Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

So you thought it was all over?

Jul 19

Posted by The Burd in Crime, Holyrood, Society, Sport | 1 Comment

Eek!  Whatever happened to the close season?  Less of a stop, more of a pause really.  The last football season ended with the Scottish Cup final played on 21 May and the new one starts this Saturday 23 July – eight short weeks apart.

There’s something faintly obscene about this rush to return to winter pastimes in mid summer.  And given the inglorious end to last season, and events this summer, a longer period of contemplation and respite might have done us all the world of good.  But no, common sense and football are distant companions these days.

The legislation might have been put on hold for more considered deliberation but the JAG – that’s Joint Action Group for the uninitiated – on Football has met and agreed 40 – count em! – points of action which aim to “improve the game”.  It’s a slightly misleading headline, because having scoured the recommendations on your behalf, dear reader, nowhere do I see proposals to clone Kenny Dalglish.

No, these recommendations aim to improve the conduct of football by players and spectators alike.  Some of it is so obvious the burd is frankly perturbed that it isn’t already commonplace.  Indeed, it is remarkable that after years of huffing and puffing by the powers that be, to the effect that the computer says no, the SPL has agreed upfront to significant changes in the scheduling of matches.

New Year’s Day football for the Old Firm is a thing of the past – the traditional derby will now be played on 28 December.  The police will have a say on the scheduling of the post-split Old Firm clash, Chief Police Officers will be consulted before the fixtures list is published each year to identify and consider any problematic fixtures and there will be only one mid week fixture round after the annual split.  This last one is welcome news for fans who get fed up being expected to get from one end of the country to the other on a working evening, just because an SPL computer deemed it necessary.

Of course, all of this is fine and dandy in theory but while the JAG can try to control a range of elements, there is one – the weather – which is sadly still outwith its control.  It better not snow on 28 December or the weather gods will have the First Minister to answer to.

Other proposals smack a little of of being seen to act instead of just acting.  Apparently in order to co-ordinate better policing of games we need a new national football policing unit with a wee bung of nearly £2 million to help it on its way.  Couldn’t they just all pick up the phone and speak to each other before and after “key games”?

Moreover, did we need to drag the SFA to a big meeting to get them to agree to develop rules preventing comment by club officials on appointed referees before matches, to reintroduce a Laws of the Game/refereeing decisions area to its website and to develop a “formal reporting protocol” for referees to “ensure absolute clarity and consistency in the reporting of all match related incidents”?

But for the main part, these are well-meaning, thoughtful efforts not only to clean up the vilest aspects of our national game, but also for the first time, attempt to link its role and impact on some of our other less edifying national pastimes.  Many of the proposed measures take a long term view and consider how we can change the culture surrounding football so that it can make a better contribution to the common weal.

Especially welcome is recognition of the role of supporters and bodies like the Supporters’ Trust in reshaping this culture and also of the needs of the long-suffering, well behaved majority.  For example. the coaching badge will contain a spectator safety element in the future, supporters will get their own code of conduct, minimum standard provisions will feature in all ticket sale conditions, and a better understanding of the role and responsibilities of police and stewards inside stadia will be developed.  The burd respectfully suggests that the first lesson should be that shrugging shoulders disinterestedly when a complaint is made about offensive fan behaviour is not the required response.

Anyone hoping to see a permanent marginalisation of football to the sidelines of life should look away now.  The JAG recommends that “there is early identification of the role that football/sport can play when initiatives are being considered at policy level, and that consideration is given to the early classification of the type of programme involved (Prevention, Early Intervention, Enforcement, Rehabilitation), supported by accurate identification of the target audience – recognising that unacceptable behaviour occurs throughout Scotland.”  Nope me neither.

Roughly translated, football can play a positive role in a wider social policy context.  Thus, one of the recommendations suggests that offenders who are also football supporters should be required to attend football-based programmes as part of their rehabilitation.  Also welcome is the plan to undertake research into the relationship between football and domestic abuse, as are the proposals to restrict alcohol consumption.

But there is a gaping silence at the heart of this plan:  it fails to address the need for football itself to clean up its act.  For years now, players have gotten away with behaving badly:  the cases that reach our eyes and ears for drug misuse, inappropriate sexual behaviour, drunkenness, speeding and the like are only the tip of a very big iceberg.   For every role model who is the archetypal family man, there is a team mate who indulges in all the excesses a large wage and a privileged position confer.  Whenever one oversteps the mark, ranks are closed, excuses are made and indiscretions are glossed over.

To fail to address this aspect of football, to leave it to clubs to agree a single code of conduct for everyone in Scottish football, to not make a clear and firm statement on the need for those inside football to adopt a zero tolerance approach to violence, drinking, inappropriate sexual behaviour and law-breaking represents a missed opportunity at an open goal.

Tags: , ,

Interest in the Holyrood Register

Jul 16

Posted by The Burd in Democracy, Holyrood | 31 Comments

Scottish Parliament at night

Holyrood at its most breathtaking

If I was being sceptical, I would comment on the timing of the release of the Register of Interests for MSPs.  Every year, it is published on 9 July 2011 and this year, it wasn’t even press-released.  But I am not, so I won’t. After all, some things speak for themselves.

The Register is a fascinating document for many reasons.  Because memberships are listed, you can glean a better understanding of what floats some MSPs’ boats.  There are few eyebrow-raising entries – they are a dull lot really, just like the rest of us, which is reassuring in lots of respects.

What is of interest is the number of dual mandate MSPs we now have – 25 I reckon are also elected members of councils until 2012 at least.  This means not only do they receive their MSP salary of £56k but also councillor’s salary/remuneration of between £15 and £20k.

Nice work if you can get it?  Well, no actually.  There are many things I might wish to be when I grow up, but an MSP AND a councillor at the same time ain’t it.  Apparently the full time position is that of MSP, while being a councillor is supposed to be a part time role.  Register entries declare earnestly that time spent on being an elected member is approximately 20 hours a week.  I suspect they know that is an optimistic estimate – councillors especially in small towns and rural areas are literally on call all the time and some will end up spending more time than that on council business.  In a like for like of value for money in terms of time spent versus salary, councillors would beat MSPs hands down every time.

What is interesting is how many dual mandate MSPs are at pains to reassure us that they will not be taking this additional salary.

Six are waiving it altogether – Colin Beattie, Neil Findlay, John Finnie, Mark Griffin, Alison Johnstone and John Pentland.  Two are honest enough to state that while foregoing the salary, they will still claim expenses for costs incurred – Clare Adamson and Richard Lyle.

Nine though are keeping their councillors’ salary on top of their MSPs, meaning they will be earning an eye-popping £70k plus.  Or at least they are silent on what they will do with their councillor salary.  I suspect this might change shortly…. but step forward Willie Coffey, Jim Hume (both of whom are in their second Holyrood term of carrying a dual mandate and presumably, dual salaries), Mary Fee, Hanzala Malik, Margaret McCulloch, Anne McTaggart, David Torrance, Jean Urquhart and Bill Walker.

Eight remaining dual mandate MSPs intend to donate their councillor salary to good causes and charity in their constituencies and/or wards.  George Adam, Neil Bibby, James Dornan, Colin Keir, Angus Macdonald, Derek MacKay, Mark McDonald and Kevin Stewart all intend to do this and at first sight, it seems a very good move indeed.  What small community group or charity could not do with some extra funding right now?

But given that all but one of the generous MSPs are SNP ones I wonder if they have totally thought this through?  Given that this will be their second salary, it will be subject to the highest tax rate and most of it will end up back in HM Treasury’s coffers.  That’s right, SNP MSPs voluntarily giving money back to Westminster. Who’d a thunk it?  The dreaded London masters will benefit from their largesse just as much as good causes.

It’s an understandable gesture that on one level makes perfect sense.  But any dual mandate MSP wishing to benefit local activity would be better served foregoing the salary entirely and haggling with their local council to ensure their salary does not disappear into central expenditure but is divvied up in grants to local good causes.  Another potential solution for councils with a number of dual mandate MSPs might be to establish a trust or make a grant to existing Common Good funds – not the greatest guarantee of community focused expenditure but better than nothing.  This would mean that the taxable benefit could be maximised rather than minimised.

I’m sure SNP MSPs might feel more comfortable with a solution that keeps as much of their councillor salary in Scotland than sending it back to Westminster.

 

 

Tags: , , , ,

Youth Gone Wild

Jul 13

Posted by Guest Blog in Democracy, Holyrood, Society | 15 Comments

We’re delighted to host another of our new MSPs on Better Nation.  Today sees Mark McDonald, the newly elected SNP MSP for North-East Scotland (who will apparently forever be known as the guy who “broke” the D’Hondt electoral system, even though he didn’t really!) pen an article for us.  Anyway, he’s a young MSP (if you are still young in your thirties, says Malc, who’s 27…), he’s been a young councillor and he’s considering being young and being in politics for us.

Hands up if you can tell me who the oldest council leader in the UK is? No googling, although that probably won’t do you any good. OK, how about the oldest council leader in Scotland? Still drawing a blank? Well I haven’t got a clue either, but thanks to the media we all now know that Callum McCaig is the youngest council leader in Scotland, and second youngest in the UK, behind the Lord Mayor of Belfast (which sounds like more of a civic role, but I won’t quibble).

“Councillor, 26, becomes Council Leader” was a stock headline over the course of the last week in June, as Callum became leader of Aberdeen City Council following two SNP by-election victories in quick succession.

Criticism of Callum being “too young” for the position quickly arrived from the Labour opposition, and when he and I were elected to the council four years ago, alongside Kirsty West and her brother John (who became, and remains, Scotland’s youngest councillor) we were widely criticised and patronised when we took on positions of responsibility in the administration. “Meet the kids running your council” ran one headline. So is 26 too young to lead a council? What is the ‘correct’ age to hold a position of responsibility? This whole saga has made me, a young politician, question whether the attitudes we have towards young people in politics are widespread, and if they might have some bearing on the democratic involvement of young people.

If we look to the make-up of the Scottish Parliament, we have around a dozen MSPs in their twenties and early thirties. Indeed Mark Griffin of Labour, at 25, is the youngest MSP ever to be elected. I don’t hear Labour voices critical of Mark’s role in the law-making process, and rightly so because if laws are to have an impact upon young people, then it is important that young people can see that they have voices in positions of influence and authority.

Similarly at a local authority level, service delivery impacts on all age groups, therefore it is only right that all age groups are represented. That’s why the administration on Aberdeen City Council contains councillors in their 20s right up to councillors in their 70s. It is a reflection of the diversity of our society, and we should be embracing and encouraging it, not undermining it by suggesting there is some undefined limit at which a person becomes old enough to hold a position of power, responsibility and authority.

Fans of The Apprentice will know that Lord Sugar is forever banging on about how young he was when he set up his first company, or made his first million, and there are plenty of stories of young entrepreneurs heading up massive enterprises like Facebook. Imagine if these people were told that they could not run a company until they were a certain age. Why should politicians of youth be somehow disregarded as capable, when there are many young captains of industry? Should we not accept that there is as much chance of a young councillor or MSP making a great leader or minister as someone twice their age?

When all is said and done, we forever hear much complaint and discussion on the reasons for young people being disengaged with politics and politicians. I don’t think that they are. I speak to young people all the time, be it a question and answer event at a local school, or via emails they send to me on various campaigns. Young people are incredibly interested in politics in its broadest sense. The problem is that politicians and political parties are generally not interested in them. By showing that young people can have councillors, MSPs and MPs from their own generation, we can start to reverse that and reconnect with them.

What will continue to turn them off, however, is to see age being cast up as a defining issue in terms of an individual politician’s competence. We allow people to put themselves forward to stand for election at the age of 18, if we continue to support that principle, then we should be prepared to allow those who are elected to hold positions of influence, and we should support them when they take on these positions, not cast doubt on their abilities, or make their age the sole characteristic by which we define them.

I still don’t know who the oldest council leader in Scotland is. Frankly, I don’t really care.

The Wrong Sort of Jobs?

Jul 5

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 13 Comments

A guest post from Glasgow Labour activist Aidan Skinner:

The recent Inverclyde by-election was fought, a bit bizarrely, on jobs for Inverclyde. Labour on creating them and getting the SNP to reinstate the regeneration funding that they cut a few months ago, the SNP on stopping the Labour council from (allegedly) making people compulsorily redundant. But what nobody was talking about was what they actually meant by “jobs”.

One of the biggest employers in Inverclyde is the new T-Mobile customer contact center there. I drove past it in a car full of Young Labour booming AC/DC. It’s a modern glass and steel box, like you can see in redevelopment areas all over Scotland. Inside, people answer phones. That’s very similar to the Amazon contact centre that the Scottish Government gave £1.8m to at the end of July.

But are they the sort of jobs we should be building an economy around? They aren’t particularly rooted in their location. There’s little in the way of capital investment required: mostly desks, computers and phones. The building itself is invariably leased and probably has cleaning and maintenance outsourced. The workforce tends to have a high level of turnover anyway, so there’s relatively low overheads in training up a new cohort in another country offering cheaper wages. Inevitably the same reasons that they moved here, large pools of reasonably skilled unemployed people willing to accept low wages and high stress, will lead to them moving elsewhere. If the parent company does that, or folds, there isn’t any possibility of a management buy-out or a rescue to keep the facility going. It doesn’t produce anything of intrinsic value itself.

And really, even if they stay, is that what we want for the future of Scotland? A place for firms to put barns of folk earning a little over half the median wage, with no real connection to the rest of the Scottish economy beyond their wages? Probably not, for some pretty fundamental economic reasons.

In standard economics, economies are modelled using the circular flow of income. The basic idea is that people earn wages from firms (Y), and use that income to buy goods made by those firms (O). Leakages occur from people saving their income (taking it out of circulation temporarily, represented by S), buying imported goods (taking it out of circulation permanently, M) and government taxes (T). Additional inputs to an economy come in the form of investment (this is always, for reasons too dull to go into here, the same level as savings, I), exports (money from people from outside the economy buying goods, X) and government spending (ultimately funded by taxation, but possibly temporarily by borrowing, G). In the long run, these sets of inputs and leakages must either balance out (S + T + M = I + X + G) or the economy must grow or shrink.

Because of the savings-investment identity they tend to balance out automatically. Government spending is funded by taxation, so they must also balance over the long term (or you turn into Greece). But exports are driven by international demand for our goods, which isn’t related to our demand for goods from elsewhere. There’s not automatic balance for those, and it’s difficult for Government to control either while maintaining any semblance of free trade.

The FDI flows from, say, Amazon are properly recognised as export flows – we’re basically directly exporting our individual labour to a multinational company. Which is all well and good but a company that’s based in Scotland and exports it’s products, such as say Wolfson, would contribute a lot more. Along with the export flow for any goods or services produced, it would also generate investment (the I part) and consume goods and services from other parts of the Scottish economy. Those companies would, in turn, consume goods and services from other companies. It’s that increase in consumption that fuels economic growth. The profits that the company generates would stay in Scotland and contribute to the government tax base.

But beside all that, there’s another important difference in those export flows. In the FDI case, that unit can only grow if the parent company grows. Any improvements in efficiency can only be realised by reducing the number of people required to do that job. If the wider company is successful and more customers require support then there may be an increase in headcount but that is entirely outwith the control of anybody working there. Putting it simply: if the people working there are successful, they risk doing themselves out of their jobs. It’s that sort of perverse incentive, combined with the foot loose nature of the work and the lack of connection to the wider Scottish economy which makes me scratch my head in bafflement at the millions of pounds that the government pours into subsidising these facilities. Instead, we should focusing what government support is available on supporting Scottish businesses, who will provide a bigger, longer term return.

It’s a bit like building an economy around Greggs and nail bars. That’s not working out so well for the Borders – why do we want to do that for Scotland? (And at least the nail bars tend to be owned by someone who lives in the community)

The new Greek junta unleashes terror

Jul 3

Posted by Guest Blog in Europe, Holyrood, International | 8 Comments

Another guest post from Marinos Antypas, who’s previously guested at James’s old site.

AthensBlinded by the economic catastrophe threatening the Eurozone lest Greece manages to sort its debt out, Europe has ignored a far more pervasive threat: nestling in its bosom is potentially the first dictatorial EU member state.

The definition of a dictatorship is not the abolition of parliamentary democracy or the electoral system per se (Hitler and Mussolini as well as the Stalinist Czechoslovakian regime were democratically elected). Rather, a dictatorship is a polity under which parliament effectively abolishes its decision-making power when the government turns against the population at large by means of brutal violence and intimidation.

Both these conditions are in place in Greece. In Spring 2010, the Greek parliament effectively abolished itself when it voted to deny itself the right to ratify any future changes in the IMF/EU bailout clauses. All power was given to the Finance Minister, who could thereafter ratify any new bailout-related law with a single signature. It’s important to note that the Finance Minister can be appointed by the Prime Minister from outwith his party’s elected MPs. This then places Greece into what Agamben has called a state of exception: the law abolishes itself as the only resort of maintaining its own order.

This magic trick of exceptionality worked for a whole year until last week, when the Prime Minister decided to put the second bailout to the vote. Doing so would seem a step back from his previous forward strategy. However, the way the vote was conducted points to the exact opposite. First, the vote was open, thus any government MP who voted against it did so publicly and was expelled from the Party (there was only one such brave man). Second, the only other MP who was intending to vote against the bill was allowed to break with all parliamentary regulations and give a speech alongside his final, Yes-vote.

The House Speaker, a government MP himself, continued to break Parliamentary regulations by failing to read a letter of No-vote from a government MP, who was also a traditional corner-stone of the Socialist apparatus. He opted not only to vote against the bill but quit the Party out of his own will. Finally, breaking with all Parliamentary procedures and common sense, the bill was voted en bloc, with no individual articles brought to the vote: it was either take it or leave it.
To add to this breach of democratic process, a few days before the actual vote, the deputy Prime Minister declared that if the bill was not passed, the government would have to bring in tanks to protect banks from the crowds. The choice was either the bill or the army – a real democratic dilemma comprising dictatorship on the streets.

While all this was unfolding in the Temple of Democracy, as Greek politicians like to call the ancient Palace housing their mockery of a Parliament, on the streets of Athens, real democracy was developing. Strikes, protest marches, direct-democratic assemblies with a remarkable lack of the violence that so often blots the democratic landscape in Greece. All of this was first ignored, then petted in the hope of some reconciliation. When that failed, the movement was accused of being apolitical, aphasiac, irresponsible and irrelevant. Even when a quarter of a million protesters gathered outside the Parliament shouting “Thieves”, the politicians could only scoff at the lack of organisation and ideological direction. The intention of the government was obvious: not to let the “multitude” spoil the voting of the new bailout bill.

After the “tanks” reference, the government began spreading rumours that a semi-armed assault against the Parliament was being planned, in an attempt to keep people off the streets. The first 48 hour general strike since the collapse of the colonels proved that these rumours were blatantly unfounded. Not only was there no attempt to storm the Parliament, but throughout the two days of protest the only damage done was on the strict periphery of Syntagma Square. As even the staunchest media defenders of the government had to admit, no more than five molotov cocktails were thrown, whilst the number of rowdy protesters did not exceed 200, a surprisingly low number for Athens where anarchist protest marches number up to 5.000.

The total cost of the damage (mainly to the marble décor of the posh hotels surrounding the square) came to 500,000 euros. At the same time, the reported cost of tear gas used by police forces amounted to 900,000 euros. The difference reflects the disproportionate relationship between protestor violence and police repression, especially as witnessed on Wednesday 29th of June.

The way the government deployed its police forces on that day can lead to only one conclusion: its aim was terror. Riot policemen attacked anything that moved on the streets of Athens. If there were 200 rowdy protestors there were 500 wounded. While the clashes did not exceed the periphery of Syntagma Square, tear gas, stun grenades and batons were used as far as the Acropolis, Plaka and Monastaki. Tourists and Special Olympics staff were brutally attacked. The police attacked the press, fired tear gas inside the underground Metro station where an impromptu Red Cross hospital was treating several hundreds of wounded, even beating the uniformed Metro staff as they tried to bring some calm. Photos show policemen throwing stones and marble pieces at protestors, ignoring people who tried to burn down shops, harbouring and protecting iron bar-wielding neo-nazis, using their batons upside down in order to hit people on the head with the metal end of the baton, gesturing with their middle finger and shouting obscenities at the protestors, kicking and beating fallen protestors, smashing restaurants and grocery shops in Athens’ high streets.

All this was filmed, and is now circulating widely in Greece; meanwhile, Europe looks elsewhere, relieved that the bailout bill has passed. Yet this unprecedented attack against the entire population of Athens, this systematic state terror has united Greek society like never before.

The Judges Association now talks of “state violence”; the Pharmacist and Medical Associations have pressed charges against the police; the Metro employers have called the riot police “the new SS”; Amnesty International has raised concerns; hotel owners talk about police excesses; academics have accused the government of premeditated violence; even members of the ruling party have expressed disdain at the way the police treated protestors.

In the midst of it all, the government pretends everything is fine, and that the police did its work. If its work was to show who is the boss, who can beat and gas the population with impunity, indeed it has. The 17 year old boy who had his tongue cut as a result of police beating him on the head is the ultimate proof of what this “work” means. It is the same “work” performed when the extreme right unleashed a three day pogrom against immigrants in the centre of Athens last spring, killing one and wounding scores with knives: the police stood idle arresting nobody. It is the same “work” performed when the police stop and search people in the street of Athens, tearing to pieces any book they might carry in their bags.

This “work” has a very old name: fascism. Indeed, the central banner on Syntagma square reads: “The junta did not end in 1973, we will bury it in this square”.