002007-06-21T21:43:12.757+01:00Blog OutingWe interrupt this programme (or should I say succession of rants (I mean, fully reasoned arguments) by RRR) to bring you news of a Blog Outing. Having been visited in March by <a href="http://patthechooks.blogspot.com/2007/03/chookters-in-auld-reekie.html">Pat the Chooks and Her Maj</a>, we decided last weekend it was time to return the favour. So weary of the incessant rain and grey weather in the East of Scotland, we decided to try our luck in the West. Occasional perusals of the BBC Weather website and reading this <a href="http://www.silversprite.com/">blog</a> and reports on this <a href="http://fallingsky.blogs.com/falling_sky/">blog</a> about beautiful weather on Skye in the last couple of weeks, had convinced us that we should head west. This is, of course, counterintuitive, because typically the East of Scotland does have more sunshine than the West, but not - apparently - this year. We also needed to do a dry-run for the tent, as we shall be spending next weekend in it at this <a href="http://www.outsiderfestival.co.uk/">Festival</a>, along with RoadRunnerReturns, the Queen of Scots, and others. Well thousands of others, actually. However, we are also braving the MacNasties and<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_JGvOYZOAqvI/RnmXgSqBdPI/AAAAAAAAAA0/8DzXTDr7ASI/s1600-h/100_1135.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5078256635856647410" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_JGvOYZOAqvI/RnmXgSqBdPI/AAAAAAAAAA0/8DzXTDr7ASI/s320/100_1135.jpg" border="0" /></a> staying in a tent, which may prove a foolhardy decision. In fact, we did manage to put the tent up in Pat the Chooks' garden, but the MacNasties were sooooo bad, that we gave up on the idea of sleeping out, and gratefully accepted a proper bed for the night. No such choice next Friday and Saturday. Anyway, we have a lovely mini weekend, with a visit to the <a href="http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/taynuilt/bonawe/index.html">Bonawe Iron Furnace</a> in Taynuilt (where I decided not to buy the latest CD release of the Taynuilt Gaelic Choir in the local shop....), a drive down Loch Awe and a splendid reception at The Grannary. Saturday was not so good, but Sunday dawned bright and sunny and we ventured straight out the back of The Grannary, onto the hills and away, to enjoy splendid views at the top of the local mini summit, from where we could see Arran, Colonsay, Mull, Ben Cruachan, the Arrochar Alps, and many other sights near and far. Sadly, we had to come back soon after lunch, but it was a real tonic to the system.<br /><br /><br /><br />UPDATE Gordon Bennett. Tetchy or what? First I have RoadRunnerReturns on at me about how I describe his flood of posts, and then Bondbloke gets on his high horse about not getting a mention in this post. Well, yes, BB was there. For record. End of update.BondWomanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09194225259521277589noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-91470286103418240072007-06-20T20:47:00.000+01:002007-06-20T21:24:54.233+01:00Chris(t) returnsAlthough entirely unreasonably, nonetheless it has been put to Roadrunner that since his return to the blogosphere his posts have been characterised by a certain sympathy with - if not predisposition towards - the new SNP administration in Scotland. While confessing to a growing unease that Scotland was coming perilously close to resembling a one-party and fundamentally clientilist state under the previous regime (a view partially confirmed by Labour's on-going inability to come to terms with being in opposition) and thus delighted with the change in government, RR emphatically denies any specific political affiliation. As evidence of this, let RR alert you to <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/academicexperts/story/0,,2105813,00.html">this</a> feature in yesterday's Education Guardian which seems to be taking self-delusion, self-importance and self-promotion to new heights. And this from a new intake SNP MSP who has only (partly) returned to the best small country in the world after an absence of 25 years. Oh, and who commutes here from Aberystwyth. But apart from the sheer scale of the ego that is evident from the quotes attributed to Christ, RR is left musing that whilst Tübingen University - one of his current employers - might be "proving flexible about his political involvement" wherey he continues to combine a professorship there with his new job as an MSP, one wonders if the Scottish electorate - his other current employer - will be just as philosophical if not flexible about having a part-time politician looking after their interests.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-31841803539954303172007-06-20T20:30:00.000+01:002007-06-20T21:15:21.852+01:00Lowering corporation tax?RoadrunnerReturns was interested to read <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6223504.stm">this</a> report about an independent tax and budget review for Wales which has been agreed to by Members of the Welsh Assembly. It is fairly well established that - in comparison to Scotland and Northern Ireland - Wales does less well than could be expected from the Barnett formula, at least on the basis of an objective needs assessment. But what continues to baffle Roadrunner is the persistence of the view that corporation tax rates could legally be lowered in some parts of the UK (Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) but not in others (England). This is wrong, wrong, wrong. European Union law regards any such infra-national variation in rates of corporation tax as state aid. Unless the UK can persuade the European Commission that regional reductions in corporation tax are justified on a strict economic development needs basis, which is highly unlikely in the cases of Scotland and Wales (and probably also in the Northern Irish case), then for right or wrong this policy is a non-starter.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-50007300083629135242007-06-19T12:09:00.000+01:002007-06-19T15:01:10.644+01:00Devolution's big stickIn all the media coverage of FM Salmond’s away-day to Stormont, little explanation has been offered as to why his visit was so appealing to Dr Paisley and Mr McGuiness. After all, they did invite him. The Scottish media's uniform take on matters thus far revolves entirely around the potential irritation that his visit will cause Whitehall, with the usual spin being that Wee Eck again is just keen to pick a fight with Number 10. By stepping into international relations (rather than continuing Labour’s tradition of running Scotland as a glorified town council) he will do that. Our lamentable media also seems perplexed that a Scottish nationalist should be able to make common cause with a staunch defender of the union of the parliaments, and an Irish Republican. Again what passes for the political analysis here in Scotland misses the point. The leadership in Northern Ireland (and doubtless Wales too in due course) regard (and always has done) Scotland’s First Minister as ‘first among equals’ across the devolved administrations. This reflects the fact that, under the devolution settlements, Scotland emerged as the most powerful of the three devolved administrations. By aligning itself with Salmond, Northern Ireland's leadership can punch above its weight in dealings with London and so get more out of UK Government than otherwise (although EU state aid rules will almost certainly prevent them getting what they want on corporation tax). Seems that the only administration not to have worked out how to deal with the new political angles thrown up by May 7th historic result north of the border is, well, the one in London.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-5662393090677929982007-06-15T15:36:00.000+01:002007-06-15T16:05:10.705+01:00Rank awfulNow as a music fan of some vintage, I rather like it when newspapers produce <a href="http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/story/0,,2102991,00.html">this </a>type of review - a selection of so-called "classic" albums which, in the views of a cross-section of today's well known (or if not well known then certainly credible) musicians and/or record producers, maybye weren't that seminal after all. So, have a read and see what today's crop of music-makers consider to be the less than enduring efforts of their forebears. Oh - and spot which participant is the odd one out. Don't have the time? Oh well then, let me tell you. It's that well known, all-singing and all-dancing top-of-the-pops egoist, Ian Rankin. Not only does he not make music, by selecting the Velvet Underground and Nico as his example of an over-rated classic, he demonstrates that he knows nothing whatsoever about music. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of modern music will attest, had that truly brilliant album not happened, then virtually nothing of merit (or interest) in contemporary music would have happened thereafter.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20893184.post-34898848280579531142007-06-15T11:38:00.000+01:002007-06-15T14:02:00.154+01:00The empire strikes backThe institutions of the British state (this time the BBC) are not taking this SNP government thing at all well. Last night's interview of FM Salmond by the vacuous Anne MacKenzie on BBC's Newsnight Scotland has to go down as one of the most inept pieces of television journalism since - oh I don't know when (no, just remembered, since crunchy Kirsty's seething attack on FM a week earlier - hey, maybe it's a Thursday thing?). Forget that it was an opportunity of asking our new leader about the 'vision' stuff, or even spending a decent amount of time talking about substantive policy issues. No, let's instead continue to present London's total cock-up over Libya memorandum as nothing other that Salmond picking fights...how dare he upset the British government in such a way. Oh, yea, right Anne. Good one. And just how up to speed on the wording of the concordats are you?<br /><br />Anne MacKenzie and Gordon Brewer really have to ditch their personal attacks, hide their own politics, or be replaced. We deserve better. Before May 7th 2007 I had lost count of the number of times I heard a Newsnight Scotland package being introduced by the comment - "we asked a member of the Executive to participate but none was available". I have heard that only once since the election - and that was the aforementioned AnneMac's entirely gratuitious side-swipe on last Thursday's programme that Salmond had been asked to appear but that "...he never writes, he never phones...", this coming immediately after he'd been so appallingly treated by crunchy Kirsty on the other Newsnight. Who writes these comments - or are they left to <em>ad lib</em>?<br /><br />It's way past time BBC Scotland reviewed the manner in which it is presenting news and current affairs in a devolved Scotland. This is not about supporting, or opposing, the current Scottish government. It is simply that what we are being served up as current affairs by BBC Scotland is no longer fit for purpose. Changes have to be made or any remaining vestige of credibility BBC Scotland has in presenting and analysing political news in an objective and mature manner (i.e. Brian Taylor) will be lost forever. A very old and dear friend of mine (one AYL) used to describe Scotland's then ageing and quite unprofessional crop of football commentators as "fans with mikes". The same unprofessionalism now characterises much of the political coverage in Scotland. It's time for a total overhaul.RoadrunnerReturnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11973816862681878204noreply@blogger.com0