Tommy reviewers need a long spoon

Let me say straight away I believe Tommy Sheridan made the biggest mistake of his political life in defying the advice of almost all of his friends and party comrades to go into direct legal confrontation with the News of the World. He would have known that he faced a mass of contrary evidence from others on the ultra-left and the case would tear that group apart. To take the case on, whether or not he lied, and got others to lie for him, automatically meant him putting his personal standing above the political needs of the far left.

Why then am I so disturbed by Paul Hutcheon’s review in Saturday’s Herald, of Alan McCombes book on the hugely damaging affair? After all, both McCombes and Hutcheon are of the same opinion - although they both would I think, take it a good deal further than me.

I am also well aware that media editors like to give books on controversial subjects to reviewers with strongly-held views on the topic in question, whether for or (more often) against the authors thesis. This review is an example of why it is often a bad idea. One doesn’t have to be a Sheridan supporter to find the eulogising of Alan McCombes somewhat OTT. To one who spent many meetings listening to and watching Alan and other acolytes of the Revolutionary Socialist League operate in the Labour Party of the late 1970‘s and 1980’s, this modest man brilliantly writing savage turns of phrase with his unimpeachable integrity must be a completely reformed character!

Maybe the clue to my uncomfortableness lies in the penultimate para of the review. Hutcheon’s states that “Downfall has not altered my own unshakeable conclusions about the 2004-10 disaster: that while McCombes is a man of unimpeachable integrity, Sheridan is the most despicable politician I have ever encountered.” He no doubt has both reasons and evidence for this view, and of course, is entitled to it, but I question the wisdom of giving this book to someone with such staunch views to review. Given their similarity of viewpoint, it would surely have been a miracle if Downfall even gently agitated Paul Hutcheon’s ‘unshakeable conclusions’.

This review may have given Paul Hutcheon an opportunity to let off steam, and welcome the ‘happy ending’ of Tommy Sheridan in a prison cell, but in terms of shedding light on the  book, a panegyric is as ineffective as a hatchet-job.

Where is the TaxPayers'Alliance?

Unaccountably, those upstanding (and unelected) champions of your tax dosh,  the Tax Payers Alliance, seem to have missed a good news story for Scottish tax payers. 


This is the recent announcement by the Scottish Government that the massive M74 extension is due to open 8 months early and £20m under budget. Given all those private business funded resources for monitoring the media, and the close working arrangement private contractors had with the council and Transport Scotland joint venture, you'd think that they would have noticed either the Scottish Government release - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2011/06/14151514 or the later (but more balanced) UNISON one - http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/news/2011/mayjune/1706a.htm


Maybe only tax savings invented by the TDA and their private sector lobby make it into their PRs and onto their pages?

Stirring the clear yellow water of independence

I was rudely awakened this morning by the sound of the normally calm, urbane and sophisticated Gerry Hassan shouting at some poor unfortunate on GMS! Intrigued as to what had exercised our commentator I listened further. Turns out that this outburst had been occasioned by a disagreement over Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore’s claim that independence would require two referenda to be administered before being achieved.

Gerry was otherwise minded and his ‘opponent’ Alan Trench got both barrels. (Although we found out later that both actually agreed on the advisability or otherwise of this approach.)

But it did suggest to me that Michael Moore might have inadvertantly raised an important procedural point. At what stage does a referendum take place? And what agreements have to be in place before it actually achieves what it sets out to do?

Amidst all the fog of independence-lite, and devolution-max, a number of crucial questions remain to be clarified before clear question(s) could be put to the Scottish people. Ones that immediately come to my mind are - monarchy or republic? boundaries? single currency or sterling? armed forces and defence? There may well be more and each of these - I would hazard - might cause disagreements, not just between unionists and nationalists, but even within the ranks of nationalists. Debate on them could take some resolving, but might make considerable difference to the views of voters. How much would an ‘independent’ Scottish monarchy under a ‘UK’ crown, using ‘UK’ currency, and defended by ‘UK’ troops be ‘independent’ for example - whether the ‘K’ stood for ‘Kingdom’ or ‘Kingdoms’? Would we be more independent in the Euro - shall we ask our Irish, Greek or Portuguese colleagues? Land boundaries might be obvious (leaving aside the question of Berwick-on-Tweed) but what about marine boundaries?

Would any negotiations around these (and other) questions be resolvable by agreement? What happens if the parameters are not agreed? Could we simply leave them to some constitutional court. At one time we might have looked to the UK Supreme Court, I suspect its even-handedness might now be a little more in question! So where would we go now? Europe?

This murky water, I think, is where Michael Moore has placed his size 11s. If we are talking one referendum, then the answers to these (and no doubt other) questions need to be clear to we who are voting. If not, then any early referendum would be about aspirations and would need to be followed by negotiations. On the outcome of these would rest any further vote.

It might be, as Gerry alluded this morning, a device for the British state to draw out and confuse the discussion, but I suspect two factors suggest that this isn’t likely. One, is that within nationalist ranks it seems there are some who are already flying kites on some of these very questions - coming down too definitively on one side or the other may not be in the interests of a united pro-independence campaign. Secondly, are we so sure that Cameron will be too concerned about a separate Scotland? It might be in his political best interests.

Meanwhile, the important (and more concerning) statement that the UK government was not inclined to devolve any more powers under the Scotland Bill, has almost slipped by unnoticed. Is this a ConDem double bluff? Do they want to hand such a key stick to the nationalists?