Baker's Dozin'

The whole furore over the al-Megrahi release which has been opened up by David Cameron's visit to the States and the US Senate's desire to have Scottish ministers give evidence to their committee is a sad state of affairs.  Plenty has already been written about why this is ridiculous - when will the US start to realise that it does not have jurisdiction over any more than its own shores?  I'm still a bit annoyed (and that's putting it lightly) that Messrs Salmond & MacAskill didn't just tell them to f*** o**.  But perhaps my political antenna isn't quite as in tune as theirs.

Anyway, I digress.  I just wanted to point out the utter nonsense on the issue spouted by Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Baker.  He told the BBC (who have called him "Labour's justice spokesman" which I think is a downgrade in title):

"It speaks volumes about the lack of confidence he has now in his own decision that he is running a mile from any scrutiny of it".  Apparently in his view it is "perfectly legitimate" for American politicians to ask Kenny MacAskill to go to Washington because they can pretty well do what they like.  

Okay, I may have paraphrased that last bit, but his point is daft anyway.  Of course it is legitimate to for them to ask, but it is also legitimate for the Justice Secretary to decline (just as, incidentally, Baker's own colleague and former UK Home Secretary Jack Straw did).  Wouldn't the Scottish Government be justified in inviting the US Senators (some of whom enjoy lucrative sponsorship from oil companies) to come and share their findings with a committee of the Scottish Parliament (who DO have jurisdiction in the matter?  Of course - but they won't, because they recognise that the Senators do not have a constituency over here, and no place in our democratic system.

I think, thankfully, and hopefully, that the best outcome from this sorry media frenzy is that Richard Baker is unlikely to take his present role in opposition into government in the event he is re-elected in May and his party form the government - neither of which event is, thankfully, a certainty at this point.  

Of course what he said is political point-scoring, an opposition MSP trying to paint the government as incompetent.  But I wonder if Iain Gray realises yet that if he wants to run the Scottish Government next year he'll have to do better on the personnel than the amateurs he has running the show at the moment.  But then, it isn't like he has much of a choice.

Read more...

BBC Interview #2

As a follow up to my pre-election interview with the BBC, Auntie Beeb has interviewed me again for my reaction to the election.  You can read it here, soundbite and all.

"... while this was an election for a United Kingdom government, there is nothing united about the way in which its component countries voted."

Read more...

BBC Interview

Malc in the Burgh - featured on the BBC!  

Short interview for BBC on election, parties, issues and the media.  Let me know what you think.

Read more...

The world keeps turning

Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time then. I watched it, and so, I'll guess, did about 5 or so million other people. Yousuf didn't - and now wants to know what the outcome was. You can let him know here.

I'm not going to review it, except to say that I thought the politicians did well when they presented a united front against Nick Griffin - and floundered when they were attacking each other. Yet they attacked with respect and dignity - always "Mr Griffin said" this and "Mr Griffin did" that. And Bonnie Greer's tactics were spectacularly good - being a non-white face on the panel, she was seated next to the BNP leader and gently chided him throughout as "Nick". The audience, I guess, were a bit of a braying mob - though some of what Griffin said did get some sporadic applause (when he wasn't his true racist self). Iain Dale has a fine review here.

Anyway, the point I made before is the point I will make again. Those who were opposed to a Nick Griffin appearing on the show are entitled to their views but their attempts to fight fascism with fascist actions - stopping freedom of speech, ignoring the legitimacy of a democratic election - fall somewhat short of the standards they have set for themselves.

Peter Hain spectacularly misses the point when he says that the BBC have done the BNP a favour by granting them publicity when the reaction to his appearance on Question Time has done more to put him in the spotlight than anything the BBC has done. All the Beeb did was offer the guy a microphone - legitimately elected though that the guy is, he has a right to speak. It's up to politicians of all hues to dissect his argument - not the role of the BBC to censor.

Really interesting exchange between Scotland on Sunday editor Kenny Farquharson and Scottish Green co-leader Patrick Harvie on Twitter:

Kenny:

is confused about people who call themselves liberals - they'll let a mass murderer go free but won't let an elected politician on the BBC

Patrick:

@KENNYFARQ An elected *fascist* politician should not be treated the same as others. And Megrahi's not free. He's dying.

Kenny:

@patrickharvie So a vote for a fascist is worth less, democratically, than a vote for another politician? That's a curious democracy.

Patrick:

@KENNYFARQ The vote's worth the same. But the BBC's a public service broadcaster; exists to serve the common good, which BNP opposes.

I have to side with the journalist (for a change). It is a curious democracy when you are willing to overlook close to one million votes because you don't like what someone says. It is a dark day for liberal democracy when we go down that path.

Read more...

Unite against fascism - become a fascist

I had to switch off BBC news 'coz the protesters were driving me nuts. By all means make your point, protest, make a bit of noise. But don't make the argument that somehow you are standing up against fascism by trying to ban fascists from speaking. Surely that is a paradoxical position?

The BNP have had much more exposure from this furore than they would have gotten from just being on TV tonight - just as they did when student protesters stopped Nick Griffin from debating at the Oxford Debating Union.

All that these protesters are doing is providing him with a martyr role - and he'll exploit that no end. Iain Dale has a good take on this here.

Why can't you protesters exercise your democratic right this evening to switch off the TV when he's on Question Time? Just like I'm doing right now.

Read more...

It's Time for Question Time

And so we're here.

Later today Nick Griffin will represent the BNP on BBC's Question Time programme (if he can get through the protests at Television Centre that is).

I've long been a supporter of this move and of debating the BNP in general. I still remember my first year classes at university when I argued about freedom of speech and "shining a light on the the dark views" of racists being the best advert for both democracy and toleration. We don't agree with them - of course we don't - but if you let them say it, you can let people see how ridiculous their views are then you can rip them to shreds when their argument does not stand up to any scrutiny.

What about the rest of the blogosphere?

• Well, Yousuf doesn't seem to agree. Though he used to think it was a good idea. Maybe he's been chatting to Peter Hain.
• Kezia thinks a boycott would be a waste of time - and that we have a responsibility to deal with them.
• Mr Eugenides, in his customary rather strong language thinks we need to tackle them head on.
• Andrew Reeves reckons free speech should win out - and that they were legitimately elected, therefore they should be allowed (occasional) TV appearances.
• Chris points out Jack Straw's credentials as a good opponent for the BNP.
• Jeff thinks we should give Griffin a fair hearing... then throw the book at him when he steps out of line. Or ignore the show as unmemorable.

I have to say, I don't take my view lightly, and I understand the reservations that Yousuf has. The BBC are giving them a vehicle to promote their abhorrent views that is true. They are giving them a spotlight. But the notion of legitimacy has already been bestowed by the 800,000+ people who voted for them in June and elected two of their number to the European Parliament. That ship has sailed. But all is not lost.

No, Question Time provides our other representatives - representatives of decency, morality and general good - to take on the BNP, to shine a light on the darkness of their views, to show that these islands will not tolerate racism and that while they have come further than we had hoped with their 2 MEPs, they shall go no further.

We must take them on in a public forum. We must trust our side to make the argument for us. And above all, we must win. Decency, free speech, democracy rests on it.

We've got to deliver.

Read more...

FAO Political Parties: Don't be scared of debating Nick Griffin

Busy, very busy with thesis stuff today. But as a means of passing comment on an issue that I feel quite strongly about (and one I've written about before) I'd like to direct you to this piece by Kezia Dugdale on the potential that the BNP may appear on BBC's Question Time.

I don't say it often, but I absolutely agree with Ms. Dugdale on this one. A boycott, an anti-platform stance by the "major" parties completely misses the point and will do more damage in the long run.

More later (if I can find the time).

Read more...

For Foulkes sake!

Got to love politicians trying to defend themselves over pay and expenses.

Everyone's favourite peer, Lord Foulkes has a go.

"They're [MP's] paid £64,000... what's your salary?... £92,000?! That's nearly twice as much as MPs."

Actually, it's just less that 50% more... not quite "nearly twice as much." Back to school, Lord Foulkes. Also, is he really trying to suggest that an MP can't live on £64,000 a year? I suppose you can't re-tile your swimming pool on that...

"And you are paid a lot more than them to do a lot less important work."

And there was me thinking it was the job of political journalists to hold politicians to account, to demand from them the high standards that their office should maintain. Okay, the journos aren't making the laws of the land or sending our forces off to war, but they are the medium through which the public are informed of the decisions the politicians take.

Our favourite Lord might do well to remember that the media often hold the keys to re-election for a number of MPs. Not that he needs to worry about that for his second job in the House of Lords I suppose.

Favourite line from this piece:

"What a lot of nonsense you're talking."

Though it should probably have come from the reporter and not from Foulkes...

Read more...

The devolution cycle

Wee bit busy this afternoon but I wanted to point you in the direction of something.

BBC Scotland political reporter John Knox has been cycling around Scotland and asking people what they think of devolution. He's been recording his (and others') thoughts on the way and you can read them here.

Dead badgers aside, its a fun read and presents a fairly balanced view of devolution 10 years on.

I'm hoping Brian Taylor's documentary is as equally well done.

Read more...

English Buttons

Love the BBC.

Britain's Jenson Button spends his whole career pre-2009 winning one race.

Britian's Jenson Button wins the first two races of 2009 and he becomes England's Jenson Button.


Funny how it was the other way round with David Coulthard (ie - he was Scottish when he was losing/ British when winning).

I'd like to point out, I don't really give a damn. Just show some consistency.

Read more...

No nukes is good nukes

I see the BBC is at its biased best again with the following headlines:

Scots nuclear stance criticised

Governments fall out over nuclear

BBC reporting aside, there's a proper story behind this.

The SNP, who have been anti-nuclear since Alex Salmond was a boy, have continued that policy from opposition into government, with the result that - for the forseeable future while the SNP remain in government - there will be no new nuclear power stations built in Scotland.

Which is tremendous from an environmental point of view. The Scottish Government has focused on renewable energy, promoting wind and tidal energy in particular, harnessing the power of nature to power our nation.

But that is not the story that the media - nor the UK Government - is focusing on.

The BBC tells of "battlelines being drawn between the two governments" which is simply a distortion of the truth. Ed Milliband, UK Energy Secretary simply said:

"I disagree with the position the Scottish Executive has taken on this, I don't think it's good for Scotland."

"It's a huge number of jobs - it's 9,000 jobs per nuclear power station with huge benefits for the economy... but it does remain a decision for Scotland."

His quotes tell two things: One, that the UK Government is focused on economic issues (understandable given the mess they've made of it in recent months) at the expense of a long term environmental strategy. And two, he understands devolution. Something that can't be said for many of his colleagues at Westminster.

Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 sets out the areas of policy which are reserved to Westminster. Included in that is energy policy (including Section D4 nuclear energy and nuclear installations). However, that only covers current power plants. To build a new power station requires planning and electricity laws, both of which are devolved - giving the Scottish Government an effective veto over any plans to build nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Thus, under an SNP Government, Scotland can look forward to a nuclear-free future.

Read more...

Not a Calman influence...

I've been reading Sir Kenneth Calman's comments regarding the Calman Commission's upcoming report. The title of the BBC's piece, "Calman warning to SNP government" is another piece of bizarre biased reporting from the Beeb (not to mention somewhat questionable grammar).

Said Sir Kenneth yesterday:

"If it [the Scottish Government] doesn't wish to help with that process - and we would like it to help - then it will be quite difficult for them to criticise at the end. If you don't vote - you shouldn't criticise the outcome."

I understand the principle of his comment, I do. But I don't think his comparison works. Let me explain.

I encourage everyone I know to vote come election time. Everyone tells me what a waste of time it is, that whoever gets in willl just do the same as the last lot and that nothing will change (which is, I suppose, also a fair charge). But my point is always that if you don't make your view known by voting for someone - anyone - then you forfeit your right to complain about anything politics related (which is most things).

But this is slightly different. In an election, everyone has the opportunity to put their point across. Anyone (with certain caveats) can stand in an election if they don't think they agree with any of the other candidates. No one's view is excluded from the democratic process and people can make up their mind on who to vote for from a variety of different viewpoints. That's how democracy works.

The Calman Commission is not an election. Not everyone's view is represented. Some views (notably those supporting independence) have been disallowed from discussion. By my reckoning, if your views are not only not represented but have absolutely no means of being represented within that body, you are well within your rights to criticise that body.

By Sir Kenneth's reckoning, the Unionist parties in Scotland shouldn't be allowed to criticise the Scottish Government's National Conversation on the very same basis - that they haven't gotten involved in the process.

Both arguments are absolutely barking. Criticism and debate are part and parcel of a healthy democratic process. And the Scottish Government, like everyone else, will be well within their rights to criticise Sir Kenneth's Commission when their findings are made public.

To think otherwise, is just plain stupid.

Read more...

The insensitivity of the BBC

I don't have Sky Sports in the flat, so I was keeping up with the football scores last night on the BBC's live football blog - which on this occasion was written by Jonathan Stevenson.

I usually find this a fairly good way to keep up with scores and general banter if I can't actually watch the game. The humour is pretty good and occasionally text comments, emails and lines from the BBC's sporting debate site 606 are published.

Let me paint a picture of what was going on in the Arsenal-Roma match last night. Arsenal were 1-0 down to Roma on the night, tying the score 1-1 on aggregate over the two matches, with five minutes left in extra time. Their strikers had a pretty rubbish night, their shooting was abysmal and they missed a few sitters. Then this comment came through on 606:


In case you can't read it there, it says: "Looks like Arsenal should've bought more Germans..."

Now, after Bayern Munich beat Sporting Lisbon 12-1 on aggregate, if I'm being generous to the guy, he may have been referring to that. But after yesterday's shooting in a German school, the comments seem crass and insensitive and in all likelihood, should not have been published.

I mean, there's banter and there's banter. And there's a public discussion forum and in private and the BBC should really have drawn a line there.

EDIT
On reflection, I may be reading a bit more into this than was the intention. A number of commentators have suggested the reference was to German penalty taking, something that never occurred to me. However, I still think whoever was editing at the time might have thought it through a wee bit before publication.

Read more...

BBC - Bastion of British Censorship

You've got to love the BBC.

Actually, if you are a regular reader of MitB, you'll know that you don't really have to love the BBC. But you've got to love the pickle they've gotten themselves into now.

Those fine purveyors of impartiality, those upstanders of British traditions, those "we cannot possibly be seen to be acting unfairly or offending anyone" fine, fine people.

First there was the Russell Brand/ Jonathan Ross hoopla with thousands of complaints. Result: huge apologies all round, resignation of Brand, BBC radio controller and suspension of Ross.

Then the BBC decides not to show the DEC's Gaza appeal film on the grounds of impartiality (and, no doubt, that it will offend some people).

Then Carol Thatcher, after making remarks - off-air - that the BBC deemed offensive, has been sacked from working on The One Show (which is totally rubbish anyway).

So what are they going to do with Jeremy Clarkson, a man not known for his subtlty, who has seemingly offended time after time after time - and remains in his job?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the BBC to suspend, sack or even discipline Clarkson in anyway. The guy (in the most recent instance anyway) was just reeling off facts (and I guess, his opinion of them) in calling Gordon Brown "a one-eyed Scottish idiot."

Yes, it might be offensive to some, but I reckon the PM has heard people call him much worse. And really, is that any worse than the banter I get? - balding Scottish b****** springs to mind. Outside questioning my parentage (which is patently ridiculous given the lack of hair follicles myself and my father have in common) I'm not offended by it. Because its usually meant in jest. Pretty sure he meant it as a joke. And, obviously, to get some publicity.

So now the BBC has to decide whether it is actually going to go PC-mad and sack Clarkson, or if it is going to lighten up a wee bit. I don't really know what my money is on in this instance.

UPDATE: It seems Clarkson has apologised for "a remark about the PM's appearance" and so the BBC have been spared taking any action against him. What I find, well, bizarre is that so many politicians (from a range of parties) have largely ignored his slight on the PM's partial sighted-ness but are mad at his describing him as "Scottish" - feeling it to be meant in a derogatory manner. Honestly, if you are offended by a description of someone's nationality, you really need to get out of that business...

Read more...

The BBC and the Gaza appeal

I know some bloggers have taken to boycotting the BBC (though again, what good will it do? Unless you are going to stop paying your tv licence...) for their stance on the Gaza appeal.

But I do agree with the bloggers. I think they should broadcast it - and I think they have been leant on by the pro-Israel lobby to stop them - but their reasons for not showing the appeal are merited, if a little... inhumane isn't the right word, but it'll do.

They've said they don't want to take sides in the conflict. They've said it's a complex issue. They've said that it would compromise their impartiality. And these are all fine reasons I guess.

Except that it's crap. The reason the BBC (and indeed, Sky) don't want to broadcast an appeal to help Palestinians (which would show Israel in a bad light) is because they fear recriminations. They expect that, were they to show the appeal, Israel would suspend their filming rights there - which, in fairness, they probably would.

So rather than aiding people who are suffering because of Israel's tactics, the BBC is hiding behind impartiality in the hope that no one sees through it. In doing so they are actually doing what they intend not to do - implicitly condoning the behaviour of one side in this conflict. But then, business is business.

Cowards.

Read more...

The big Inauguration questions

You've got to hand it to the BBC. They do know how to ask the Big Questions.

They're reporting on the Inauguration of President Obama has been classy. Let me just point you in the direction of this page, which emphasizes this point.

If you have been affected by the issues raised on this page, then you can use the comments at the foot of the page to register your views. I'm not kidding.

"Would you have advised Michelle Obama to dress differently for the Inauguration?"

Cutting edge political discussion. Our licence fee going to good use. Thank you, Auntie Beeb!

Read more...

Labour launch by-election campaign*

*according to the BBC

Bizarrely, this was only yesterday. The seat has been vacant since August 13 - that's almost 9 weeks ago.

What have Labour in Glenrothes been doing up until now?

Read more...