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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

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...