Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Scotland out of Europe? – think again

Sep 6

Posted by Jeff in Sport | 40 Comments

An eternal optimist supporting the Scotland football team can be a bit like an unstoppable force coming up against an immovable object. Once again, it looks grim for the long-suffering Tartan Army fan as another major tournament looks set to pass us by without participation.

The big one is of course the World Cup in 2014, in Brazil no less, but qualification to Euro2012 would be nice. Sadly, one injury time dive by a Czech substitute has robbed us of that chance.

Or has it?

Until qualification is mathematically impossible (and it’s a judgment call whether one should entertain the possibility of a points deduction for crowd trouble), I maintain hope should always remain high, if not expectation.

I’ve been here before of course – confident that a win against Holland would see Scotland into World Cup 2010 but despite an excellent performance, we lost out once more.

So, undeterred, and despite Scotland having as many points as a team that’s lost and drawn with Liechtenstein (who themsleves are only 1 point behind us), I thought I would spell out what would have to happen in order for Scotland to finish second in our Group.

Current Table:
Spain – 15pts (GD +10)
Czech R – 10pts (GD +3)
Scotland – 5pts (GD -1)
Lithuania – 5pts (GD -5)
Liechtenstein – 4pts (GD -7)

Requirement: Scotland needs to finish 2nd and ahead of the Czech Republic on points in order to make the play-offs (as head-to-head games are taken into account when teams finish on the same points – thanks to Niall S in the comments for that one!).

The 2nd place team across the groups with the highest points will qualify automatically. This won’t be Scotland, but one the remaining eight teams could be, and here’s how:

6th September
Scotland vs Lithuania
A big win required for Scotland here with lots of goals. If it’s unlikely that we’ll match the Czechs on points then it’s nigh on impossible that we’ll beat them on points so a superior goal difference is required. This is our only remaining home game and it’s against a despondent team that just drew 1-1 with the minnows of the group. We need to thump them 3-0 at least.

Spain vs Liechtenstein
It’s going to be nothing other than a horsing here and, although we want Spain to slip up in order to not have qualified when they face the Czechs in the next game, it’s not going to happen. 5-0 is my expectation with a large margin of error. The silver lining is that a Spanish win means that it will be the reserves/U19s against Scotland in the last game. Note of course that “the reserves” includes the likes of Fabregas.

7th October
Czech Republic vs Spain
It could be all over for Scotland here and, realistically, Spain will have qualified as group winners by now so there is a risk that the Czechs will have an easier game than Scotland had at Hampden. The tartan army can only hope that Spain are too silky, too good and run out as winners 0-1 or so.

8th October
Liechtenstein vs Scotland
If the above results fall into place, then a win by any margin here would suffice for Scotland to have 2nd place in their reach. 0-2 is surely (surely!) a conservative estimate.

11th October
Lithuania vs Czech Republic
This could be Scotland’s last chance. Any team requiring to beat Lithuania in order to qualify for a major tournament should be able to do it, but Scotland may need a draw here when this game comes around or, if results haven’t gone as planned earlier, even a win for the home team. Equally, Scotland’s fate may be in our own hands in the game below. It’s not entirely out of the question so let’s cross our fingers and hope it’ll be a home win or a draw but let’s say, safety first, that the Czechs win 0-1.

Spain vs Scotland
Feeling lucky? On paper there’s only one winner here and it’s a bit rich of me to suggest that Scotland will get an easier ride in Madrid while simultaneously suggesting that the Czechs won’t beat the same weaker Spain side in Prague. My back’s against the wall though. There’s a good chance that Scotland can’t qualify unless they beat Spain, that’s certainly the scenario I’ve painted in the above. However, and this is where our hopes ultimately rest, if Scotland do manage to still have a chance at kick-off, they have a history of over-performing in such situations (witness luckless performances against Netherlands and Italy in recent years). A stubborn draw could be enough if earlier results go our way and a plucky win isn’t out of the question. Let’s summon the spirit of the Paris 40-yarder, of Gary Caldwell’s Hampden tap-in and James MacFadden’s ricocheted Euro2004 winner against Holland and say 0-1 is the score.

Final table under above circumstances:
Spain – 21pts (GD +15)
Scotland – 14pts (GD +5)
Czech R – 13pts (GD +3)
Lithuania – 5pts (GD -9)
Liechtenstein – 4pts (GD -14)

Contrived? Of course. The margin for error is slim but we don’t need to give up just yet. Even a draw against Spain would be enough if the Czechs fail to beat Lithuania away.

I will not be putting any money on Scotland qualifying though, as much as I still hope that they can get through. A draw against Spain and a win against Lithuania isn’t too much of an ask for a team that was so impressive when visiting Hampden on Saturday and recently made the Quarter Finals of the World Cup.

Indeed, if you ask me where Scotland lost out on this group? It would have to be the baffling 4-6-0 against the Czech Republic last year – a sleekit, cowrin’, timrous, panic-in-the-breastie lineup if ever there was one.

Let’s hope we’re a bit more ambitious for World Cup qualifying, and in Ukraine 2012 when/if we qualify….

Salmond’s Santa will bear legislative gifts

Sep 6

Posted by The Burd in Holyrood | 20 Comments

So they’re back.  The Holyrood faithful are returning from the recess, fighting fit and raring to go.  All the newbies have had the summer to practise writing MSP after their name, some of them might even have managed to work out why there are different lifts for different floors in the Parliament and the Cabinet has discovered parts of Scotland it never knew existed during its summer tour.

First up, the business and legislative programme and expect a very different approach from the last SNP Government.  No longer cowed by the lack of a parliamentary majority and having learned that you can ask the public sector nicely to do stuff but without the weight of law behind it, they can stick two fingers up at you, this second SNP Government will be embarrassing us with legislative riches.  What might we expect to see in the First Minister’s announcement on Wednesday?

Top billing goes to the minimum alcohol pricing bill.  No messing this time, the bill will be short and to the point and the Government will hope to create a landmark with its first piece of legislation of its second term in office.  The Lib Dems will support it this time round, the Tories will still oppose and who knows what Labour will do.  Hopefully they will.  And soon.

Children are going straight to the top of the agenda.  Music to the burdz ears.  The SNP manifesto promised an early years bill and the Scottish Government has already said that it will be published in the New Year.  But this week, it also announced intentions to embed children’s rights in legislation as part of a wider children’s services bill.  This latter one is due later in the parliament.  Work has already begun to shape a national parenting strategy and the needs of children should – I hope – feature in new frameworks to support victims and witnesses.  Indeed, we will also get a Victim Rights’ bill this year… I promise never to complain again about no one bothering about children’s needs.  Well, not for a while anyway.

There will also have to be some kind of public services reform bill (though it might not be called that) to give effect to the proposals to do away with multiple police forces and fire services.  There will be a budget bill of course, and that too will progress at breakneck speed, though not until after the Spending Review is announced later this month.  And while it is unlikely to be legislated for, there will be a souped-up Concordat (flagged up before the election) between local and national government, that gives rewards for compliance and fiscal consequences for failure to deliver.  Expect too, for preventative spending to furrow members’ brows at regular intervals during the year, and indeed every year, until they reach another election and can leave a legacy for the next lot that urges them to work out how to implement this most common sense approach to public expenditure without having got around to doing it themselves.

Same-sex marriage may feature but is more likely to proceed at a leisurely consultative pace, with a draft bill appearing perhaps at the end of this parliamentary term, unless of course an MSP loses patience and slaps down a member’s bill.  A review of the law on damages will commence this autumn – how knotty, complex and controversial the proposals are will determine if we get a bill this year or next.  Measures tightening up procedure and process in rape cases has also been promised – if it does not require further consultation, this might well feature in Wednesday’s announcement.  Of course, a bill promising to amend the existing Freedom of Information Act “to add clarity and strength to the legislation” instantly makes us all suspicious that the aim is to dilute and to weaken it.

Anyone looking for a big education bill is likely to be disappointed:  there will be amending legislation covering rural schools’ closures but everything else will be delivered through guidelines, frameworks, toolkits and strategies.  Expect the outcome of the McCormac review to dominate parliamentary proceedings and media headlines for a considerable period.  There will, however, be legislation on higher education to increase access from poorer communities and a review of college provision which may result in legislation at some point in the future.

The Scottish Government promised to introduce a living wage for government employees, which may or may not require legislation – if it does, Ministers might settle for allowing John Park MSP to do all the hard work and preparation, then assume his bill as their own.  It worked for Jack McConnell and the smoking ban…. It may be too early in the parliamentary term for the proposed Community Empowerment and Renewal bill which will enable communities to assume ownership of under-used assets.  It sounds simple but working out how to give it legislative effect might prove more complex.

Finally, the piece de resistance, the icing on the Scottish Government’s dense legislative cake – a bill to tackle high hedges‘ disputes.  I seem to recall this issue pre-occupying then Justice Minister, Jim Wallace MSP, without a legislative solution ever being put forward.  Roseanna Cunningham MSP may succeed where mere men have tried and failed.

And if this little lot doesn’t keep our MSPs out of mischief this parliamentary year and next, I’m not sure what will.  Oh yes, some local government elections next May and of course, constituents, surgeries, local issues and events….

 

Tags: , , ,

SNP on holiday; independence leads polls

Sep 5

Posted by Malc in Constitution | 52 Comments

Tartan deckchairOkay, my title is crude – but I’m genuinely surprised that some of the tabloids haven’t made that connection!

Anyway, surely today’s biggest story (well, the story that will interest Better Nation readers the most!) is the news that independence has overtaken continued membership of the UK in an opinion poll for the Herald for the first time in three years.

Pollster TNS-BMRB has asked the Scottish Government’s preferred question in each of its 10 polls over the last four years, asking voters whether they agree or disagree “that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state”.

In this poll, those selecting “I agree” totalled 39% to 38% for those who disagreed.

Support for independence trailed support for the Union by 8 points when the SNP won May’s Holyrood election, and in a little over 100 days of majority SNP Government (albeit with the majority of that time spent on recess!) that has changed into a one point lead.

I guess the question is: why?

As I said in the previous paragraph, the Scottish Parliament has been in recess for most of that period.  So while the SNP’s performance in government might have been a factor in some people’s responses, it can’t be the whole story – since they haven’t really done anything.

But then, that might be part of the explanation.  With Holyrood in recess, political attention has been focused on Westminster.  And that means focusing on the actions of what is – in Scotland at least – a generally unpopular Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government.  Plus, we’ve seen riots in English cities, apparently based upon reaction to coalition policies, with spending cuts being cited in many cases as one of the reasons for spreading of the riots.

Yes, this is a simplistic explanation – based on little evidence and lots of conjecture – but it does beg another question:

If support for independence has increased because the SNP has not been in the news, what will happen when the Holyrood recess is over and the party are subject to the usual media critiques?

I guess time will tell.  But in the meantime, presumably, SNP strategists will be digesting these latest polls and working out what the party need to do to keep the numbers for independence moving in an upward trajectory.  And if that means the party stay out of the news, then that might be what happens…

The last Tory in Scotland

Sep 4

Posted by Jeff in Parties | 60 Comments

Who would have thought that David Mundell could have earned himself such a famous place in the history books – the last Tory in Scotland? 

It’s not a tale that will see James McAvoy chomping for the lead role but if Murdo Fraser is elected as leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the first thing he will do is disband the party and start a new right-of-centre group in Scotland. 

Although I strongly suspect that it is a vote-loser and will do little to change Ruth Davidson being favourite in the contest, the policy is not altogether stupid. 

Most people in Scotland are displeased with the direction that Cameron and Osborne are taking the UK and, irrespective of what differences there are in policy between Scots Tories and rUK Tories, candidates north of the border will inevitably suffer by association. Detoxifying the Tory brand in Scotland, still (bizarrely) suffering electorally from Thatcher’s policies, may well involve dumping Cameron.

After all, we have seen recently how unforgiving Scotland can be in such situations, the electorate ruthlessly punishing Scottish Lib Dem MSPs for a UK coalition that was not of their liking, let alone of their choosing.

Don’t be surprised if Rennie dumps Clegg as swiftly as Fraser is trying to dump Cameron if there is simply no way to reconcile the electoral arithmetic.  

The blatant downside of this policy is that it completely undermines Conservative arguments for the continuation of the union. If the Scottish Tories’ solution to Cameron’s direction of travel is independence, then why shouldn’t Scotland’s be the same? You can almost picture Salmond rubbing his hands with glee as he read the papers this morning, just as much as you can picture Cameron banging his head off the kitchen table.

A further boost for the SNP here is that a break up of the UK Tories, even just a suggestion of it, puts pressure on Labour to do likewise. The fraying of the border got a little bit looser this weekend.

Another aspect of this policy that I don’t understand is that the Tories are using electoral misfortune to justify severing links with London. The Scottish Tories however are easily the 3rd largest party in Scotland which is an important position to be in. In order to cement that position they should really be pushing for greater PR rather than a stronger shade of blue on their party’s saltire. Indeed, had the SNP fallen short of its majority there was every chance it was only going to be the Tories that Salmond could have realistically dealt with. I daresay Fraser would not have put forward such a policy in that instance. Indeed, I daresay there wouldn’t even have been a contest and Goldie would be enjoying her last stint as leader with a deservedly elevated profile. 

No, this policy is too impulsive and too short-sighted, it is looking at the right problem and coming up with the wrong solution.

At the end of the day, once the contest is over, Murdo risks being out on a limb here. Politicians shouldn’t be punished for coming up with new ideas but what becomes of a senior party MSP who no longer wants to be in the party?

I suspect we’ll find out soon.  

Producerism

Sep 3

Posted by Guest Blog in Economy | 15 Comments

We’ve been spoilt this week with guest posts, and today’s is no exception. Rupert Read is a Green councillor on Norwich Council, Reader in Philosophy at UEA, and blogs here.

Rupert himselfSome of the more interesting analyses of the recent British riots and looting focus in on the role played by consumerism, acquisitiveness, materialism etc., in them. See for instance this Guardian piece on Tom Morgan’s research into the riots, and this column of my own.

And this shouldn’t be surprising. We are thoroughly used now to thinking of our society as a ‘consumerist’ society, and of ourselves as, above all, ‘consumers’. This seems to many of us quite now simply an obvious truth, and in some ways a good truth: think of ‘consumer protection’ and ‘consumer rights’ organisations, from Ralph Nader to Which?

But: what if this self-image were in fact both misleading and disastrous? The term ‘consumer’ summons up images of endlessly-open mouths, waiting to be filled with more and more stuff. It evokes ideas of us consuming the resources of the Earth. It figures us as the problem. But what if thinking of ourselves as ‘consumers’ were both to allow and facilitate the consumption of the Earth to continue (even: to mandate its continuation) and to take ourselves as individual consumers to be the primary agents of this consumption? And what if in fact we aren’t its primary agents?

The concept of ‘consumerism’ is extremely useful for those who want to sell us things. Because it then seems as though they are only doing our bidding. We are the agents: they are merely satisfying our wants and needs. This is exactly how mainstream economics characterises the fundamental nature of human exchange: it’s a matter of demand and supply. Supply exists, allegedly, only to satisfy demand.

I say that ‘consumerism’ is a piece of false consciousness, and indeed a tool for our continued and growing enslavement. The real push for us to be ‘consumers’ comes from producers. It is producers who need to sell us stuff, in order to profit – and the most effective way that they can do is to artificially create in us ever-growing ‘needs’. That’s where marketing and advertising come in. Marketing and advertising are the selling arm of the producers’ interests in our society. They are what turns us into consumers. Mainstream economics conceals this truth behind its rhetoric of individual consumers being the ‘pull’ factor at the root of economic exchange. But in fact, it is the ‘push’ factor that dominates – producers push their products at us continually, with thousands of coded messages a day. They even get us to blame ourselves for the disposal of the waste that such endless pushing inevitably creates: you wouldn’t know from listening to government and corporate rhetoric that by far the largest proportion of the ‘waste’ stream comes from corporations, not from households.

Our economy, our system, our world, is not really ‘consumerist’. It is producerist. Capitalism is a producerist system. Its most brilliant product, its greatest — its foundational — achievement and lie, is to produce individuals willing to participate in it, grateful for it, and in ignorance of its real nature. Its ultimate product, that is to say, is: consumers. It makes you and me into/as consumers… Producerism is a system – our system – the crowning achievement of which is to conceal from its workers and its bottom-level clients (those whom it changes in order to sell its products to them – to us) its own real nature, such that it becomes the accepted wisdom – and it even becomes a kind of pseudo-leftist or pseudo-ecological creed – that we live in a ‘consumerist’ society.

Producerism’s greatest product is consumerism itself, as a hegemonic ideology. ‘Consumerism’ conceals the very great extent to which producerism is hegemonic. The production of consumers, of people as desiring-machines always wanting more, with inexhaustible ‘needs’, allegedly fuelling an endless need to expand the economy (and to eat up more and more of our ecosystems in the process): this is really what producerism is all about.

So long as we think of ourselves as ‘consumers’ we are blaming the victim. What we need to do is to slough off the consumerist self-image, and instead to get clear about who is primarily to blame for the waste, the ecological destruction, the ethicless profit-maximisation, the endless commodification of our world. It isn’t us: it is ‘the market’, capitalism, profiteering producers.

Of course, they aren’t even really producers. Unlike plants, they don’t ‘produce’ anything! They just re-arrange bits of the Earth, with (ever-larger) inputs of energy. But that’s a story for another occasion. For now, it will be quite enough of a transformation, of a truth-telling, if we can overcome the idea that the degradation of the Earth is our fault.

Don’t blame yourself. Don’t blame ‘consumers’. Blame those who made consumerism: the ad men, and the ‘producers’ for whom they work.

To say it again, in conclusion: the ultimate product of our times – the ultimate work of ad-man genius — is consumerism itself, and each of us (thinking of ourselves) as ‘consumers’. Strictly speaking we live in a producer-ist, not a consumer-ist society.

It is to producerism, not ‘consumerism’, that we ought to attribute ultimate responsibility for the relevant features of this summer’s looting. Tim Morgan and his ilk ought to look into the mirror rather more, if they want to know where the buck stops…