Ideas of Civilisation

Independence referendum: does the question really matter?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:27:00 +0000

In a classic example of the type of political debate which excites politicians and excludes everyone else, much energy has been spent this week discussing the question which should be asked in Scotland's independence referendum.

The SNP government's preferred version is quite simple and to the point (on the face of it): 'Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?' However this has provoked an angry response from other parties who say it's a leading question.

It's worth asking the extent to which the question really matters. You could just ask "Do you prefer Burns or Shakespeare?", so long as people knew what each option really stood for. This of course assumes only one question/two options.

As facetious as this, it's surely the case that, overall, everyone will know what they are voting for before they go into the ballot box. But this is not to say that the question's wording will have no impact whatsoever.

As it is written the likely question is leading in the sense that it is always easier to say 'yes' than 'no'. Also numerous polling experts have lined up this week to say that people have a greater propensity to agree than disagree, again leading towards a 'yes' vote.

It's also true that while the SNP may say the question isn't key and accuse the Opposition of pettiness and sniping in fact they also believe that the wording matters, otherwise why would they be so determined to set the question?

It is actually possible to have a question without a 'yes' or 'no' answer e.g. two statements to choose from, 'Scotland should be an independent country' and 'Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom'. This takes away any question bias for either side.

In a technical sense it's also worth asking if there's a problem with the question's exact meaning i.e. independent from what? The UK? The EU? Clearly it's the former so it's worth asking why it doesn't state this somewhere in the question.

This again takes us back to the importance of wording. Various opinion polls over the years show that the public is much warmer to the idea of greater Scottish control of issues i.e. independence than it is from the idea of breaking up the UK.

All of this being said - and whilst Labour and the Liberal Democrats may complain - this is obviously the same tactic that they employed to isolate the Conservatives during the 1997 devolution referendum. No-one wants to be on the 'no' side.

Whilst the public will probably only pay scant attention to the general furore around wording, it's a legitimate question if the SNP made a tactical error in setting the question themselves, unless they believe that their success is conditional on being able to set the question and so debate.

A better option - and one which would have insulated them from early criticism - would have been to have left the wording of any question either to the Electoral Commission or perhaps a Holyrood-appointed group of academics.

The Yes/No divide may influence a small number of votes. It may also aid the nationalist side in continuing a perceived positive campaign against negativity and griping. All of this will do Alex Salmond's chances of success no harm.

However overall the issue is surely likely to be starkly clear to voters. We are now - joy of joys - in the midst of a two-and-a-half year election campaign. The huge coverage and debate this will involve will leave no-one who actually casts in any doubt what they are going for.

All that remains is for the public not to be utterly disenchanted by the next few hundred days of campaigning and fighting. Because it's utterly certain this is one issue the public would have no problems in voting 'no' to.

The Old Firm and Independence

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:39:00 +0000

Anyone with even a passing interest in Scottish football is aware of the Old Firm, whether you want to be or not.

These two teams dominate everything. Not only do they win most things but media attention is focused on them more than any other team in the league.

So even if you support any of the 40 other league teams in Scotland, you will be forced to continually hear about Celtic and Rangers. To the extent that you might think no other team exists.

This fact has been on my mind these past few days as the debate over Independence has apparently taken off. Looking at the mainstream media, blogs and other online sites such as Twitter has seen an explosion of activity.

So logically then this means that across Scotland the general public are part of the debate and relishing the next 1000 days or so of campaigning? Except of course this isn't true.

Just as you can be forgiven for thinking at times that there are no football teams in Scotland outwith Celtic and Rangers, so too might you mistake all this activity for public engagement.

And yet it's hard to see that this is yet the case. The bulk of debate thus far appears to be those with a professional interest in politics i.e. politicians, journalists, party workers. There is little evidence of the debate extending into wider society.

This is not to say that it will not happen; it's hard to see how people can't engage in the weeks before the referendum (sometime in Autumn 2014). But we are certainly not there yet.

And it's also worth wondering if, like the Old Firm, some people are doing their best to ensure large parts of the population never take an interest, what with all the petty squabbling which has been evident from both sides.

Saturday night football radio phone-in shows usually feature one side of the Old Firm celebrating and the other berating the conspiracy against them. That or saying how evil the others' actions are.

The week later this will usually be reversed as the other claims either victimisation or moral superiority. And because of this most people roll their eyes and simply ignore the debate.

This could yet be the fate of the independence issue. If the majority of people who usually take but a passing interest are subjected to 1000 days of claim, counter-claim and acrimony they may come to the conclusion of 'a plague on all your houses'.

It's not entirely clear who this will benefit. If turnout and interest is lower it might aid the nationalists whose supporters will have more of a reason and desire to vote.

However if turnout gets very low it could lead to problems whereby the final result is legally challenged. Either way it would surely result in yet more fighting and more general public alienation.

So whether you believe that people who disagree with you are "anti-Scottish" or you think that ending the union will impoverish Scotland, it's probably best to keep some of these thoughts to yourself.

Otherwise the independence debate - like at times Scottish football - risks being fought by two partisan groups and ignored by everyone else in the country.

The public, social media and the independence referendum

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:52:00 +0000

A quick look at my Facebook and Twitter pages over the past few days has seen an explosion of argument and debate about the intricacies of an independence referendum.

Given the fury and energy being expended it seems that this is an issue of absolute public concern and interest. Except it’s not really.

Of all the people classed as my online friends there is a great mix of backgrounds. And yet to a man – or woman – the only people commenting on the referendum are politicians, journalists and party members.

Even in my workplace, discussion of this issue has been fairly muted, with one sole colleague mentioning it briefly.

All of this is obviously anecdotal but it does hint at the problem which all sides in this debate face; a general level of public disinterest in the matter, certainly the background to such a vote taking place.

This matters for two important reasons. One there is just the increasing alienation between what voters care about and what politicians spend their time discussing.

But it also has some repercussions for the eventual vote and its aftermath. Once we get through the current furore let’s say the vote finally happens, whether 2012, 2013 or 2014.

Imagine that the public have been increasingly turned off the issue by party political bickering and turnout is low. Will the losing side then be prepared to accept defeat?

So if the ‘unionist’ side (for all this is an untidy description) wins, especially narrowly, will the SNP go away or fight for another vote soon after (the so-called neverendum)?

Or instead if the nationalist side win, again narrowly, will the result not be challenged either in parliament or in the courts by the losers?

Whatever your position on the constitution this matters, because ultimately the loser in either scenario would be the democratic process as the public becomes even more disenchanted.

And the worst thing of all is that if such a scenario comes to pass the only people talking about it on Facebook, Twitter or anywhere else will surely be the same, narrow grouping.

Do we need a Scottish Studies course?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:49:00 +0000

What about that furore at Holyrood this week over whether we should have a Scottish Studies course? Why it was like when William Wallace led the Scots to victory at the Battle of Culloden in 1925.

You remember that famous conflict surely? It was chronicled by Sir Walter Scott in his best-selling book Miss Jean Brodie meets the Cone Gatherers, which I think was published sometime around 2001.

Preventing the above nonsense is of course what has been focusing the minds of the SNP this week as they launch plans for a Scottish Studies course in schools, something which has been met with Opposition opposition.

The SNP's belief is that young people are not currently exposed to enough Scottish history or literature whereas the opposition (notably Labour) claim it is a form of indoctrination and a distraction in an otherwise crowded curriculum.

On the face of it it's hard to argue with the idea of with a Scottish Studies course. Why should children not learn more about Scottish literature, history, etc to give them an understanding of their country?

It's misplaced to describe it as 'indoctrination'. Scottish heritage is no less valuable than other countries' and indeed Scottish Studies may serve to undermine misplaced nationalism by presenting a greater genuine understanding of Scotland.

Whilst this is fair enough there are still many unanswered questions. Firstly how do you fit an extra subject into what is already a very full curriculum? And secondly does this not utterly undermine recent changes to the education system?

Scottish primary pupils should concentrate on the basics and secondary pupils already study up to 16 subjects in their first two years; if a brand new course is to be introduced then something else has to go. What is that going to be?

It would be worrying if it was an established subject like history. Scottish history is important and usually already studied in primary and secondary schools. But other history is important too to develop a genuine world understanding.

If instead Scottish Studies is not to be a stand alone course but rather one that is weaved into current subjects then this is surely what is already supposed to be happening through the new Curriculum for Excellence (CfE)?

This is exactly why some teachers are often reluctant to fully embrace educational change - because they know another shift will be close behind. CfE is meant to achieve much of these outcomes yet already might be circumvented.

It's also not unreasonable to say there are other education matters which are a greater priority; not least the fact that in less than two years new qualifications will be introduced yet no-one knows what they will look like or how they'll be assessed.

The SNP will point to their manifesto and an opinion poll suggesting 90% support as reasons why Scottish Studies should be introduced. But it should only be done if it is a sensible course which fits with other subjects already taught.

If Scottish Studies enhances understanding of Scotland whilst also keeping an important world view then all well and good. But it should not just be about being seen to do something which doesn't add much except to appease SNP supporters.

And let's face it, the main person to oppose such misplaced actions would have been Ivanhoe's Captain Robert the Bruce.

Scottish Studies - The Great Battle of Newspapers

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:47:00 +0000

As an aside to the above post about Scottish Studies it's interesting to note how newspapers work and the (small p) politics involved in reporting.

The Scottish Studies story was run as an exclusive in The Herald and followed by several other newspapers, TV channels and radio stations.

However nowhere has any reference to it appeared in The Scotsman who are clearly angry that the exclusive interview went to their main rivals (an action which would surely have happened if the reverse were true too).

Isn't it nice to see that the media rises above the petty politics they usually decry our elected representatives for? No doubt they'll be telling tales of this famous battle in the course for years to come.

London's burning. Why? And why not Scotland?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 08:19:00 +0000

Traditionally summer is known as the 'silly season' in the media world where a shortage of real stories due to holidays will lead to space being filled by nonsense.

It's fair to say this summer hasn't had that problem. Phone hacking, the tragic Norway killings and now riots across parts of England, most notably London.

Depending on which newspaper/blog/etc you read there are a million different reasons for this: it's the left's fault, it's the right's fault; it's because of policing which is too strong, it's because policing's not strong enough. And so on.

So what does in fact lie behind the riots? Well the fact that there are so many theories is one factor; in other words people looking for one simple 'this is to blame, this will stop it' idea will be disappointed.

Some people will have been making a political point about policing. Some will be reflecting a disengagement from society. Some will be making a statement against a consumerist society. And some will just be greedy bastards.

Another claim has been that it's due to the decline of 'traditional values' . People nodding at this notion might do well to read up on some basic history which chart riots or other social problems which have always affected Britain.

And in all of this it's worth asking why these riots have not made it to Scotland or even Wales for that matter given that both have near identical social and political experiences to England.

This is also something of a mystery. It could be that both want to show themselves as distinct from England. It could be that it just seems so far away and so little point in joining in.

Or it could, as in an interesting article by Torcuil Crichton be due to other factors e.g. the different design of Scotland's cities which tends to see poorer communities on the outskirts or a difference in the country's racial mix.

Again, as with identifying the causes of the riots, there will likely be more than one issue. And the real problem with fixing this will be if we expect to rely on politicians to fix a problem they ultimately did not create.

The fact these riots didn't spread to Scotland is a good thing. But it also doesn't do to introduce moral superiority over this, any more than it would be relevant to say all of Scotland is sectarian because of Old Firm problems last season.

Politicians can have a big influence on a country, that is fairly obvious. But given that politics is only one small aspect of life and we can choose our leaders (whether we participate or not) it's too simple to pass the blame to them.

If society is overly consumerist (and it surely is) it's not politicians which have forced us into this, it's everyone. As people have gained larger disposable incomes and used it on disposable items of course this affects our culture.

And our media culture foists upon children the idea of instant success for very little discernible talent. But who is it buys these publications, which helps spread this disease?

And if we believe that some other aspect of society (parenting, attitude to drugs, behaviour, etc) is out of sync with the mythical Britain which once existed, what role might society as a whole have had on that?

If this does mark the death of a Britain (or England) which once existed, even if only in people's minds, now would not be the time to jump to immediate reactions whilst people are (literally) mourning.

But sooner or later we will have to properly analyze why this might have happened. And for those on the left or right there may be uncomfortable truths that they have to live with. Whether they are prepared for this is another matter.

However it's also worth noting that these riots also should not turned into something they are not. Yes it was disgrace. Yes the culprits should be punished. But no this is not the end of our very existence.

We live in a country (the UK) of 60 million, even England has more than 50 million people. The fact that some people (including young people) rioted is a disgrace. But it doesn't mean that everyone did; quite the opposite in fact.

We should remember that most people - as with 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago - just lead decent, normal lives. Even those that do live in some of our poorest communities. This is especially true of young people.

As the clean ups continue we should look for solutions to try and stop it happening again. But please, no simple answers. And no imagining things are worse than they genuinely are.

Total Politics Blog Awards 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 08:00:00 +0000

Some things are fixed each year; the leaves fall of the trees, Christmas comes, there's not much sun and then it's back to mid-August and voting for the Total Politics Blog Awards.

Once again you can have your say about your top bloggers whether they are on Scottish politics or beyond. You get ten votes so can spread the love around.

There's been lots of changes to the blogging scene not just this year but in the three years since this blog started. A blog should follow on here about my choice for the top ten.

If you want to cast your votes go here.

Cash for Honours, phone hacking and political hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 09:27:00 +0000

If you believe the tone of Sunday political newspaper coverage today it seems that Alex Salmond personally nominated SNP donor Brian Souter for his knighthood.

Such a charge, if proven, would be sensational not least given the SNP's leading role in the Cash for Honours scandal which previously engulfed Westminster and the past Labour government.

The SNP's retort has been that whilst a nomination was made from the Scottish Government it came from civil servants and ministers had no idea. True or not there is little doubt that this looks very bad.

In politics perception is everything;. Had a nomination for a Labour donor come from civil servants under the Labour-led Scottish Executive can you imagine that the SNP would now be saying there was no story?

Of course not, indeed given the Cash for Honours story the police might even have been called. What it does highlight is a classic example of political hypocrisy which only serves to alienate the public from politics.

It's not even the first time this week the SNP have been stung in this way. During the height of the phone hacking scandal the First Minister condemned Labour and Tory ministers socialising with News International (NI) staff.

However the release earlier this week of Alex Salmond's diary and correspondence with News International staff showed that he had attended similar social events with them too. So why the outrage before?

There is little doubt that part of politics is about being a hypocrite and hoping that no-one notices. So demands for ministerial action which are rejected when in government are easily repeated when in Opposition.

The same goes for some of the murkier aspects of political life, including donations and dealing with the media. All sides do it and to imagine that they are substantially different in their approaches would be naive.

Yet we still must listen to cries of outrage from one side when the other mimics their behaviour. The SNP have been exposed in this but equally Labour are complaining, for instance, about meeting NI staff when they did the same!

The net result is surely that the public feel unsure about who or what they should trust. If it's wrong to take donations or liaise with the media then that's fine. But if they all do it then who do you vote for?

And the worst thing is that all is this fighting is ultimately meaningless, just a tit-for-tat approach. No-one's life will be made any better by this political bickering, simply more public respect and support lost from our democratic system.

Ultimately this will not stop. Labour are on the offensive now because previously the SNP attacked them for these actions. So this means that as soon as the SNP see a chance they will hit back with their own hypocrite jibes.

Addicts apparently cannot move on from destructive behaviour because whilst they know it's damaging they simply know of no other way to live. For some politicians it seems hypocrisy is the habit they can't break.

Are exams a waste of time?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 08:38:00 +0000

Who'd be a school pupil? For years you're told that exams are the be all and end all to be focused on and that if you don't pass them you'll amount to nothing in life.

So what do they do? Well they study hard, sit the test that's put in front of them and pass. Are they met with congratulations? No, it's usually claims of dumbing down and how the exams are too easy.

The above scenario has in recent times become an annual event. Exam pass rates have been rising for the past few years and so people inevitably turn to the idea that they must be easier now than in the past.

The reality is more complicated. It may be that exams are easier although it could be argued that pupils undergo a much broader education now due to the changed employment scene from, say, 40 years ago.

There is also a much broader range of subjects and qualifications to take now. Pupils have the option of Access, Standard Grade (three levels), Intermediate 1, Intermediate 2, Higher, Advanced Higher and the new Baccalaureate.

What this means is that it can filter pupils into the level they are most likely to pass at e.g. why allow someone who probably won't pass at Higher to sit this when they can sit one level down and pass?

Ultimately we have to think about what we actually want exams for. Is it to try and distinguish one pupil from another when it comes to job and university applications? If so there are arguably other methods which should be considered too.

Or is it simply to show what particular skills a pupil has? e.g. an English pass at Higher obviously means they have a good grasp of writing, general literacy and analytical skills and so on for other subjects.

If it is for this purpose then should it matter if pass rates are improving? For instance imagine the outcry if the government said that it was going to fail more driving test candidates just so that too many didn't pass.

Equally we could apply this to other situations. Lawyers and accountants have exams to sit after they qualify; in future should we fail more of them just to make the test seem hard, even if they actually achieved the standards required?

This debate flags up one of the problems with the new Curriculum for Excellence which will only exacerbate claims of 'dumbing down' as pupils sit less exams, many of which will be set and marked in the pupil's school.

In reality for all the talk of a national debate and then a 'once in a lifetime' reformation of education that simply didn't happen. This means we have never really talked as a nation about what we want education or exams to achieve.

The job market 30 or 40 years ago was much simpler; firstly there were more jobs than now, many of which would be for life. And the basic skills they required from school were less; reasonably literacy and numeracy and a willingness to learn.

Things are very different now. People leaving school now will, on average, have many more jobs than their parents or grandparents did in their lifetimes. This means they need a flexibility within their learning.

In this regard exams can and should only be part of the picture. Whilst they are a barometer of pupils' progress (and an important one) they are also an artificial scenario which will almost never be repeated at work.

How many people go to their job, sit silently for two or three hours and write (not type)? Very few. Even less cannot ask someone else or look up an answer if they are unsure of something.

So perhaps we should consider changing our exam system but would the public ever accept this. The reality is that most people's opinions on education are shaped by their own experiences, good or bad.

But by all means we can shift back to the prior system where exams were a much substantial part of a final grade. And we can make them as difficult as possible, just to really separate pupils.

Bot one thing is clear, once we've decided what we want from our exam system we should stop telling pupils how important it is to pass and then berate them once they do.

Newspapers, Chris Jefferies and Joanna Yeates: Is this a real apology?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 08:45:00 +0000

In the immediate aftermath to the tragic murder of Joana Yeates newspapers up and down the country had but one suspect, her landlord Chris Jefferies.

For days Mr Jefferies was subject to the most lurid and false headlines anyone would wish to endure and had his reputation well and truly ripped apart, all for the sake of newspaper sales.

Whilst it might be hard to feel sympathy for a murderer there were two crucial problems with this coverage. Firstly if Mr Jefferies was guilty then this coverage could have made it impossible to convict him.

However, and more importantly, the second problem was that Mr Jefferies was in fact entirely innocent of such charges. Yet he still had to endure this media pack feeding frenzy.

As a result of this yesterday he won substantial damages against the newspapers who were guilty of treating him in such a dismissive and disgraceful manner. They were also forced to make public apologies to him today.

Various newspapers have printed those apologies online including the Daily Record, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and Daily Express yet it's worth comparing this with stories when they were seeking to ruin and publicly convict Mr Jefferies.

A quick look at those online apologies provides a stark contrast with the original coverage; where once there was banner headlines and front page photographs now it is a small paragraph tucked away quietly.

Mr Jefferies has been awarded substantial compensation for his ordeal this is not simply about him but rather anyone else that newspapers will choose to falsely attack in their columns and articles.

Although each newspaper has played down their apology at least the high profile nature of this case means Mr Jefferies' reputation will hopefully be restored; however what about who suffer in a similar manner but in less well-known stories?

For such people being featured in a few newspapers complete with unflattering photo and other character assassination will not be made up by a small paragraph hidden away. So why should newspapers not be forced to make a much grander apology when wrong in this manner?

There has obviously been a lot written about media responsibility in the past few weeks but such discussions should not be restricted to questions about illegal actions rather newspapers' general conduct.

Courts or indeed the Press Complaints Commission should be able to compel newspapers to match any apology and retraction with the original coverage; if this mistaken story was on page one why not the apology too?

Doing this would ensure that anyone who has to suffer from press intrusion and mistakes would not then have to live with this stain on their character as people are unaware of any apology because of its minute nature.

And if newspapers complain and want to avoid such an approach there is a simple way to do this; stop writing stories with are either wrong or based on your guess work about what happened rather than facts and legal convictions.

How many groups will be affected by the NOTW fallout?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:10:00 +0000

For a man who is in charge of the biggest part of the UK's media surprisingly little is known about Rupert Murdoch. That could change this afternoon.

As the latest high point of a developing saga Murdoch will be joined by his son James and ex-chief executive Rebekah Brooks at a Parliamentary Committee to answer questions about his media operations.

Given the growing hysteria and ongoing nature of this story expectations are high that it could be an explosive meeting. It's hard thus to avoid the feeling it will be something of a non-event!

However it is worth asking where this affair is ultimately going to end up, possibly with consequences ranging from the media to the Prime Minister himself. This surely will not be a non-event.

News International and the Murdochs

The most obvious people that will face some fallout are News International (NI) and the wider media too. For NI these events have already cost them the largest selling Sunday newspaper in the country.

Will this be the end of it? Possibly, although this surely depends on further revelations, today's committee appearance and what happens when people start going to court or even jail.

After sacrificing the News of the World the Murdochs must be sure the hacking, corruption, etc didn't spread to other 'papers like The Sun or The Times. Or at least be sure there's no way to prove this.

If evidence were to come out linking these 'papers (or even Sky News) to such illegality the precedent set by closing the News of the World would surely be a huge problem? Could other 'papers close too?

There is also a growing question - although surely unlikely - that this could ultimately cost Rupert Murdoch his media empire with investors in the USA complaining about his handling of this affair.

The media

The irony of the media's constant denigration of politicians is that most opinion polls suggest they are held in at least as low esteem by the public. Guilt by association here will only make matters worse.

It may not simply be association too. There is already other evidence to suggest illegality wasn't confined there, not least the fairly tame Operation Motorman report which implicated numerous 'papers.

Already there are calls - and worries - that this will ultimately lead to press regulation by the government, with the fear being this can only lead to a more private, secretive and corrupt society.

Ultimately this is something we should all worry about. Press regulation may limit some problems but will surely create others as it allows the rich and powerful some chance to hide from scrutiny.

Perhaps however some journalists understandably cautioning against this would have done better speaking out against their colleagues' actions over the years, whether illegal or simply salacious gossip.

If this affair achieves nothing other than forcing newspapers to stop the drip-drip of petty and irrelevant stories which permeate our national conciousness in favour of some more substance it would be no bad thing.

So too might the mirroring of Germany's 'right to reply' laws and regulations. Why should the media be able to run stories which may be proven false without any real fear of retribution from a toothless PCC?

Politicians including the Prime Minister

Of course whilst the media are most in line for this affair's fallout - and politicians have been doing much of the running - there is still a great possibility politicians will suffer too, in numerous ways.

The most high-profile is Prime Minister David Cameron. Having hired ex-NOTW editor Andy Coulson and being close to Rebekah Brooks he is closely implicated with the Murdoch empire.

More damaging however is the fact that throughout this affair he has been out-of-step with public and other media opinion, having to be dragged into taking what should have been simple decisions like launching inquiries.

All this creates an impression having something to hide, fair or not. Many are now speculating it could even cost him his place in Downing Street although this still seems some way off without new revelations.

Interestingly what few have spoken about so far is what this could eventually mean for those politicians that have lead the charge against News International - notably Ed Miliband - once this affair has eventually died down.

It's hard to believe that just as some politicians are finally hitting back at the media that there won't be repercussions, especially from News International who fill want to exact their own revenge.

As it stands the Murdoch empire is still very important through The Sun, The Times and Sky News. Might these groups work to ensure that Ed Miliband never gets the keys to Downing Street?

All of which means that as interesting as the Murdochs' parliamentary appearance might - or might not - be today, there is surely still some way to go. The fallout certainly isn't going to end with Brooks, Coulson and Hinton.

As ye sow so shall ye reap

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:32:00 +0000

The irony of the treatment dished out to Rebekah Brooks and others from News International these past few days is that it is obviously the exact type of attacks they previously excelled in dishing out.

In a competitive newspaper market many journalists are increasingly vicious in their attacks on the individual under scrutiny that day; it was never enough to report problems, the person's reputation had to be destroyed too.

The News of the World and other NI 'papers excelled at this approach; camping outside a person's house, phoning their family and friends, lurid headlines and the worst photographs they can find were just part of the experience.

All of this infests and indeed creates the society we inhabit. There has always been an irony in tabloid newspapers running campaigns against when bullying in schools when the example they set is exactly what they claim to loathe.

The treatment that Brooks, Coulson, etc are now receiving must be exceptionally difficult; losing jobs, facing jail, huge intrusion into their personal lives and the strain of being Public Enemies would wear down the strongest of people.

Yet as they were behind these type of attacks in the past they will receive little or no sympathy. The problem is that journalists doing this to them could well end up suffering the same way one day.

If the News of the World wasn't the only 'paper to take part in phone hacking and such like then there are surely other nervous reporters out there. Equally some of these people may leave the media and face this for other reasons.

Whilst sympathy for Brooks, etc won't be readily forthcoming, is this really the type of society we want to inhabit, one where people's lives have to be destroyed simply for a media story and some form of entertainment?

This is not to say that people that commit crimes or indeed make lesser mistakes should somehow avoid scrutiny or punishment. Quite often however the media's approach can be way out of sync with the actual transgression being committed.

Even if we do want wrong-doers to suffer, we can't avoid this hatred seeping into our own lives. In a media culture our behaviours follow that which we see and read, thus this culture of vilification makes its way into neighbourhoods and workplaces.

Obviously when talking about someone who has made a mistake at work or ended a relationship or just looks different we don't put their images out in a newspaper. But we do still talk about them in a vicious way designed to cause hurt.

Perhaps then it is not the media which is leading human nature, rather human nature which shapes the media. Numerous studies suggest that humans operate better in social groups using gossip as a way to better relate to their peers.

The media, newspapers especially, are just the ultimate manifestation of this type of gossip. In this regard the media really just reflects us all, albeit to an extreme extent. This seems depressing if true though, and too simple an excuse.

Like it or not, we are all responsible for the society we inhabit. So each time we act a certain way or allow others to do something we disagree with we grudgingly accept it. The same goes for journalists that tolerate an attack and destroy culture.

But like us all they will ultimately have to reap what they have sewn. We should all remember that the next time we take part in - or even just silently endorse - behaviour which could one day hurt us too.

NOTW hacking: only the tip of the iceberg?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:26:00 +0000

Say what you like about Rupert Murdoch but the man didn't become a media billionaire without ruthlessness and intellect. Yesterday's decision to shut down the News of the World is a perfect example.

For all the clamour of the past few days no-one had even mooted this possibility focusing all their efforts on key individuals such as Rebekah Brooks. It makes you wonder what else there is to hide if this is the best alternative.

The reality is that most people will not believe that this culture of insidious hacking and personal intrusion was limited solely to the News of the World or even News International; it surely goes much further than this.

Operation Motorman, an investigation by the Information Commissioner and the excellent Flat Earth News by Nick Davies both expose the type of intrusive tactics endemic across many newsrooms, not simply the News of the World.

The big question is what happens next. Shutting down the newspaper was clearly designed to also shut down demands for a public inquiry which could reveal even more problems. That surely cannot happen now though.

Given the precedent which has now been set to shut down a newspaper acting in this way, what happens if it's proven that another one did likewise, such as The Sun? At that point, if the pressure continues, would that go too?

Of course there are potentially other issues at play too. Most notable is the proposed takeover of BSkyB which was surely becoming impossible under the current wave of condemnation at News Corporation's door.

Does this mean that News Corporation think that newspapers as we currently know them are on the way out? This means they are happy to focus all energies on the TV and online markets, which they see as the future?

There is also the fact that the News of the World was now a toxic brand. It would be saddled with a terrible reputation and no advertising for the foreseeable future; better then to lance the boil immediately.

All stories have a shelf life after which they go away, either because there's nothing left to report or the public have lost interest. For all the storm taking place just now this will be the case for the hacking story too.

However it does still feel that it still has some steam left, which could only be added to if another newspaper was to be proven to have worked the same way too. One thing is clear, closing the News of the World doesn't close this story down.

New media versus Old Media

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:46:00 +0000

The question of whether or not new media (Twitter, blogs, etc) is capable of taking on the established media (newspapers, TV, etc) is a well-worn one, mostly online it should be noted.

In reality - whilst it might eventually change - old media wins hands down pretty much every time, simply because of the resources it has. But that doesn't mean it can't be challenged from time to time.

The last few days have seen an explosion of stories regarding the News of the World's odious approach to journalism, targeting even the families of murdered schoolgirls and dead soldiers just to sell 'papers.

The News of the World is certainly the biggest selling Sunday newspaper and when combined with its sister paper The Sun is the most powerful media outlet in the UK. Yet even this couldn't save it from online attacks.

Even when the disgusting news came that the News of the World had targeted the parents of Milly Dowler for phone hacking the mainstream media response (with some notable exceptions) was initially muted. But not for long.

As it became clear - through sites such as Twitter and Facebook - that the public were genuinely appalled and prepared to do something about e.g. email News of the World advertisers, soon the whole of the media took the bait.

At this point it became the story of the day, with every 'paper and media outlet in the country forced to make it their top story. Everyone except The Sun obviously who still pretended nothing has happened until today.

Of course in all of this we shouldn't kid ourselves that this means the online community, new media, whatever you want to call it is now strong enough to take and replace the established media organisations. And nor should it.

This story still would not have broken without mainstream media resources and investigation (notably The Guardian) and it would not have been such a huge public issue if it were not for the publicity the mainstream media can create.

It's also worth remembering the numerous faults which exist in new media, whether it's lack of scrutiny or insane ramblings that any visitor to a newspaper message board will have witnessed (and again showing continued strength of 'old' media).

But what this does show is that the past ability of the mainstream media to completely dictate the news we hear is declining. It will also give some journalists a taste of the treatment they have previously been happy to dish out.

Ideally this will lead to a humbler mainstream media, more considered in its approach to news-gathering. In the meantime we could even settle for a media which no longer breaks the law whilst portraying itself as society's moral guardian.

The ashes of a free media

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 08:07:00 +0000

In a democracy a free media is a vital part of society, ensuring that everyone has the right to express a view and that powerful interests are kept in check by the court of public opinion.

For that reason we should always be wary of any attempts to limit this, whether in the form of censorship or any other legal restriction on reporting. That way lies problems for us all.

And yet this morning it's hard to think that there has ever been a more depressing time than that which the British newspaper industry faces with allegations of criminal activity and destroying innocent people's lives.

Yesterday the news broke that staff from the News of the World had been involved in hacking the phone of murdered school girl Milly Dowler. Not only that but they deleted some of her voice-mails to allow them to hear more messages.

Coincidentally this horrendous story broke at the same time as The Sun and Daily Mirror newspapers were being dragged to court over their attempt to effectively try and sentence an innocent man regarding another murder case.

Both stories are bad enough in their own right, the actions of people devoid of any morals whatsoever, driven by nothing more than a desire for readers, publicity and, ultimately, money. This really is humanity at its most depressing.

Yet what is equally concerning is the way many other newspapers have treated these two stories. In some cases they have not even covered them, or relegated them to minor stories, less interesting than two newlyweds going to Canada.

And for any apologist who seeks to claim that these stories (especially the Milly Dowler one) are not that significant let's imagine for a moment it had been a different group responsible for this hacking, such as defence lawyers or politicians.

Let's say lawyers for Dowler's killer had done it as part of their defence strategy or a politician had wanted the inside scoop and seem to be in touch with the family's views. This morning they'd have woken up to an unimaginable storm of outrage.

In fact this doesn't fully describe what would have happened. Their public lives would be destroyed as the national media invaded every aspect of their lives and offered them up for public revulsion and hatred. Yet not in this case.

Those journalists who (rightly) claim the government should not impinge on the rights of a free media have an equal if not greater responsibility to cover all stories fairly, not seek to hide those that may cause them personal damage.

This morning there should be national outrage over the disgusting actions of those in the media who felt that they were above the law. And yet the fact there is not such fury is evidence of delibrate attempts to hide the truth from the public.

This is relevant as the UK government decides whether to allow Rupert Murdoch to complete his takeover of BSkyB. If we cannot trust his newspapers to obey the law or report all stories, how can he be allowed to control more of the UK's media?

For some time now newspaper sales have been falling in the UK. Whilst there are numerous factors for this a growing belief in their dishonesty and irrelevance is surely part of the reason. And yet their decline will hurt us all.

If those that work in the industry want to save their reputation - and jobs - then they have a responsibility to prevent the type of deplorable behaviour we have heard about. They could start off by simply reporting it.

John Lamont is completely wrong ... but he shouldn't resign

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 10:30:00 +0000

As a Catholic with significant experience of the church and Catholic schools I should be outraged and joining in a chorus of those who believe that John Lamont equating Catholic schools with sectarianism should lead to his resignation.

And whilst he was was certainly wrong - which part of this post will address - it's also worth considering just why his opinions shouldn't now result in his dismissal.

Consider first what Lamont said; the main problem with his comments was that they were lacking in any evidence. A rant based on his own limited experiences in Ayrshire is hardly proof of widespread 'state sponsored sectarianism'.

What his own childhood surely reflected was that pupils from rival schools have fights and disagreements, regardless of whether or not they are Catholic or (supposedly) non-denominational.

This isn't limited to schools. Many young people form street gangs to foster a sense of belonging which leads to rivalry with similar groups. This is nothing to do with religion, meaning rivalries will exist with or without Catholic schools.

Lamont's poorly chosen words were also an insult to staff in Catholic schools, somehow suggesting they actively promote sectarianism. As Lamont himself said these problems are learned at home so schooling is largely irrelevant in this.

All of this also leads us to another hole in Lamont's arguments. Many people who support him will be those who have an antipathy to any form of religion in schools yet Lamont said he still wanted to see Christian values in Scotland's schools.

This proves another flaw in Scotland's current system. We claim to have Catholic and non-denominational schools yet many of the latter institutions are effectively Christian with whole school services at Easter and Christmas, and so on.

The demise of Catholic education - paradoxically compared with Lamont's wishes - would surely see the ending of religion in schools other than as a subject to be studied like History. You could hardly continue to have religious services with Church of Scotland ministers after abolishing Catholic schools.

And so what of John Lamont's position, why shouldn't he resign if he is so wrong? Well for the simple reason that even politicians are entitled to have opinions many will disagree with, especially in a democracy.

No area or topic should ever be off limits in a country with free speech, regardless of how controversial it is. Which means that elected representatives and the public should be free to discuss the ongoing status of Catholic schooling.

However if they are going to do so - especially politicians - they have a responsibility to base their arguments on facts and not merely anecdotal rants. Equally the Catholic church and those who support the right of parents to choose have to be ready to defend it.

It is tiresome that we can hardly go a day without a politician's resignation being demanded because they say something someone disagrees with. It surely further alienates the public from politics when everyone has to sanitise their own view.

As much as anything else it is good that we know what a politician thinks because people can then vote for them, or not as the case may be. In other words asking that everyone keep their genuine views quiet all the time helps no-one.

And after all, as a Christian and a Catholic, shouldn't we be forgiving of those who err such as John Lamont...?

Humpty Dumpty the sectarian bigot

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:28:00 +0000

He might seem an innocent character but don’t let that fool you: Humpty Dumpty is an evil bigot. Don’t get me started on Jack and Jill either; both of those seemingly sweet children are in fact capable of the vilest abuse.

Don’t believe me? Imagine someone came up to you in the street and started screaming each of these nursery rhymes in your face, all the while madly gesticulating. In such contexts these actions would obviously be offensive and carry a punishment.

However if this is the case then why should we need new or extra laws to other songs or actions we may disapprove of? This is the essence of the quagmire into which the Scottish Government have wandered in their attempts to tackle sectarianism in Scotland.

Following Community Safety Minister Roseanna Cunningham’s recent comments, most media outlets ran with the headline that people could be jailed for “aggressively” making the sign of the cross or singing Rule Britannia, or Flower of Scotland, for that matter.

It’s no surprise that the Scottish Government are having problems with this. The previous First Minister Jack McConnell made tackling sectarianism one of his priorities but this was never an agenda shared with the new administration.

However after the problems faced last season in Scottish football – notably a bad tempered Old Firm game – this issue was again thrust centre stage. The Scottish Government, anxious not to look caught out and as though they had ignored the problem, has now swung to the other extreme.

From very little being (publicly) said or done during the 2007-2011 government suddenly this matter is of the utmost urgency, so much so that legislation is being rushed through from inception to Royal Assent in little more than the time taken for football’s summer break.

The evidence of why this is clearly not enough time to deal with such a complex issue was evident in Cunningham’s comments during discussions on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill. When pressed on what this meant in real practise she struggled to give an answer beyond the controversial ones listed above.

Giving specific examples has always been one of the problems when discussing sectarianism and such behaviour at football. Whilst some songs are obviously offensive what about others using swearing to malign a referee or such like? And if you don’t have a proscribed list then how can you really then take action against those singing them?

The government’s current position poses two problems. To avoid offending those who think it is unacceptable to criminalise the sign of the cross or singing a national anthem the government points out that they both currently could already carry a punishment in certain contexts. If so, then why a rushed new bill?

If instead however the new bill does in fact create new offences and legal powers then how long before such rushed legislation is taken apart by the courts, given the speed with which it’s been drawn together? This will of course be especially fun if goes to the UK Supreme Court given recent controversies.

An old political maxim – currently being put to regular use by the UK coalition government – is that it is best for new governments to get the difficult issues out of the way early in their term of office after which time they can either show the benefits or hope people have forgotten at election time.

The SNP clearly aren’t worried about popularity and they also have a huge majority so presumably they believe that doing this will show them to be a decisive government and also prevent much consideration of why an issue they largely ignored before suddenly needs rushed through.

But this is the worst way to make new laws; quickly and in such a way that they are ill-defined and open to future legal challenge. What will the Scottish Government’s position be when – and surely it might happen – a Scottish football fan is arrested for “aggressively” singing Flower of Scotland?

No-one disputes the need to tackle sectarianism in Scotland. Equally the behaviour of many (from various teams) at football games is not acceptable. However is the way to tackle this through a rushed new bill when we already have legislation capable of addressing this, albeit underused?

If addressing this problem was not a matter of unavoidable urgency only months ago it should not be now. It would make more sense for the government to take time to get this legislation right and work out why current laws aren’t before rushing to the statute books. Or, like Humpty, this legislation’s effectiveness might soon come crashing down.

Free prescriptions aren't free

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:38:00 +0000

Part of the minority SNP government's initial success was in ignoring legislation and instead focusing their efforts and attentions on high-profile, easy to understand policies.

Thus during the 2007-2011 government we had schemes such as scrapping the Graduate Endowment, getting rid of road bridge tolls and, of particular interest, ending prescription charges.

As well as being simple policies to explain, the impact of these moves also attracted complaint from those outwith Scotland - mostly the media - who claimed it showed that Scotland was getting a better deal than England.

What all this ignored however - especially idiotic claims about 'health apartheid' - is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, that money spent one place has to be taken from elsewhere. It is also the logical conclusion of the fact that having different governments will inevitably lead to different service provision.

A story in today's Scotsman is the perfect illustration of this with a child who is suffering from cancer losing out on treatment because he lives in Scotland rather than England which has the treatment facilities he needs.

We cannot base our entire health strategy on anecdotes or individual case studies but it is a salient reminder that governments have to remember whenever they laud a new spending priority that this obviously comes at a cost elsewhere.

Thus we may want a range of free services (prescriptions, road tolls, pensioner bus travel and so on) and these are perfectly legitimate demands, but only if we also accept that this funding has to then be drawn from other essential services.

If we consider the total cost of some of the free policies mentioned here, what could that have paid for instead? Would we have two or three more world class cancer facilities? Or perhaps new funding to rebuild numerous schools or any other action we wanted?

It's worth noting there are also arguments in favour of abolishing these charges, it's not as simple as saying this is wrong. For instance much of the administration costs associated with these charges are reduced, to say nothing of the fact that it ensures that no-one misses out on a prescription due to cost.

Estimates as to the total cost of having abolished prescription charges vary but most estimates seem to sit around the £50 million mark. And again it's not say that this is wrong or the money (if saved) would have even been spent on cancer treatment, but it is an element of this debate that is sadly missing.

This is true both for those in Scotland who strongly advocate or demand it, but also those in England who decry what they see as Scotland having a better quality of healthcare when in fact what they mean is that it has more high-profile health policies, not necessarily better care.

We are in the midst of discussions about what the next five years will bring and also what an independent Scotland might look like. So it's to be hoped that the debate will not focus on a list of high-profile giveaways rather than substantive debate about what we actually want and can realistically do.

And of course that we remember that there's really no such thing as a free lunch. Or free prescription for that matter.

Politicians (usually) shouldn't pick fights

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:22:00 +0000

If we assume that politicians aren't a bunch of self-serving charlatans (and honestly, most aren't) then it's likely they have been driven into politics by a desire to change what they perceive as some form of injustice. Alex Salmond is certainly one such elected official.

As such it should be no surprise if, from time to time, they vent their anger and frustration when this problem repeats itself or is not fixed. More than this they will persuade themselves that the public loves to see this passion. The only problem is that most of the time they are wrong to think this.

Whilst the 'man (or woman) in the pub' may spout meaningless tirades about they'd do if they were in charge in general terms the public want to see politicians in calm charge of situations, taking rational decisions. The odd tirade against guilty groups (bankers, judges, etc) may play well, but not all the time.

We choose our leaders to make difficult and considered decisions. We might not always like it and be ready to throw them out when they do something we disagree with, even if it was the right thing. But that's politics. What we don't want is them to seem out of control, which is what arguments ultimately do.

It's hard to tell what has sparked First Minister Alex Salmond's recent tirades against the legal system, including Scottish judges, lawyers or members of the UK Supreme Court, but it's come to something of a head when one (Tony Kelly) threatens legal action. Whether this is rhetoric remains to be seen.

It may be that the First Minister is expressing a genuinely held viewpoint, a point he made himself during Questions Time. Or it may be, as political rivals say, that the angry man evident in his legal comments and interviews is the real Salmond, finally unwrapped now he has the security of an absolute majority.

Whatever the reason, this surely isn't good for the SNP government, majority or not. Whatever the actual substance of his criticisms (and there may be valid points)m they are being lost in a parade of process stories about who said what and if they should. And none of this is likely to win the FM public support.

And the real problem for them is how the extract themselves from what is a growing quagmire. They have had numerous chances to apologise or pull back and both the First Minister and his official spokesman have pointedly refused to do so. Which means if there eventually a retraction it'll be a hundred times worse.

Of course none of this is to say that it's a huge disaster for the SNP. It'll make for some awkward temporary headlines but, given that the public (me included) don't really understand the substance then they are hardly likely to remember and punish the SNP for it. Especially if more sensible heads eventually calm it down.

The only potential problem for the SNP is that the Opposition narrative, such as there has been one, is that the SNP's huge majority has made them drunk on power; witness complaints about the Presiding Officer, committee convenorships and time for backbench MSPs question opportunities. This story doesn't help.

However as the summer recess approaches it will surely eventually fizzle out. And then we can go back to important stories like stories about an MSP's tweets. Or who knows, we could even explain the substance of this legal fight so people understand it. No wait, that'll never catch on...

Act well your part, there the Honour lies

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:39:00 +0000

In most Western societies there exists a system to honour those people who are deemed to have offered something beneficial to wider society deserving of recognition. In the USA it is the Congressional Medal whilst it is France they have the Legion of Honour. Britain too operates such a system but one that it not without its critics.

In the UK such recognition comes, officially, from the Queen in the form of OBEs, CBEs, knighthoods and so on. This alone is enough to provoke ire from many opposed to a monarchy. But more than this the controversey often stems from those people that are given the awards, especially if they carry with them any sort of political baggage. This last week is a great example of this.

The decision to award a knighthood to Scottish transport tycoon Brian Souter has unsurprisingly met with fury by many who remember his decision to fund a campaign against repealing Section 28 (as it became known) which prohibited discussing homosexuality in schools. Of course it happened anyway and none of the more outlandish predictions (gay sex lessons for all pupils) have happened.

Regardless of his political views it's hard to argue that Souter has been anything other than a very successful self-made millionaire who has created numerous jobs. This alone likely qualifies him and were it not for the political issue this would have been an unremarkable award. If he wasn't given it then it's worth asking who else would be excluded from the Honours system because of their political views.

As an aside this must surely have been an uncomfortable moment for many in the SNP. Imagine for a second that Brian Souter had been a Labour donor that had effectively funded the 2007 and 2011 Holyrood campaigns before receiving a knighthood this week. The howls against this from the nationalists, both for buying influence and funding intolerance would surely have been deafening.

Even without the Souter issue it seems a bi-annual tradition that whenever the British honours are announced (New Year and the Queen's birthday) that we get discussions of should it still happen at all, should the specific name and type of awards be amended and so on. No doubt this will continue.

As ludicrous as some of the awards seem - as one Twitter user noted this morning how long before it's Lord and Lady Beckham? - the general principle is legitimate. Even considering Alexander Pope's quote (from which this blog title is taken) about simply doing your best and that being reward enough, why shouldn't we praise people who genuinely make our communities better places to live?

Discussions about the changing shape of our society and the decline of community have been done to death; indeed they form a major part of UK government policy through the Big Society. If we accept the background to this then as a society thanking people who do mostly unrecognised and often unpaid jobs to make our town, cities and villages better placed to live is a good thing.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that much of this gets lost in a debate about whether or not we should have a monarchy or if the Honours system should look exactly like it does; on a personal view I share some of these concerns. But the fact is that we live in a monarchy and no politician is surely likely to seriously suggest such radical changes; and frankly, in terms of priorities, nor should they.

The one change that would though be worth considering is having a greater transparency and understanding of how decisions about awards are made. It is not so long since we had a police investigation into so-called 'Cash for Honours' so perhaps it the public better knew exactly the criteria for awards and found it easier to make their own nominations the validity of such Honours would be enhanced.

Of course it's worth remembering that few people who receive such an honour did so with the express intent of getting a few extra letters after their name; instead, whether entrepreneur or volunteer, they were simply doing what they thought was right.So whilst Pope may be correct about not needing honours, it's still surely worthwhile to thank those people that go the extra mile.

What future for Scotland's media?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:00:00 +0000

Growing up in Scotland my memory is always of the Daily Record being the dominant media outlet. That position, long since gone, is surely now certain to never return.

Journalists at the ‘paper (and sister title the Sunday Mail) received the unpleasant news earlier this week that around half the editorial jobs are to be lost. Tragic as this for the staff that are affected it also marks a current low point in Scotland’s media industry with most newspaper titles losing readers and many already shedding staff.

The question is what this ultimately means for news coverage in Scotland. Many argue that the rise of the internet means that the current journalistic model is no longer necessary. It’s hard to agree with this. There are many excellent online writers and some blogs that I would read regularly. However they (currently at least) cannot replicate the work newspapers do.

The reality is that most blogs are followers; they choose their topics based on those issues the mainstream media (MSM) are currently interested in. Few blogs lead the news agenda. The classic example of this is the biggest blog, GuidoFawkes. It has had some of its stories turned into national ones but only on occasion and only when the MSM decided so.

Bloggers – by their voluntary and ad hoc nature – will never really have the time, resources or reputation to chase the genuinely big investigations and more mundane regular news that the MSM can. The simple fact is that fewer journalists in Scotland will ultimately mean less coverage of Scottish-specific news, whether this is politics, sport, music or whatever.

That’s why it’s been strange and disappointing to see some people’s online reaction with some commentators through Twitter, etc (nationalists especially) effectively celebrating people losing their jobs and the death of another branch of civic Scotland.

It’s clear that all media outlets in Scotland have to recognise the changing tastes of their customers – and the Trinity Mirror Group may argue this is what they are doing – but will having even less of a Scottish focus help sales if people realise they can get more generic content online?

Equally newspapers have to consider what factors lie behind their decline. The internet certainly is part of this but is there problems with their content which alienates or increasingly turns off readers? Or does some aspect of their tone and layout simply not appeal to new consumers?

It’s worth noting that some of the rivalry that newspapers face isn’t merely from online sources. There is a growing proliferation (in Glasgow newsagents at least) of smaller niche titles that focus on community issues or crime. They may not be huge sellers but they are surely another small group chipping away at the dominance of media.

People are fond of making predictions (in my case usually wrong ones) but those who say the internet is well placed to replace and sweep up the mistakes of the MSM are surely premature. The good things that blogs, etc can offer still won’t replace what we’ll lose if more Scottish media titles decline or disappear.

In a democracy even Michael Moore’s entitled to an opinion

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:19:00 +0000

What a surprise that was. Imagine Scottish Secretary Michael Moore saying that Scotland is a disgraceful little country and the sooner it’s blown off the face of the earth the better.

Well it’s to be assumed he said this. The only comments I’ve seen relate to his opinions on an independence referendum but the outrage which has been expressed since surely means he must have said more than this?

Of course Moore did in fact restrict his statement to a belief that, if Scotland is to be independent, it would probably take two referenda before it could be officially agreed.

Given that politicos spend a large part of their time bemoaning the lack of a public interest in political machinations this seems a peculiar response; was what Moore said so outrageous?

Even if you disagree with him – and obviously many will – then surely this is exactly the type of debate we as a country should be having before the referendum is held? After all, we are a democracy and plurality of views should be heard.

If you think Moore is wrong then the best approach is to prove exactly why this is the case, not by the usual political trick of expressing fury that your opponent would even dare have a view opposed to your own? Hardly ‘positive politics’.

In many ways what we are actually seeing here is a clash between political and legal realities. As noted before the wording that the SNP proposed in the National Conversation was ambiguous and could be interpreted as needing two referenda.

What’s even stranger is that many of Moore’s critics acknowledge this difference with one radio commentator this morning fulminating that Moore was wrong but then saying he’s right that there are legal and political differences!

The one thing we can surely expect is that in the process of – potentially – breaking up a centuries' old political union, legal considerations will be manifest. Even if Scots vote for independence the negotiations over this will be complex e.g. where does Scotland’s control of the seas start?

The only certainty in all of this is that there will be a referendum – and there really does only need to be one. But if that’s the case then we must have a very thorough public discourse before it happens, certainly one that doesn’t involve shouting down any opposition.

If politicians – on both sides of the debate – want to ensure voters have no interest in this then attacking each other simply for disagreeing would be a good place to start. Because we’ve all seen how successful that’s been in encouraging participation in the past.

Does the independence referendum need a 'yes' or 'no' answer?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 10:32:00 +0000

We might not know the exact date but we're already in the midst of the independence referendum campaign, whatever some politicians may say about there being no campaign until the vote itself is called.

And as previously predicted the main issue which is likely to annoy average voters is that a huge element of this debate will not focus on substance but rather political points and nuances.

One of the major points of strife is likely to be the question itself. This is not only about the specific wording but also which side gets to be 'yes' and which is 'no'.

Whilst it is unlikely to be decisive there is some element of truth in saying that whoever gets to be 'yes' will have an advantage in terms of positivity; people generally find it easier to say yes than no.

However what no-one appears to have suggested so far is that it is possible for neither side to have this advantage or disadvantage.

The 1997 Scottish Parliament referendum and recent Alternative Vote referendum went for a 'yes/no' question and so this approach is ingrained in our minds when question planning.

However there is an alternative. The question or answer could instead be a simple statement of which each side wants e.g.

I believe that Scotland should:

1) Continue to be a member of both the United Kingdom and European Union

2) Leave the United Kingdom whilst remaining a member of the European Union

Even these wordings are only a rough attempt and no doubt many on both sides (especially the most partisan) will find fault. But the general approach is surely worth considering.

One major argument against this will of course be the need to make the choice as simple as possible. Whether you get 'yes' or are stuck with 'no' it's easier to have a one word slogan that people then look for in the polling booths.

It's also unclear how the SNP will handle this. Their commanding Holyrood majority ultimately means that they can have whatever question they want. However it may be in their interests to appear neutral in this and hand responsibility over to an outside body, perhaps a panel of academics or the Electoral Commission.

Whatever your view on what the final outcome should be it's in both sides interests to settle this quickly, mainly because it'll either put people off the referendum or politics more generally as the two sides battle it out over points of politics.

So who agrees? Hands up 'yes' and then hands up for 'no'. Actually why don't we just do that instead, a giant hands up vote...

A Pandora's Box - Privacy, media and the internet

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Mon, 23 May 2011 08:00:00 +0000

The world's worst kept secret was revealed yesterday by the Sunday Herald newspaper who finally named the 'unnamed footballer' that apparently had an affair before covering it up through the courts. However the website Twitter had already ensured that most people were aware of this identity for weeks beforehand. So where does this leave the media and issues of legal secrecy now?

In some regards the media do themselves - or least some sections - a disservice when they focus on tawdry gossip in privacy cases because it obscures any public interest discussions about information-sharing. Many people will believe that the only reason they want to avoid legal restrictions is because of the often legitimate belief that they're only in it to sell 'papers and make money

The Sunday Herald will of course paint their actions as being part of an attempt to stop any limits being placed on press freedom in this country. This is a worthy enough goal although perhaps it's unfortunate that they made this stand based on a topic which is of near zero real importance. Also doing it at a time of massively falling sales figures suggest at least another influence behind their decision.

So what happens next? Given that the footballer in question has taken time out of preparing for a big game next Saturday to sue Twitter it may be that he will turn his attentions next to this newspaper. Equally the courts may step in too. All this supposes of course that the injunction actually extends north of the border rather than covering English media outlets only.

Let's assume for a moment that the Sunday Herald have broken the law and face action. Would they be supported by other parts of the media in an "I'm Spartacus"-style movement? If they did it's hard to see how all of them could face action. Not only that but combined with online discussions it would surely make a mockery of the British justice system adopting a 'see no evil, hear no evil' policy.

Which ultimately means that this is the end of secrecy. If the internet and mass media decide that they can just ignore legal restrictions where does this end? In the case of overpaid footballers or other celebrities it may be that the public decides it could care less. But what happens when this extends to other substantial issues which the courts currently control e.g. reporting of criminal court cases?

The media are currently covered by restrictions when reporting who has been charged or arrested in connection with a crime. They can also extend this to not giving details about children involved in cases. There are other limits which can apply too. As we have seen with the Joanna Yeates murder there are good reasons for this and yet the media will ignore this when it suits them.

If we accept that the internet means the end of secrecy then this at least creates a level playing field as the ability to stop media outlets publishing information is something only the rich can afford. It's not even the case that only the rich get their indiscretions reported as Sunday tabloids used to feature regular stories about a village vicar having an affair with a head teacher, or such like.

But as above what happens if we accept that secrecy can no longer exist in any context, which is ultimately what newspapers (including the Sunday Herald) are pushing for? Footballer indiscretions may be fairly minor but they are the tip of the iceberg if the media no longer have to abide by legal restrictions. What happens when the first person is killed because a newspaper prints details about a wrongly-accused person?

The internet means we are flying down the wing of a new information age and it does seem foolish to try and hold back the news tide when the internet makes it impossible to do so. However it is also worth remembering that restrictions on media reporting do still play an important role in a fair society e.g. in ensuring that an accused person has a chance at a fair trial.

As long as newspapers want to write about actors, singers, footballers or other 'celebrities' then there will be a battle between these groups about what can and cannot be published. But we should also be very careful about just giving up all legal restrictions because it surely creates a Pandora's Box of problems for wider society.

2011 elections: What next for... The Independence Referendum?

noreply@blogger.com (Ideas of Civilisation) — Fri, 20 May 2011 08:00:00 +0000

Third in a series of articles about what happens next following the 2011 elections

It’s often said that the one thing the public hates more than elections is minutiae discussions about elections. If this is the case they’re going to really love the debate about the independence referendum.

Just to be clear this is not about independence itself and what it might involve and result in – although that discussion is clearly already ongoing – but rather what the vote itself should look like and involve.

There’s already some confusion. Opposition parties who spent the last four years saying ‘no way, never’ to such a vote are now demanding it takes place immediately. And the tentative hints from the SNP government are that it might not be a simple ‘yes or no’ ballot.

And we’re still not completely sure about how many votes there will be. Or even what question the public will be asked. All this before we’ve really started to have a substantive analysis of the vote; the public surely can’t wait.

In a simple world there would be no confusion; the SNP want a vote, the public will get asked ‘yay or nay’ and whatever the result we’ll all move on. Except it isn’t even in the ballpark of being that easy.

First of all let’s take the wording of whatever question eventually gets asked. This will be fought over by all sides (although ultimately the SNP will surely get their way because of their majority) and you can deliberate how much it matters.

In a strictly legal sense it's a legitimate debate. The SNP previously proposed this wording:

“The Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state”

Quite wordy and, if it does matter, slightly ambiguous. After all someone may agree to negotiating a deal to leave the UK but want another vote to decide on whatever they manage to agree. Maybe unlikely, but possible.

If this is the case then an argument will surely be made that two referenda are needed; one to agree that the SNP can discuss terms of leaving the union and another to agree if the deal is adequate. So for the politically bored they can look forward to numerous votes as well as discussions!

However it’s hard to think that the public will be too caught up in this, if it is a one question vote. They will turn up knowing if it’s going to be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for them and place their cross accordingly. But the wording above probably does need altered.

This assumes that it is a one question vote, and this isn’t clear either. The SNP leadership have spent the past few days suggesting that they could have a multi-option referendum looking not only at ‘independence v status quo’ but also additional devolved powers too.

The tactical reason behind this could be that the SNP leadership know that people in Scotland will not vote for straight-up independence and fear that a crushing defeat kills any hope of this for more than a generation.

A multi-option vote not only dilutes any option’s victory but as long as people did not vote overwhelmingly for the status quo would allow the SNP to argue that Scotland was moving towards independence, even if it was not there yet.

Of course this dilution works both ways and could also hurt independence’s chance of winning. It could also lead to a certain level of confusion amongst voters. How would each option be represented? Would it be a preference voting system (1,2,3) or one choice (x)?

However the main reason a multi-option (one paper) referendum seems unpalatable is that it’s surely in Scotland’s interests to have it settled one way or another, rather than running on and on. Although those opposition parties complaining would do well to remember that they could have dealt with this problem previously when the SNP were a minority.

The one option here which would not cause outright confusion for votes may be to mirror the referendum which took place in 1997 to set up Holyrood. The first paper could ask if people wanted independence and if so the second one would be superfluous. If outright independence was rejected though then the option of devolution-plus (paper 2) could then be counted.

Whatever the eventual vote looks like – and the fact a vote will take place is the only certainty – it's in the Scottish Government’s interests to settle these matters as soon as possible, even if it means conceding some ground to opponents.

Not only will this look magnanimous but the longer it runs on the more people will tire of the whole issue. If I were Alex Salmond this prospect would worry me just as much, if not more, as losing any battle of the arguments.