One thing that Scotland as a country seems to do well (especially its media) is live in a constant state of extremes.
Whether it's sport, politics or a range of other issues things always have to be "disastrous" for one side and "triumphant" for the other, with very little in between.
Media coverage of the Old Firm this season is a prime example of this but also well illustrates political coverage over the same period.
In terms of domestic football Celtic and Rangers are very close this season; they face each other in two cups (one a final) and potentially are separated by only one point in the league.
Nevertheless media coverage could persuade you otherwise. In spite of their closeness each week one team is massively ahead whilst the other is miles behind. However these descriptions flip depending on results the following week.
And so it currently seems to be with the political race to be First Minister after May, with Alex Salmond (SNP) and Iain Gray (Labour) taking the places of Rangers and Celtic in this topsy-turvey coverage.
For most of the past few months the clear media narrative has been that Labour have the election all sewn up and that Salmond should start packing his bags from Bute House now.
However in the past couple of weeks this has all started to change; one opinion poll and some announcements and suddenly Mr Salmond is staying in power and the negative focus is on Iain Gray.
Would anyone really bet that at some stage this extreme coverage will not switch again and that it'll be Labour the media ordain to be favourites for May's election?
And until the contest is over both sides - Old Firm or political rivals - can get on with minor squabbling, even if most people are relatively uninterested.
So for the Old Firm it'll be identifying those journalists, referees, etc that are definitely biased against them (although both sides may believe this about the same person).
And Labour and SNP supporters can have fights about opinion polls and their reliability. The simple guide is this though, if the opinion poll supports my party, it's reliable. If it supports the other party, it's unreliable.
The reality is that, like football, the political winner this year will be the team with the vision to rise above temporary hurdles and problems, not getting bogged down by fleeting challenges.
So the SNP should rightly be dismissive of being completely written off before May (although that's not to say they won't still lose). And Labour should not be too downhearted by recent media publicity (without guaranteeing they'll win).
As with the football the political side that wins will be the one with the best players and managers that can plan ahead and ignore those short-term troubles they may seem to have.
Football or politics, we'll know who emerges triumphant come May. Whatever extremes the media may take us to between now and then.
28 Feb 2011
15 Feb 2011
Money, money, money
Brian Souter's latest donation to the SNP has certainly shaken up what has actually been a low key Scottish Parliament election campaign thus far.
The narrative at Holyrood has been so clear and polarised for some time that it blended seamlessly into campaign warfare. Souter's donation has reminded us a vote will soon take place and also says something profound about Scottish politics.
The response to the donation has been fairly predictable and would have been the same whoever had received the money. The recipients (the SNP) will be delighted with the funding and see it is a proof that they have the confidence of the business community.
Opposition parties are obviously on the attack. Labour say this is big business buying secret influence and the Greens have been particularly prominent because of Souter's funding of the Section 28 referendum in the late-1990s.
Whatever your opinion of Souter it's clear that this donation is going to make the SNP this campaign's big spenders as no other party can surely hope to raise this much (the total could reach £1 million if the SNP receive like-for-like donations).
What's interesting is how spending on May's election compares with the amount of money invested during the 2010 General Election and what this says about Scottish politics more generally, especially the differences (or lack thereof) between the SNP and Labour.
In the 2010 election around £30 million was spent across the UK, roughly £3 million of which took place in Scotland (which strangely enough fits the Barnett Formula almost perfectly).
Given that this coming election will decide who controls the Scottish Parliament for four years it's not unreasonable to assume that a similar amount would be spent in 2011 yet it seems unlikely the total will come anywhere near the £3 million figure.
The major reason for this is that the Conservatives know they have no chance of victory and so will not invest as much again. But there's more to it than that too.
We already know that post-May either Labour or the SNP will emerge as the largest party; there is no other feasible scenario although we still don't know which side will 'win' or who will then form a minority or coalition government.
In some regards this is not too different from a UK election where only the Conservatives or Labour can win but in Scotland the race was much tighter with all parties having something to play for (even if in the Tories' case it was only being seen to fight).
There is thus less of a case for parties other than Labour or the SNP investing substantially at a time where all parties are struggling financially. This is not to say they won't try to win, simply that they won't put huge sums of money into it.
However even for Labour and the SNP there are still big challenges relating to how much money they can actually attract. The SNP have clearly just had the single biggest investment and so far no-one else comes close to this (or seems likely to).
Labour will again rely heavily on trade union donations, whether in the form of finance or other resources but even that is not going to be a massive sum, certainly not as much as in the past. Unions are facing financial troubles the same as everyone else.
And in all of this there is actually the question of why any big investor would want to put their money into the Holyrood election race. Aside from attracting jibes about buying undue influence what real incentive is there for investors to back either party?
Even taking into account the last few years' constitutional wranglings and the Calman Commission, the Scottish Parliament still only exercises limited powers over Scotland's economy. Instead its energies have been generally focused around the delivery and management of the public sector.
For all the fury expended in the Holyrood debating chamber it is difficult to point to genuinely substantive policy differences between Labour and the SNP around how the public sector should be run. Such fights as exist are usually about the amount of money spent and little else.
Therefore an outside investor may decide that spending their money to influence the outcome of an election which has essentially already been decided is a waste. And can anyone really challenge them on this?
Of course until both main parties publish their election manifestos and give a clue as to their priorities between 2011 and 2015 it's hard to say for sure but there have been limited indications so far that they will offer clear differences.
In all honesty 2007 was not all that different. The class size policy of each party was the ideal example of this; the SNP wanted smaller classes in primaries 1-3, Labour wanted smaller classes in Secondary 1-2. Different, but hardly hugely.
So as we approach May's election it's not unreasonable for investors and voters alike to be trying to work out any genuine variances to help direct their support. Unless we are to see huge and frankly unexpected announcements in the coming weeks such differences will surely not be obvious.
So what does this leave us with? Well presumably lots of adverts and billboards from the SNP and a mostly media-based campaign from Labour. And in all of this fairly simple narratives from each; the SNP on continuing reliable control of Scotland; Labour on exposing the SNP's 'broken promises'.
Indeed we could arguably save ourselves a lot of trouble and finance by using a very small amount of money to help decide the electoral outcome. Alex and Iain, who wants heads or tails?
The narrative at Holyrood has been so clear and polarised for some time that it blended seamlessly into campaign warfare. Souter's donation has reminded us a vote will soon take place and also says something profound about Scottish politics.
The response to the donation has been fairly predictable and would have been the same whoever had received the money. The recipients (the SNP) will be delighted with the funding and see it is a proof that they have the confidence of the business community.
Opposition parties are obviously on the attack. Labour say this is big business buying secret influence and the Greens have been particularly prominent because of Souter's funding of the Section 28 referendum in the late-1990s.
Whatever your opinion of Souter it's clear that this donation is going to make the SNP this campaign's big spenders as no other party can surely hope to raise this much (the total could reach £1 million if the SNP receive like-for-like donations).
What's interesting is how spending on May's election compares with the amount of money invested during the 2010 General Election and what this says about Scottish politics more generally, especially the differences (or lack thereof) between the SNP and Labour.
In the 2010 election around £30 million was spent across the UK, roughly £3 million of which took place in Scotland (which strangely enough fits the Barnett Formula almost perfectly).
Given that this coming election will decide who controls the Scottish Parliament for four years it's not unreasonable to assume that a similar amount would be spent in 2011 yet it seems unlikely the total will come anywhere near the £3 million figure.
The major reason for this is that the Conservatives know they have no chance of victory and so will not invest as much again. But there's more to it than that too.
We already know that post-May either Labour or the SNP will emerge as the largest party; there is no other feasible scenario although we still don't know which side will 'win' or who will then form a minority or coalition government.
In some regards this is not too different from a UK election where only the Conservatives or Labour can win but in Scotland the race was much tighter with all parties having something to play for (even if in the Tories' case it was only being seen to fight).
There is thus less of a case for parties other than Labour or the SNP investing substantially at a time where all parties are struggling financially. This is not to say they won't try to win, simply that they won't put huge sums of money into it.
However even for Labour and the SNP there are still big challenges relating to how much money they can actually attract. The SNP have clearly just had the single biggest investment and so far no-one else comes close to this (or seems likely to).
Labour will again rely heavily on trade union donations, whether in the form of finance or other resources but even that is not going to be a massive sum, certainly not as much as in the past. Unions are facing financial troubles the same as everyone else.
And in all of this there is actually the question of why any big investor would want to put their money into the Holyrood election race. Aside from attracting jibes about buying undue influence what real incentive is there for investors to back either party?
Even taking into account the last few years' constitutional wranglings and the Calman Commission, the Scottish Parliament still only exercises limited powers over Scotland's economy. Instead its energies have been generally focused around the delivery and management of the public sector.
For all the fury expended in the Holyrood debating chamber it is difficult to point to genuinely substantive policy differences between Labour and the SNP around how the public sector should be run. Such fights as exist are usually about the amount of money spent and little else.
Therefore an outside investor may decide that spending their money to influence the outcome of an election which has essentially already been decided is a waste. And can anyone really challenge them on this?
Of course until both main parties publish their election manifestos and give a clue as to their priorities between 2011 and 2015 it's hard to say for sure but there have been limited indications so far that they will offer clear differences.
In all honesty 2007 was not all that different. The class size policy of each party was the ideal example of this; the SNP wanted smaller classes in primaries 1-3, Labour wanted smaller classes in Secondary 1-2. Different, but hardly hugely.
So as we approach May's election it's not unreasonable for investors and voters alike to be trying to work out any genuine variances to help direct their support. Unless we are to see huge and frankly unexpected announcements in the coming weeks such differences will surely not be obvious.
So what does this leave us with? Well presumably lots of adverts and billboards from the SNP and a mostly media-based campaign from Labour. And in all of this fairly simple narratives from each; the SNP on continuing reliable control of Scotland; Labour on exposing the SNP's 'broken promises'.
Indeed we could arguably save ourselves a lot of trouble and finance by using a very small amount of money to help decide the electoral outcome. Alex and Iain, who wants heads or tails?
9 Feb 2011
Lockerbie, political parties and 'hierarchy'
Given that Labour MSPs have lambasted the SNP government for releasing Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, it is certainly embarrassing to find that the previous UK Labour government was actively pushing for this behind the scenes.
It obviously took Alex Salmond and the SNP no time at all to point out the apparent contradiction of this, which is hardly surprising given the criticism they've taken for the decision.
Without again discussing the Lockerbie bomber's release this does raise some interesting questions about the ways that different parts of the same political party will disagree with each other, and how this affects overall perceptions of the party.
Scottish Labour's response to this has been to - unsurprisingly - ignore the previous UK government's actions and keep pointing out that they've always been opposed to the release and would not have agreed to it, regardless of who was in power in the UK.
In some regards there is an irony about the SNP complaining about the apparent divergence in Labour attitudes given that in the past they have criticised Scottish Labour for being being unable to take its own decisions, giving it the 'London Labour' tag.
This hypocrisy is obviously not restricted to the SNP; Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives can all be guilty of using the differing actions of political parties in separate political administrations to attack their opponents.
How often have we seen Iain Gray - or even Annabel Goldie or Tavish Scott - criticise Mr Salmond during First Minister's Question Time for the actions of one of the councils the SNP controls?
However there is ultimately no logic to these attacks. After all why should politicians - even if they are in the same political party - always agree with each other?
In a society which is used to the concept of hierarchy it is tempting to imagine that a party leader is in complete control of their party and that everyone else will simply agree to their wishes and commands.
But this is obviously nonsense. For one thing (at least for Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives) there is more than one 'leader', with someone taking this title north and south of the border. It also fails to understand the essence of politics.
Politicians by their very nature have substantial egos; why else would they put themselves up for public judgement and criticism simply to have their idea of how a town, city or country should be run put into practice?
Furthermore the people with the final say are always the public. If you are a council leader worried about your own prospects of re-election you will be much less likely than to follow your national party's line, however much pressure is placed on you.
Therefore it's not a simple process to then assume that all sections of a political party - especially if they answer to different electorates - will follow the same line each time.
The concept of ideology is not nearly as prominent now in British politics as in the past; this is partly the reason that many people complain there is apparently no difference between the major political parties.
As such it becomes harder to predict what people will do. We cannot assume that because of the historical nature of the party that a politician will say or do a certain thing. And in some regards why should they?
This logic applies to all parties in the Scottish Parliament, perhaps especially the SNP. For instance what difference should it make to someone's views on the best way to run schools whether or not they are for or against Scottish independence? And so on for other parties too.
This is part of the reason for the 'control freakery' that politicians - especially New Labour under Blair and Campbell - are so often chided for; if leaders are to be held accountable for every single one of their members, it's no surprise they'll try to control them.
And it is an obvious source of political attacks for rivals to show apparent divides and contradictions. However in doing so they also leave themselves open to attack because inevitably their party will suffer from this too at some stage.
The reality is that parties will always disagree within themselves and frankly so should they; to suggest otherwise is to go even further down the line of political robots and automatons that people already understandably complain about.
It obviously took Alex Salmond and the SNP no time at all to point out the apparent contradiction of this, which is hardly surprising given the criticism they've taken for the decision.
Without again discussing the Lockerbie bomber's release this does raise some interesting questions about the ways that different parts of the same political party will disagree with each other, and how this affects overall perceptions of the party.
Scottish Labour's response to this has been to - unsurprisingly - ignore the previous UK government's actions and keep pointing out that they've always been opposed to the release and would not have agreed to it, regardless of who was in power in the UK.
In some regards there is an irony about the SNP complaining about the apparent divergence in Labour attitudes given that in the past they have criticised Scottish Labour for being being unable to take its own decisions, giving it the 'London Labour' tag.
This hypocrisy is obviously not restricted to the SNP; Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives can all be guilty of using the differing actions of political parties in separate political administrations to attack their opponents.
How often have we seen Iain Gray - or even Annabel Goldie or Tavish Scott - criticise Mr Salmond during First Minister's Question Time for the actions of one of the councils the SNP controls?
However there is ultimately no logic to these attacks. After all why should politicians - even if they are in the same political party - always agree with each other?
In a society which is used to the concept of hierarchy it is tempting to imagine that a party leader is in complete control of their party and that everyone else will simply agree to their wishes and commands.
But this is obviously nonsense. For one thing (at least for Labour, the Lib Dems and Conservatives) there is more than one 'leader', with someone taking this title north and south of the border. It also fails to understand the essence of politics.
Politicians by their very nature have substantial egos; why else would they put themselves up for public judgement and criticism simply to have their idea of how a town, city or country should be run put into practice?
Furthermore the people with the final say are always the public. If you are a council leader worried about your own prospects of re-election you will be much less likely than to follow your national party's line, however much pressure is placed on you.
Therefore it's not a simple process to then assume that all sections of a political party - especially if they answer to different electorates - will follow the same line each time.
The concept of ideology is not nearly as prominent now in British politics as in the past; this is partly the reason that many people complain there is apparently no difference between the major political parties.
As such it becomes harder to predict what people will do. We cannot assume that because of the historical nature of the party that a politician will say or do a certain thing. And in some regards why should they?
This logic applies to all parties in the Scottish Parliament, perhaps especially the SNP. For instance what difference should it make to someone's views on the best way to run schools whether or not they are for or against Scottish independence? And so on for other parties too.
This is part of the reason for the 'control freakery' that politicians - especially New Labour under Blair and Campbell - are so often chided for; if leaders are to be held accountable for every single one of their members, it's no surprise they'll try to control them.
And it is an obvious source of political attacks for rivals to show apparent divides and contradictions. However in doing so they also leave themselves open to attack because inevitably their party will suffer from this too at some stage.
The reality is that parties will always disagree within themselves and frankly so should they; to suggest otherwise is to go even further down the line of political robots and automatons that people already understandably complain about.
5 Feb 2011
What skills do school leavers need?
What is the ultimate purpose of education? Is it simply about enabling young people to get a job or about developing their overall abilities and personality?
And regardless of your opinion, what should the outcome look like in real terms? What abilities do we want and need young people to leave school with?
This question is posed after a report which suggested that Scotland’s finance sector is beginning to suffer because school and university leavers don’t have the necessary skills.
The report’s authors have complained about potential recruits lacking basic writing abilities, poor communication skills and a deficiency in so-called ‘soft skills’.
In the latter case this means being unaware of basics such as how to dress, the best way to approach an interview and even a sense of entitlement to employment
So where does the fault lie for this and how can it be fixed? The reality is that schools and universities are only a very small part of the answer.
In terms of writing and numeracy skills, clearly schools should be at the centre of this, although again they’re not the only ones with responsibility.
There is too big a curriculum to be followed in schools, particularly primary. The new Curriculum for Excellence makes this worse by asking them to cover even more topics and outcomes.
Whilst it’s important for primary pupils to be exposed to a range of subjects (albeit at an elementary level) this can be done at the expense of time for the basics.
Thus it would make sense to invest more in primary school to ensure that all pupils can read, write and count even if it means dropping other items from the school day.
But responsibility does not end at the school gate. Young people are much less likely to read at home which then creates problems when teachers try and encourage them to do so at school.
If parents leave their children in the hands of computers, the internet and television then it’s no surprise that basic skills which in the past were learned at home as well as school will decline.
This same obligation is true in terms of the ‘soft skills’ referred to above. Schools and universities can make some efforts to prepare young people for interviews and jobs. What they cannot do is alter attitudes.
If young people are turning up to interviews unprepared and with a sense that it is they who are interviewing the company rather than the other way round, then some parents must ask if they are encouraging this attitude.
In other words, home life is key. The most successful pupils will always be those that have a stable home environment and parents encouraging them to do well; that’s more important than even the best teachers.
Of course some responsibility can also rest with the companies themselves, who have an important role to play too.
We should not expect private businesses to have to teach basic numeracy and literacy to employees but at times some of the complaints do seem to cover the fact that young people are not ready to work in their specific workplace.
In recent years there has been a decline in apprenticeships and companies expecting to train, nurture and develop new employees. There may be legitimate reasons for this but the results are evident for the companies to see.
The decline of graduate and school leaver programmes and major companies will logically lead to a less-skilled workforce. So companies themselves have to ask if there’s more they can do to improve the situation.
With the decline of heavy industry in Scotland in the past 30 years we clearly have to adapt to a very changing employment landscape with the service sector in particular playing a much more prominent role.
Part of adapting to these changes must involve reforming the way we develop and educate our young people. Schools certainly have to be at the heart of this which is the main thinking – if not perhaps outcome – of the new curriculum.
But whilst we may look at schools and expect them (rightly) to deliver some of these changes we cannot limit young people’s development to the school day.
Having a well-educated workforce helps us all in the long run. And that means we all have a role to play in achieving this, not simply expecting others to do it.
And regardless of your opinion, what should the outcome look like in real terms? What abilities do we want and need young people to leave school with?
This question is posed after a report which suggested that Scotland’s finance sector is beginning to suffer because school and university leavers don’t have the necessary skills.
The report’s authors have complained about potential recruits lacking basic writing abilities, poor communication skills and a deficiency in so-called ‘soft skills’.
In the latter case this means being unaware of basics such as how to dress, the best way to approach an interview and even a sense of entitlement to employment
So where does the fault lie for this and how can it be fixed? The reality is that schools and universities are only a very small part of the answer.
In terms of writing and numeracy skills, clearly schools should be at the centre of this, although again they’re not the only ones with responsibility.
There is too big a curriculum to be followed in schools, particularly primary. The new Curriculum for Excellence makes this worse by asking them to cover even more topics and outcomes.
Whilst it’s important for primary pupils to be exposed to a range of subjects (albeit at an elementary level) this can be done at the expense of time for the basics.
Thus it would make sense to invest more in primary school to ensure that all pupils can read, write and count even if it means dropping other items from the school day.
But responsibility does not end at the school gate. Young people are much less likely to read at home which then creates problems when teachers try and encourage them to do so at school.
If parents leave their children in the hands of computers, the internet and television then it’s no surprise that basic skills which in the past were learned at home as well as school will decline.
This same obligation is true in terms of the ‘soft skills’ referred to above. Schools and universities can make some efforts to prepare young people for interviews and jobs. What they cannot do is alter attitudes.
If young people are turning up to interviews unprepared and with a sense that it is they who are interviewing the company rather than the other way round, then some parents must ask if they are encouraging this attitude.
In other words, home life is key. The most successful pupils will always be those that have a stable home environment and parents encouraging them to do well; that’s more important than even the best teachers.
Of course some responsibility can also rest with the companies themselves, who have an important role to play too.
We should not expect private businesses to have to teach basic numeracy and literacy to employees but at times some of the complaints do seem to cover the fact that young people are not ready to work in their specific workplace.
In recent years there has been a decline in apprenticeships and companies expecting to train, nurture and develop new employees. There may be legitimate reasons for this but the results are evident for the companies to see.
The decline of graduate and school leaver programmes and major companies will logically lead to a less-skilled workforce. So companies themselves have to ask if there’s more they can do to improve the situation.
With the decline of heavy industry in Scotland in the past 30 years we clearly have to adapt to a very changing employment landscape with the service sector in particular playing a much more prominent role.
Part of adapting to these changes must involve reforming the way we develop and educate our young people. Schools certainly have to be at the heart of this which is the main thinking – if not perhaps outcome – of the new curriculum.
But whilst we may look at schools and expect them (rightly) to deliver some of these changes we cannot limit young people’s development to the school day.
Having a well-educated workforce helps us all in the long run. And that means we all have a role to play in achieving this, not simply expecting others to do it.
3 Feb 2011
Who else should claim compensation?
It's always deeply disturbing to wake up in the morning and find yourself agreeing with the Daily Mail. Today however was one of those days.
The article in question was attacking 'ambulance chasing' no-win, no fee lawyers that aim to secure compensation for prisoners denied the right to vote.
This matter has been developing for some time now with the debate about whether prisoners should be given the right to vote and for which particular elections.
On this issue it's hard to disagree with the Daily Mail's outrage. Prisoners have to right to be treated humanely - regardless of their crime - but they have to accept certain consequences as a result of their crime.
Part of these repercussions will of course include the infringement of certain rights - being locked up, obviously - and so this can easily be extended to voting.
However regardless of your view on the above point the notion of paying compensation to people that may have committed extremely serious crimes is surely completely anathema to most.
Any lawyer who pursues such a case deserves the criticism they will certainly receive. But for other lawyers that disagree with this there is a chance for redemption for their profession.
It's always occurred to me that whenever a prisoner sues on the basis that their human rights have been breached this was not a concern they showed when they breached the human rights of their victim.
As such, it would be interesting if the victim of one of those prisoners that seeks compensation over the votes issues in turn took them to court to get this money as their own personal compensation.
If such a case was successful (and there are clearly numerous legal reasons it would not) it would surely render any further cases superfluous with prisoners believing they wouldn't keep any compensation they receive.
Again - and this is where happily there can be a break from agreeing with the Daily Mail - this is not about demonising prisoners.
As has already been noted this week we should have a justice system which focuses on rehabilitation and ensuring people do not continue a life of crime after their release.
This may mean going against some revenge instincts we may feel but it does help us in the long run. But that shouldn't extend to spending potentially millions of pounds compensating those that have broken the law.
It's not just the Daily Mail that thinks that.
The article in question was attacking 'ambulance chasing' no-win, no fee lawyers that aim to secure compensation for prisoners denied the right to vote.
This matter has been developing for some time now with the debate about whether prisoners should be given the right to vote and for which particular elections.
On this issue it's hard to disagree with the Daily Mail's outrage. Prisoners have to right to be treated humanely - regardless of their crime - but they have to accept certain consequences as a result of their crime.
Part of these repercussions will of course include the infringement of certain rights - being locked up, obviously - and so this can easily be extended to voting.
However regardless of your view on the above point the notion of paying compensation to people that may have committed extremely serious crimes is surely completely anathema to most.
Any lawyer who pursues such a case deserves the criticism they will certainly receive. But for other lawyers that disagree with this there is a chance for redemption for their profession.
It's always occurred to me that whenever a prisoner sues on the basis that their human rights have been breached this was not a concern they showed when they breached the human rights of their victim.
As such, it would be interesting if the victim of one of those prisoners that seeks compensation over the votes issues in turn took them to court to get this money as their own personal compensation.
If such a case was successful (and there are clearly numerous legal reasons it would not) it would surely render any further cases superfluous with prisoners believing they wouldn't keep any compensation they receive.
Again - and this is where happily there can be a break from agreeing with the Daily Mail - this is not about demonising prisoners.
As has already been noted this week we should have a justice system which focuses on rehabilitation and ensuring people do not continue a life of crime after their release.
This may mean going against some revenge instincts we may feel but it does help us in the long run. But that shouldn't extend to spending potentially millions of pounds compensating those that have broken the law.
It's not just the Daily Mail that thinks that.
1 Feb 2011
Revenge or rehabilitation?
There is always a huge debate about what the purpose of our justice system is, particularly the role of prisons in all of this.
Should our justice system aim to punish people that have committed an offence? Or is it instead about ensuring people do not go on to repeat these transgressions?
This is an argument which today moves to the Scottish Parliament where the SNP Government is bringing in new community sentences for people who would previously have gone to prison for three months or less.
It’s not hard to guess how each side will line up in this case; the Scottish Government resolutely defending their new policy and the Opposition parties (notably Labour and the Conservatives) decrying them as being ‘soft on crime’.
In actual fact, as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was at pains to point out this morning, final decision on sentencing remains with judges, what the government have introduced is merely a ‘presumption’ against prison in these scenarios.
So what is the reality in all of this? Well it very much depends on your own position on the question posed in the title of this post; is our justice system about rehabilitation or revenge?
It’s likely that any opinion poll taken on the simple question of should criminals go to prison or take part in community sentences would come down overwhelmingly on the side of ‘prison’.
In serious cases (murder, child abuse, rape, armed robbery, etc) no-one would surely argue with this. Society has a right to be protected from those that have shown themselves unwilling to abide by normal rules and standards.
However if the question was about so-called ‘low level’ crime, particularly offences such as vandalism or shoplifting might this view change?
Furthermore would opinions alter if other issues were explained? For instance that prison sentences result in more re-offending than community sentences or that it costs up to £40,000 to keep just one person in prison.
It’s based on these two premises that the Scottish Government hopes to deflect any criticism. Essentially by pointing out that for all our instinct may be to demand harsh retribution that in fact it hurts us in the longer term.
The evidence certainly supports this. Does it really make sense for us to pay huge amounts to jail people for short periods when they could instead give something back to the community that they have taken from?
Furthermore there is certainly credence to the idea of people that have committed low level offences then being exposed to harder criminals, with the result being that they are drawn into more sustained and serious crime.
In addition to political opposition there are two additional problems that the SNP will face in introducing such a move; public perception and individual cases.
Many people in the public will worry that this is the easy option and one based on saving money rather than protecting society-at-large. Victims of crime may be angered by it too.
Some newspapers this morning already carry stories of people committing serious offences yet not going to prison. Even if this is unrelated the timing is unfortunate and creates a ‘soft touch’ perception - it surely won't be the last story either.
Successful politicians ultimately must persuade people that the actions they are taking are to the public's benefit. Even bad news does not have to hurt a politician if delivered properly and honestly.
That’s the challenge for the government here. Public reaction to such a move is unlikely to be favourable unless they see that the new sentences will, in the long run, make them safer.
We know the current system is not effective; if it was why would we have such high re-offending rates amongst prisoners? Alternatives are worth investigating and community sentences have been shown to have a positive impact elsewhere.
The one action that the Scottish Government could take – although won’t under the rationale of judicial independence – is to identify certain offences that cannot be punished with community sentences e.g. knife crime, assault. This would certainly deflect some of the criticism they are receiving.
Ultimate judgement will come from the public based on the evidence they see. If people (rightly or wrongly) perceive crime as worsening then they will look for someone to blame; MacAskill has made himself prime target for this.
Sometimes the correct and most effective course of action is not always popular in the short-term. That's got to be the hope for the Scottish Government although whether it comes through before May is another matter.
Should our justice system aim to punish people that have committed an offence? Or is it instead about ensuring people do not go on to repeat these transgressions?
This is an argument which today moves to the Scottish Parliament where the SNP Government is bringing in new community sentences for people who would previously have gone to prison for three months or less.
It’s not hard to guess how each side will line up in this case; the Scottish Government resolutely defending their new policy and the Opposition parties (notably Labour and the Conservatives) decrying them as being ‘soft on crime’.
In actual fact, as Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was at pains to point out this morning, final decision on sentencing remains with judges, what the government have introduced is merely a ‘presumption’ against prison in these scenarios.
So what is the reality in all of this? Well it very much depends on your own position on the question posed in the title of this post; is our justice system about rehabilitation or revenge?
It’s likely that any opinion poll taken on the simple question of should criminals go to prison or take part in community sentences would come down overwhelmingly on the side of ‘prison’.
In serious cases (murder, child abuse, rape, armed robbery, etc) no-one would surely argue with this. Society has a right to be protected from those that have shown themselves unwilling to abide by normal rules and standards.
However if the question was about so-called ‘low level’ crime, particularly offences such as vandalism or shoplifting might this view change?
Furthermore would opinions alter if other issues were explained? For instance that prison sentences result in more re-offending than community sentences or that it costs up to £40,000 to keep just one person in prison.
It’s based on these two premises that the Scottish Government hopes to deflect any criticism. Essentially by pointing out that for all our instinct may be to demand harsh retribution that in fact it hurts us in the longer term.
The evidence certainly supports this. Does it really make sense for us to pay huge amounts to jail people for short periods when they could instead give something back to the community that they have taken from?
Furthermore there is certainly credence to the idea of people that have committed low level offences then being exposed to harder criminals, with the result being that they are drawn into more sustained and serious crime.
In addition to political opposition there are two additional problems that the SNP will face in introducing such a move; public perception and individual cases.
Many people in the public will worry that this is the easy option and one based on saving money rather than protecting society-at-large. Victims of crime may be angered by it too.
Some newspapers this morning already carry stories of people committing serious offences yet not going to prison. Even if this is unrelated the timing is unfortunate and creates a ‘soft touch’ perception - it surely won't be the last story either.
Successful politicians ultimately must persuade people that the actions they are taking are to the public's benefit. Even bad news does not have to hurt a politician if delivered properly and honestly.
That’s the challenge for the government here. Public reaction to such a move is unlikely to be favourable unless they see that the new sentences will, in the long run, make them safer.
We know the current system is not effective; if it was why would we have such high re-offending rates amongst prisoners? Alternatives are worth investigating and community sentences have been shown to have a positive impact elsewhere.
The one action that the Scottish Government could take – although won’t under the rationale of judicial independence – is to identify certain offences that cannot be punished with community sentences e.g. knife crime, assault. This would certainly deflect some of the criticism they are receiving.
Ultimate judgement will come from the public based on the evidence they see. If people (rightly or wrongly) perceive crime as worsening then they will look for someone to blame; MacAskill has made himself prime target for this.
Sometimes the correct and most effective course of action is not always popular in the short-term. That's got to be the hope for the Scottish Government although whether it comes through before May is another matter.
