Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

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: , , , ,

Sir John Major’s Ditchley Foundation speech – the full transcript on devolution

Jul 13

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 11 Comments

Sir John Major gave a speech on Saturday at the Ditchley Foundation Annual Dinner. The section on devolution and Scotland created a few headlines (and I blogged about it on Sunday, albeit in a ‘churnalism’ sort of way) but the full text of Sir John’s speech was not available online.

Until now that is…

The full transcript of the ‘Devolution of Power’ section of Sir John Major’s speech is shown below (and note the calling for two referendums near the end):

DEVOLUTION OF POWER

There are options (to making Westminster less over-burdened):

Pass fewer laws – which is attractive, and to be hoped for: though I’m not holding my breath.
But we could contract more to local government and devolve more to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies. In a cautious and incremental way, the Coalition is taking action to do this. I welcome that and encourage them to go further.

Some years ago, I opposed the creation of local Mayors. I was wrong. Mayors do put in place a dynamic and – as successive Mayors of London have shown – they can be effective megaphones for our big cities. But under present plans, Mayors will only inherit the existing powers of Council leaders: in future, I hope their remit can be widened.

There is one caveat: their power of decision should be real, not illusory, and this implies a funding responsibility to pay for – at least the majority of – their policies. When next we look at local authority finance that should be the objective.

Devolution can also reduce the Westminster workload. But there is some groundwork to be cleared first. The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap – unless the issue is resolved.

The Union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.

I opposed Devolution because I am a Unionist. I believed it would be a stepping stone to Separation.
That danger still exists. Separatists are proud Scots who believe Scotland can govern itself: in this, they are surely right. So they point up grievances because their case thrives on discontent with the status quo. But even master magicians need props for their illusions: remove the props, and the illusion vanishes.

The props are grievances about power retained at Westminster. The present Scotland Bill does offer more power to the Scottish Parliament. But why not go further? Why not devolve all responsibilities except foreign policy, defence and management of the economy?

Why not let Scotland have wider tax-raising powers to pay for their policies and, in return, abolish the present block grant settlement, reduce Scottish representation in the Commons, and cut the legislative burden at Westminster?

My own view on Scottish independence is very straightforward: it would be folly – bad for Scotland and bad for England – but, if Scots insist on it, England cannot – and should not – deny them.
England is their partner in the Union, not their overlord. But Unionists have a responsibility to tell Scotland what independence entails.

A referendum in favour of separation is only the beginning. The terms must then be negotiated and a further referendum held.

These terms might deter many Scots. No Barnett Formula. No Block Grant. No more representation at Westminster. No automatic help with crises such as Royal Bank of Scotland. I daresay free prescriptions would end and tuition fees begin.

And there is no certainty of membership of the EU. Scotland would have to apply, meet tough criteria, await lengthy negotiations and would find countries like Spain – concerned at losing Catalonia – might not hold out a welcome for Separatists. And, even if Scotland were admitted, they would find their voice of 5 million is lost and powerless in a Union of 500 million.

But it must, ultimately, be their choice.

(attribution – The Ditchley Foundation)

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.

Is the hacking scandal Miliband’s Clause IV moment?

Jul 12

Posted by Jeff in Parties | 5 Comments

I attended a public event at the London School of Economics this evening with speaker Mehdi Hasan discussing his new book ‘Ed: The Milibands and the making of a Labour leader’, co-authored with James Macintyre.

It’s a good thing that Mehdi touched on gossip and hearsay being taken as gospel for I only knew of the New Statesman Political Editor through Twitter and even then chiefly through less than complimentary comments from Guido Fawkes and Harry Cole etc. So I was surprised, delighted and a little bit embarrassed that Mehdi put on such a captivating, intelligent, insightful and humorous performance for the full 90 minutes. He certainly avoided the twin perils that these political events often risk of the main speaker being either too nervous or too up themselves for it to be an enjoyable performance.

Mehdi even managed to cover himself in glory with his analysis of Scotland when it was inevitably raised from the floor, an area that he freely admitted he wasn’t an expert in. Mehdi suggested that the Labour leader needs a bit of Salmond’s directness and confidence and noted that Ed’s assertion that Holyrood 2011 would be a springboard to success at Westminster betrayed his misunderstandings surrounding devolved politics north of the border (in more ways than one).

Don’t get me wrong, there were imperfections. The preamble talked of Ed Miliband’s ‘unique upbringing’ before discussing how the Labour leader went to the same school, studied the same subject at the same university, joined the same Labour party, went off to work for an MP etc etc, as his older brother. The upbringing wasn’t even unique with his own family let alone the wider world.

However, my real bone of contention amidst the mirth and merriment was Mehdi’s early and repeated assertion that Ed Miliband’s performance over the past 7-10 days may end up being his equivalent of Tony Blair’s Clause IV moment.

The weakness of this position, and indeed Ed’s, was laid out soon after as Mehdi talked of the anger with which Ed’s team directed Mehdi’s way upon learning that this book would be serialised in the Mail on Sunday. Now, how can Ed be a hero in facing up to the News of the World while begrudging an independent journalist serialising his unoffical biography in a certain newspaper?

With that evidence to go on alone, I’m not convinced that Ed Miliband wants the distance between politics and the media that he currently claims.

Anyway, the wider question as to what this hacking scandal will do for Ed Miliband’s prospects is surely undecided and, if positive, is not even really of Ed’s doing. Polling results may well show a bump for the Labour leader in the coming days but that will be more to do with Cameron’s shooting himself in the foot in hiring Coulson and Clegg’s continued ignominy rather than anything Ed has done. A Labour leader that is lowest in the popularity stakes while his party is riding high in the 40+%s is coming from a long, long way behind.

The chief arguments that Mehdi made were that Ed was quickest to call for an enquiry and the quickest to call for Rebekah Brooks to resign. The former is accurate but surely carries little credit for Ed. Nick Davies has completed some incredible journalism for the Guardian amidst this hacking scandal and, consequently, has indirectly rolled a square ball across the six yard line that even Wallace or Gromit could knock into the back of the net, let alone Ed Miliband.

A Clause IV moment involves bravely insisting and delivering something that 80% of your public is against, not calling for something that 80% of your public is already in favour of.

In calling for Rebekah Brooks’ resignation, Ed is hardly blazing a trail there and is probably stepping outside his mandate as a politician. We can have an opinion over who a private company should or should not employ but at the end of the day we have much say over which journalists they employ as, say, which footballer a football club selects.

Indeed, has Ed done anything that goes against public opinion since he became leader? He’s barely reached Clause I, II or III, let alone IV. He took a very weak position on the trade union discussion to the point of anonymity, he has depressingly suggested that the unemployed should lose out on Social Housing and he leapt to the right of Cameron and called for Ken Clarke to resign at the first opportunity. The only area that Ed should be populist on, the economy and the cuts, is the one area where he is most silent, preferring to worry about this strange group ‘the squeezed middle’ than those who are really losing out.

One possible candidate for an Ed Miliband ‘Clause IV’ moment is the proposed scrapping of rules that dictate how his Shadow Cabinet will look, a reasonable move that gives Ed more freedom but still not really comparable with Tony Blair’s staring down the unions.

Not that Ed Miliband needs to outdo any leader that has gone before him, comparisons were made to Neil Kinnock last night even. It is a constraint that Lib Dem and Tory leaders manage to avoid, having to endure your leadership being compared with one predecessor or another. ‘Let Miliband be Miliband’ is a line that Ed himself has used before and, for me, is the Labour leader’s simplest route to success. Slim down the PR team, forget about old-skool repetitive answers, don’t worry about finding something as distracting as an unnecessary Clause IV moment, give credit when credit is due to the coalition and hold your line as a centre-left party that will look increasingly preferable to a coalition that is inflicting pain on a frustrated public. Above all else, don’t overreach in claiming success with small victories, like this hacking scandal which in reality Ed is but a bit-part player in.

Mehdi Hasan gave many reasons for supporters of Ed Miliband, and his well-wishers (of which I include myself), to be cheerful. A key line from the evening, allowing for paraphrasing, was ‘you can’t learn what he can do, and he can learn what he can’t’ meaning that robo-answers and wooden TV performances can be fixed and, when added to Ed’s passion, policies and performance potential, could make for a powerful politician. Blair and Cameron were laughed off as lightweights when they first got going and look at them now.

Curiously though, and to lend a green-tinged ending to this little review, for a Labour leader that rose to prominence as an Environment Secretary and an envoy to Copenhagen, climate change barely got a mention as Ed’s route to success. We have had Red Ed, Blue Ed and now Clause IV Ed (apparently), but Green Ed seemingly doesn’t win elections and, if the Labour leader continues hius early tradition of not following public opinion rather than leading it, I suspect a dramatic push for more action on climate change won’t be Ed Miliband’s Clause IV moment either.