These shops present tourists with an opportunity to buy cheap kilts, tartan memorabilia, CDs of bag pipe music and other mementos of a false image of Scotland. Leaving aside the questions of national identity and symbolism which are raised by attempts to export the shortbread tin image of Scotland, these shops stretch nearly the full length of the mile, starting adjacent to the castle and reaching down almost as far as the Parliament. There are also similar shops off the South Bridge, North Bridge and Princes Street.

These shops do present a nuisance to Edinburgh natives, with their wares spilling out on to the street and music (generally the Red Hot Chilli Pipers) blaring out. They also have late opening hours compared to many of the other shops in the area. Vacant properties on the Mile are likely to be snapped up in a matter of days, as was the case when a small burger bar on the High Street sold up and was replaced, in less then a month by a tartan shop, despite being near to several other tartan tat shops, some owned by the same family.

The amount of real estate being taken up by these shops is also detrimental to tourists. During the summer, even before the festival, it’s hard enough to find a table in a pub or eatery on, or even near, the Royal Mile. With less potential space, it’s just going to make things harder for the tourists to enjoy Scotland’s capital. The number of tartan shops also lead to the street as a whole looking scruffy and tatty.

Which is why I welcome the news that Edinburgh City Council is seeking to balance retail space in city. A motion passed at the council meeting last week means the Council will seek to gain the views of local residents and stakeholders such as Visit Scotland. It will also look at legal options open to the council to maintain retail diversity on the Mile. Councillor Beckett should be commended for putting forward this motion.

The report itself was delivered at the same time as inauspicious news for the tram-works. According to an Evening News poll, published on the same day, 63% of respondents said they were have opposed the trams if asked before construction began while 47% of respondents were in favour of ditching the project. The paper even secured comments from Malcolm Chrisholm, Labour MSP for Edinburgh North and Leith, who was a strong advocate for the tramline during the Labour administration, distancing himself from the project.

I attended the council meeting to see how the Labour opposition (who planned and began implementation of the tram project) and the Lib Dem portion of the coalition would deal with the public anger currently being generated by the project. The answer is not terribly well.

The debate on the trams opened with a submission from the Edinburgh Rail Action Group. This group has lobbied for the rebuilding of stations on the Edinburgh South-Sub Railway for a number of years, despite the idea being brushed off by both the Scottish Parliament and Network Rail. In the chambers however, their representative Harold Nicolson made a firm stand in favour of giving the people of Edinburgh choice on the future of the trams. He also called for greater accountability and transparency in the operation of Transport In Edinburgh (TIE), the organisation running the project.

This was followed (after submissions by UNISON and Holyrood Academy’s Parent Council on other matters), by the presentation of the report. Unhappy with the Lib Dem movement to accept the report, the Tories and Labour both tabled amendments to it which were duly accepted, following extended debate. The Tory amendment was of particular interest, requesting reports from TIE, to be delivered on fixed dates. These will outline the future costs of the tram project with a firm estimate of the final costs and the revenue of the tramway. This should be delivered on September 16th 2010.

The main event at the council meeting was the amendment which wasn’t accepted. This was a motion put forward by the SNP’s Steve Cardownie calling for those in charge of TIE to be brought before a special meeting of full council to answer questions on the project. It would likely have resulted in a congressional hearing style meeting in which the council would have been able to hold those running the project to direct account in a public forum. Alas, it was not to be with only the SNP voting in favour of the amendment.

Nonetheless, this amendment did serve the purpose of helping to highlight the various opinions in the council. The two common threads running through the debate were the mismanagement of the project and the blame for this should rest with. The answers, coming from various parts of the chamber and with varying levels of credibility, included TIE, Labour, the contractors, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the people of Edinburgh and the Greens.

There did seem to be some point of agreement however. Both the SNP and some of the Labour group suggested that a referendum should have been held before the project began, while the Lib Dems and Labour managed to agree on a number of points about why the SNP should be taking more responsibility for the tram works and not continuing to oppose the project while forming part of the council’s executive.

There were a number of samey arguments flung around in favour of the trams, including the suggestion that the trams would benefit Edinburgh in the same way they’d benefited many European and English cities and towns. Without the revenue estimates requested by the Tories, these lack credibility at the present time, not least given the economic changes which have been seen since the trams were approved. As was pointed out (I believe by Cllr Work), most of the cited cities don’t have an award winning and publicly acclaimed bus system.

Some interesting points about the works at present were made by Cllrs Beckett. Cllr Beckett gave details of information he’d received from a residents group, showing that air and noise pollution in their area had increase due to traffic reorganisation for the trams, also pointing out that while SNP does not have a representative on the TIE board, Labour does, giving the latter greater responsibility over the tram project then the former.

Closing remarks on the debate came from the Lib Dems, and were very apt. The councillor in question (who’s name I didn’t catch) talked about how all of the councillors had a responsibility to the city and people of Edinburgh. Wise words, not least because the council needs to have a long, hard think about how the city can best be served at a time when large cuts are going to have to be made.

The tram project squeals ever onwards, albeit with public disapproval. On one hand, it’s gone too far to simply stop, but on the other the full cost is as yet unknown. The bright side of the council meeting is that the Tory amendments will at least see greater transparency in the future. Hopefully, this will be enough transparency for Edinburgh to weather this wretched folly.

-

For purposes of clarity, my own personal perspective on the tram project as a whole can be found in this article on the Guardian Edinburgh blog. Thanks to Tom Allan of the Guardian, Al Innes and Fay Young for allowing me to gatecrash.

US technology and culture website, Wired, has a short article up regarding a New York Times article which claims that the US Government have discovered massive amounts of Lithium. The deposits of Lithium, which are found in compound form, are said to be worth trillions of dollars, not least because the number of devices which use Lithium in batteries is increasing rapidly. Lithium compounds are also used in the medical and nuclear industries.

As the Wired article states, the Lithium deposits in Afghanistan were known about decades ago. The political instability within the country proved to make the it unfeasibly expensive to mine and ship the minerals out of Afghanistan. Until such times as safe corridors have been established in the area, it will remain difficult to extract the mineral wealth of Afghanistan.

The potential benefit for American and European companies (and economies) if the mineral deposits can be tapped is likely to become a major factor to justify maintaining coalition forces in the area. The economic benefit would likely cover the existing (and ever increasing) expenditure on troop upkeep.

It will be interesting to see how this justification sits with the voters in Europe and America, who are increasingly displeased with the constant attrition of NATO troops.

On the 24th of June 2010, Edinburgh City Council may take the first step towards halting the creation of the new tram network. Unlike it’s predecessor, the new Edinburgh tram line has proven to be a white elephant for the city as costs spiral out of control, disputes with the contractors head towards the courts and delays mean that trams may not start running until 2012, beyond original projections for the project.

Opposition to the trams is now widespread. The SNP, both in Edinburgh City Council and Holyrood have long opposed the trams. Many Edinburgh residents also oppose the tramway on the basis that there is a perfectly good bus service in the city, so good in fact that Lothian Buses recently invested £3 Million in a new fleet of plush express buses to ferry visitors from the airport to the city centre, catering for a route which is expected to provide the trams with the majority of their traffic. Unsurprisingly, more then a few residents in the south of Edinburgh are irked that they have had to pay for a project which they personally will receive little benefit from.

The solution to this, as proposed by SNP council leader Steve Cardownie, is to hold a public referendum into the trams. This idea is due to be discussed by the council and seems likely to pass, if only because the city cannot afford to bankroll the trams indefinitely or indeed, at all. A bail out by the government is not an option – originally the SNP opposed continued tram funding on principle, now, as cuts begin to bite the money simply isn’t there.

Construction continues at the Haymarket Interchange

Giving the people of Edinburgh a say on the trams is possibly the most sensible thing that can be done now. For the Lib Dems, Labour and Tories, it avoids a climb down on an increasingly embarrassing flagship policy, while the SNP get to walk away with a political victory. Spending will not stop if the public say no however, as in order for the city to see any returns on the trams, the segment of the network from Edinburgh Airport to Haymarket has to be completed. This will not be cheap given that considerable work still needs to be done between Haymarket and Gogar and at Haymarket Station. Wiring also needs to be erected along much, if not all, of the route.

Whatever happens, the tram project represents a massive embarrassment to Edinburgh, with the tracks embedded in Scotland’s most famous street serving as a testament to folly and £600 Million down the drain.

Today, MSPs will be debating the Alcohol Etc. (Scotland) Bill, which lays out a variety of methods to curb Scotland’s levels of alcohol abuse. It will pass to Stage 2, during which amendment can be proposed, because the Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories support the the measures within the bill other then minimum unit pricing.

If the bill is successfully amended to remove minimum unit pricing, and not amended to include a limit of sufficient value, then it will likely prove itself as effective as previous Labour legislation aimed at curbing alcohol abuse. For those who don’t remember, Labour were ineffective at best in tackling alcohol abuse, with little to no progress made on the issue either in Holyrood or in Westminster (the sober and sedate body which allowed 24 hour licensing). Labour now seem hellbent on maintaining this reputation, pursuing a heavily partisan agenda where no justification for one exists.

One bright side of the whole affair is that an amendment to outlaw highly caffeinated drinks will be forthcoming. The monks of Buckfast Abbey will be wringing their hands at this news since it will ban their product – a bottle of which contains more caffeine then many heavily caffeinated soft drinks. The potential effects of this cannot be underestimated, although the potential for Buckfast either adapting to the new requirements or being smuggled into Scotland for grey market sale is high and would likely negate any potential benefits. There is also high possibility that those who drink Buckfast and become involved in anti-social behaviour would simply switch to another similar drink, such as MD 20/20, a truly foul but widely available American fortified wine with additional colourings and flavours.

It will be interesting to follow the future progress of this bill. If successful, it has the potential to make far reaching social changes and end part, but not all of Scotland’s dependency on alcohol.

This represents a massive turnaround on the part of the Scottish public. Just a few months ago, devolution max and fiscal autonomy were options being pushed by a minority of academics and the SNP, with many of those who are active in the field of devolution politics advocating the Calman Settlement. As predicted by many, it would appear that the realities of Tory government in the UK as a whole have given people cause to meditate on Scotland’s constitutional future.

The motives behind this change are obvious. David Cameron’s rhetoric on cuts – decimating the public sector, changing our way of life, nothing off the table – don’t sit well in Scotland. Here is a country which still bares the scars of the Thatcher cuts, has high unemployment and too little external investment and we are told that we must destroy one of our main employers, with cuts of up to 30%. We are, potentially, looking at a scenario where the Tories do to Scotland’s public sector what they did to Scotland’s mining and steel industry two decades ago, decimating yet another workforce and creating a new generation lost to unemployment.

No-one in Scotland wants that.

We can see how we have benefited from a large public sector. We know how important the quality of education and the need for carers and nurses is. We have benefited immensely from having nearly 100% of the 4-18 education system in state hands, and while private healthcare is more common, we have also benefited from the absence of foundation hospitals and other part-private endeavours. We know that we still need to do a lot of work to deal with the legacy of the 1980s and that requires public investment.

This is not compatible with the guiding vision which the Tories and Lib Dems have outlined for their economic butchery. That’s not to say that there won’t be cuts in Scotland – there has to be – but at the same time we must focus on maintaining the things which make this country great and maintain our way of life, not hawking them off to the highest bidder, holding a ‘bonfire’ of government agencies on the basis of public perception or seeking to create “a new way of life” in “the Age of Austerity”.

The important thing now is for the SNP to capitalise on this. The independence referendum, which includes an option for devolution max, must be brought back on to the agenda soon. Labour and the Lib Dems face losing creditability over their opposition to the referendum as public support for the devolution max or full fiscal autonomy continues to grow. The iron must be grasped while it’s still hot lest the opportunity slip away and Labour gain too much from Lib Dem supporters it’s picked up.

Last week, the EU agreed, in principle, to various member states setting up reintegration centres in Afghanistan. The centre planned by the UK Border Agency will be based in Kabul, with the facilities to handle 12 deported orphans per month and assistance for 120 deported adults per month. This would represent a massive step up in the numbers of asylum seekers being deported to Afghanistan.

It is worth remembering that Afghanistan is still an active warzone with a high degree of political instability and considerable problems with warlords, rape, murder and general human rights breaches. It is unlikely that British or NATO troops will exit Afghanistan in the near future without chronically destabilising the country. The idea that Afghanistan is safe to return asylum seekers to en mass is obscene and shows a lack of compassion or decency in the minds of our policy makers.

While initially, this is only going to apply to Afghanistan, I am concerned that it might open the doors to further similar projects in other countries. Many of the asylum seekers and immigrants from outside of Europe are here for genuine reasons and will face death or worse if they return to their original countries, something which this initial policy does not seem to take into account. Even with the recession, we should not be valuing the  wealth of state or the appeasement of the right above the value of a human life.

The particular nail which I wish to hold forth on is the abolition of the General Teaching Council of England (GTCE). This body was set up by the Tony Blair’s Labour Government to perform the same job as the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCfS).

The GTCfS was created in 1966 to address concerns over unqualified teachers teaching in Scotland following the Second World War. More specifically, it was charged with ensuring that all teachers were trained to a high standard, maintaining a register of qualified teachers and removing teachers who did not meet professional standards. This role continues today.

As a registered charity, it is independent of the government or local authorities, although it works with both in an advisory capacity. Nearly all teachers in Scotland are required to register with the GTCfS, hold an approved teaching qualification and complete a probationary period after which their registration may be refused. There is little debate on the fact that the GTCfS is the best placed organisation to do it’s job. Indeed, the GTSfS is held in high regard by the education establishment within Scotland and has the support of various teaching unions.

The GTCE had yet to reach quite the same level of impact as it’s Scottish counterpart. In England, only teachers in state schools are required to register with the GTCE, but teachers from independent schools of which there are considerably more then in Scotland, may choose to so. Prior to full registration, potential teachers must obtain Qualified Teacher Status from the GTCE. This is to ensure that all state teachers have sufficient qualifications, both in their subject and in education to perform their jobs.

The use of qualified teacher status helps to ensure that teachers in England meet an educational standard which can be passed on to their pupils. It is also intended to weed out people who are not necessarily suited to the teaching profession. It is a weaker standard then in Scotland, lacking the probation element and with less stringent qualification requirements, but it is adequate. The lose of the GTCE will be reflected in the English education system as more poorly and even unqualified qualified teachers take up jobs.

The abolition of the GTCE is analogous to the abolition of the General Medical Council, over which there would be mass outcry. That such outcry has not been forthcoming over the loss of the GTCE is saddening and we can only hope that the GTCE manages to mount a legal challenge against the Government to ensure it’s continued existence.

Note: Wales has an independent GTC from that of England. It’s existence is not thought to be under threat.