Not aff their heids after all. Common sense has prevailed. The flats will no longer be demolished as part of the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony, the reason cited to do with ‘safety and security.’ Er, yes. The decision still leaves the lingering question of why anyone thought it was a good idea in the first place but at least the outcome of  all the criticism is the right one.

I see Glasgow is going to blow up five high rise blocks of flats (apartments) as part of the opening ceremony for the 2014 Commonwealth Games.explosion

Various worthies seem to think it’s a great idea. They’re quoted as saying things like

Glasgow is proving it is a city that is proud of its history but doesn’t stand still, a city that is constantly regenerating, renewing and re-inventing itself … [it’s] symbolic of the changing face of Glasgow … This spectacular start to the games within the opening ceremony will send a strong signal about the power of the Commonwealth Games … a bold and confident statement

There’ll be plenty of dust as the blocks come down and the plan is to show the spectacle on a 100 feet wide screen in the games stadium. The co-ordination sounds as challenging as parachuting HMQ into the London Olympic opening ceremony.

Personally, as a once-upon-a-time town/urban/city (take you pick) planner, I think they’re ‘aff their heids’ as a Glaswegian might say.

To me this gimmick sends the wrong messages, like

  • the renewal of our city has been a disaster for fifty years or more

and

  • we’ve got a lot of rubbish housing here.

Why focus on something that is generally regarded as having been a bad thing? Apart from anything else, it might prompt all those hundreds of journalists attending the games to spend their spare time having a look around some of the city’s housing triumphs that haven’t been demolished or noticing how well its motorways are integrated into the urban fabric.

No, it seems a funny way to start a celebration. About as meaningful as the Manchester games in 2002, when I seem to remember dozens of Morris Minors performing some sort of ‘dance’ in the pouring rain. A great reminder of everything that was wrong with British industry and the British climate.

I do hope Glasgow proves me wrong, but I’m not betting on it.


Anyone reading this blog over the last few months will detect a trend – I’ve been writing more and more about this year’s referendum on Scottish independence.

I swithered before I started doing this in a blog I describe as ‘…trying to make sense of government and public services, and other stuff.’ My personal views on the subject are a tad removed from many of the subjects I’ve posted over the last few years about improving public services.

Maybe I could justify my ‘#indyref’ posts as ‘other stuff.’ But what could be more closely related to the subject of ‘government’ than how a people chooses to govern itself?

It won’t take anyone long to realise that I’m a ‘No,’ or perhaps a ‘Better Together’, person and I’ve tried on a number of occasions to write coherently on where I stand about Scottish independence. My reasons for being against independence are, I believe, positive but I’ve struggled to articulate them without getting bogged down in detail.

Tom Morton

Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/Shetland Library

So I was grateful to Tom Morton for writing Nationalism: a dangerous delusion on his ‘Tom Morton’s beatcroft’ blog. For anyone furth of Scotland, Tom is a journalist and broadcasts on BBC Radio Scotland, currently on Morton through Midnight. You can catch him, of course, on i-Player. I don’t always agree with his choice of music and I don’t agree with every jot and tittle of what he says about the Labour party. But I do like the main thrust of what he says about independence and how he says it. And I do agree with his final conclusion

it’s a thoroughly Scottish ‘no’ from me. No to separatism. No to division. And an end to this monumental and corrupting distraction from the central moral and political issues we face.

I thank him for putting into words what I haven’t been able to and urge you to look at what else he says.


Bad language warning

What standards should we expect in public debate about an important issue, and what constitutes public debate?

The questions have been prompted in my mind by online discussion of the Scottish independence referendum and the Collaborative Scotland web site. They urge ‘respectful dialogue’ and this seems to me a pretty good principle for discussion of such an important issue. These are their guidelines:

  • Show respect and courtesy towards all those who are engaged in these discussions, whatever views they hold
  • Acknowledge that there are many differing, deeply held and valid points of view
  • Use language carefully and avoid personal or other remarks which might cause unnecessary offence
  • Listen carefully to all points of view and seek fully to understand what concerns and motivates those with differing views from our own
  • Ask questions for clarification and when we may not understand what others are saying or proposing
  • Express our own views clearly and honestly with transparency about our motives and our interests
  • Respond to questions asked of us with clarity and openness and, whenever we can, with credible information.

They strike me as sensible and when I across public comments that I think are abusive I try to gently let the person concerned know about these guidelines and leave them to draw their own conclusions. Most of the material of this sort I come across is on Twitter, but I see a fair scattering of it on Facebook and individual web sites. Some of my exchanges end in what I regard as a redirection of abuse (and, occasionally, implied threats) from the original target to me. At this stage I just stop. Some people are so unbalanced and blinkered that no comment they disagree with will do anything other than convince them of the rectitude of their own point of view.

Some however are different and should, in my view, know better.

Yesterday I saw a tweet that read

“@[name] Aw, sad for poor Jose-Manuel Barroso tonight.” Maybe he’ll turn on Cameron and say In ye come Scotland fuck the Tory bastard

I don’t know what action or remark by Barroso prompted this comment but I know what the words (excuse me) ‘fuck the Tory bastard’ mean.

I remonstrated – gently I’d say – with

Not sure ‘F the Tory B’ helps #indyref debate – a suggestion: [link to Collaborative Scotland web site as above]

Our exchange then went:

Him – no but it’s on Twitter, it’s heavy with irony and guess what? People laugh. That’s because it touches how they feel. New media

Me – Still, I find it sad you reduce the high aspiration of national self-determination to ‘Fuck the Tory bastard’, ironic or not

Him – sorry roger. That sounds like sanctimony. This is Twitter not Thought for the Day.

At which point I gave up.

Funny my correspondent should mention Thought for the Day because ‘he’ is not some anonymous internet troll. He’s an ex-BBC journalist who presented a BBC Radio Scotland current affairs programme, amongst other things, for a number of years.

Is it unreasonable of me to expect ‘respectful dialogue’ on Twitter about the independence referendum, especially from public figures? Am I sanctimonious or just a wimp who needs to man up? Should we accept standards on some media we wouldn’t on others? What do you think?


The Scottish independence referendum is bringing to prominence a whole new area of special use of language. Here are some words I’m getting fed up with.

Afraid – see ‘Feart’

Bias – allegation made, usually without any firm evidence, about the news coverage of the BBC in the belief that ‘No’ campaigners are given an easy ride and ‘Yes’ campaigners are unfairly given a hard time. The allegation often means no more than the views of a favoured politician are subjected to legitimate challenge. The same accusation is also made about Scottish TV and (sometimes with more justification) about the printed media, Scottish and English.

Bullying – any mention of potentially negative consequences of independence by UK politicians, even if backed up by evidence and even if the politicians concerned are Scottish.

Feart – Scots for ‘afraid.’ Glib characterisation by many who want independence about those who don’t, whatever their reasons.

Negative – any reason given against independence.

Project Fear – ‘Yes’ code for ‘No’ campaign, whatever arguments it advances.

Scaremongering – another code word for any mention of potentially negative consequences of independence even if backed up by evidence, although not confined to statements by UK politicians.

Unionist – literally, a definition of anyone who wants to maintain the union (any sort of union) of the UK. Often used to imply a right wing or reactionary viewpoint because of its association with the ‘Conservative and Unionist’ party, much less so by any association with Ulster Unionism.

Westminster – as in ‘parties’ or ‘government.’  Shorthand for United Kingdom parties or government. Used to imply a whole range of characteristics – indifference, irrelevance, hostility, distance, separation and otherness – although ‘Westminster’ government is also UK and therefore Scottish government.  Sometimes shortened to ‘WM.’

Other contributions by sharp-eyed readers to the lexicon are welcome and will be added with due acknowledgement. Comments that do no  more than point out that I have a particular point of view are likely to remain unpublished, especially if abusive.


Carney speechThe Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, met First Minister Alex Salmond yesterday and spoke at a Scottish Council Development and Industry meeting about the economics of currency unions. He stressed he was talking ‘technically’ but what he said has led to much discussion in the media. The risks and challenges of a shared currency if Scotland votes for independence have been at the forefront of comment.

One conclusion widely drawn is that the Yes campaign and/or the Scottish National Party need a ‘Plan B’ if a currency union with the rest of the UK proves impossible to negotiate. Politicians are naturally reluctant to consider Plan Bs as it casts doubt on their Plan As. There was a good example on a recent BBC Question Time programme when John Swinney refused to answer a ‘what if’ question – ‘What if you don’t win the referendum?’

Those wanting to retain the Union in one form or another should also be thinking about some Plan Bs. In their case it’s the answer to the question ‘What further devolution would you propose if you win the referendum?’ It seems clear that many people in Scotland want more powers for the Scottish Parliament if there’s a ‘No’ vote – see for example the analysis by What Scotland Thinks.

Who should be doing this thinking and setting out their Plan Bs? I think not the Yes and Better Together (No) campaigns. They are both alliances of political and other groups who have different views on many subjects. The SNP and Scottish Greens for, example, don’t agree on the currency question. It’s the main political parties – the SNP on the one side, the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems on the other, in some combination – who should be developing some options.

And if I were to add a special plea for those who want to keep the Union it would be not to make your response a pragmatic one just to satisfy the Scots. Go back to some first principles about what sort of United Kingdom you want, and apply your prescription to all four countries. That sort of reform is much needed … assuming the UK stays as one.


The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2013 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 9,000 times in 2013. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 3 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.


Elderly manMany years ago I got into a spat with a director of social work in Scotland about the cut-off age for a council’s older people’s strategy.

She was adamant that it had to be for everyone aged over 50. I demurred. ‘It’s too young,’ I piped up from the sidelines – but to no effect.

Today I saw an older people’s forum advertised in leafy Buckinghamshire, 500 miles and one Act of devolution away from where I live – again for anyone aged over 50.

It seems that the definition of older as 50-plus is near universal, at least in the UK and amongst those who purport to promote the interests of and support older people.

But most people are

  • living longer
  • staying healthier longer
  • retiring later, currently 65 (for men – women are ‘catching up’) and rising.

So how come this obsession with older = 50, fifteen years before most people retire? Can anyone enlighten me?

This is a serious question. Does the cut-off have any standing in law? Is there scientific or medical evidence that this is the age at which people really do become ‘older’? Or is the assumption just a lazy carry-over from the past that is never reviewed?

Answers on a (virtual) post card to the HelpGov blog please.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 521 other followers