It sounds reasonably sensible to me. I never got why trains from the west used that old-fashioned maroon and beige colour scheme, particularly when (presumably for expediency’s sake) those trains were often used in other parts of the country. Mind you, it will be a shame in a way to lose the distinctive liveries of each franchise.

It does come just a few years after First Group decked out the old Scotrail trains in their own new colour scheme. Impressively, several trains and stations were made over overnight with the old stylised map of Scotland (I presume that is what it was supposed to be) being replaced with First logos left, right and centre.

(Incidentally, the First livery is a vast improvement on the old National Express Scotrail livery. Whoever decided that deep purple goes with peely-wally shades of orange and bluey-green must have been colour blind.)

At least the paint jobs will only be done when a train was due to be painted anyway. And it’s claimed that it will save money in the long run because if and when First Group lose their franchise the livery will remain the same. Having said that, what happens when Transport Scotland decides it’s time for a visual refresh as everyone feels like from time to time? I doubt much will actually be saved.

The reason this is a news story is that George Foulkes has been complaining about the new livery. You see, it depicts a Saltire. And because the SNP are in government this is a bad thing. Apparently it’s all part of an attempt to “brainwash people into independence”

The thing is, Labour also often used national symbols and there is nothing at all wrong with that. At least, you would expect it — particularly when Scotland has such a strong national identity. National symbols are perfect tools for governments to use in their materials / brands / propaganda / what-have-you. As Anseo over at Ideas of Civilisation points out:

What about when McConnell as First Minister had the Saltire adopted as the symbol for promoting Scotland – was this part of the plot?

How about the One Scot (Many Cultures) logo inspired by the saltire, started under the last administration…since that wasn`t under the SNP administration does this not count?

George Foulkes’s argument is further diminished by the fact that Transport Scotland have pointed out that the plans for this revamp began when Labour were still in power. Whoops.

As Ideas of Civilisation points out, this ought not to be an issue. George Foulkes is just frothing at the mouth for no good reason, as seems to be happening quite regularly nowadays.

Anyway, am I the only one who thinks the new design looks nothing like the Saltire? I mean obviously I saw what the design was getting at because I was told it was based on the Saltire. But it looks to me more like two arrowheads pointing at each other.

I mean, if that’s meant to be the Cross of St. Andrew, it’s not because it doesn’t cross. I know that there is a gap between the two carriages that messes it up a bit, but if you continue the lines across they don’t meet. Also, that shade of blue does not look like the official shade of blue of the Flag of Scotland which is Pantone 300. In fact, it looks suspiciously like First Group’s purple. I guess that saves on costs.

Anyway, given that I have now unilaterally established that the train looks nothing like the Saltire, I do wonder what George Foulkes is on about. I find it odd that the sight of something that vaguely looks like the Saltire would “brainwash” him into becoming a nationalist.

George Foulkes’s tie looks vaguely like the Saltire actually… Oh dear… He’s been brainwashed by his own tie!

Reflections on Glasgow East

A series of posts

1. The Labour and Liberal Democrat dimensions
2. The SNP dimension
3. The Conservative dimension

To the extent that the SNP’s current electoral popularity is due to pro-SNP (rather than anti-Labour) effects, it must be remembered that there is much more than independence at play. Does an SNP success in an election mean that Scotland has suddenly converted to the cause of independence? Of course not.

Firstly, support for independence is pretty low at the moment. According to the 2007 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (which I believe asks a question about independence every year), support for independence (PDF link) was lower than it had been since May 1997. Asked to choose between independence, devolution or getting rid of the Scottish Parliament altogether, just 23% plumped for independence.

The peak of support for independence was actually in September 1997 — ironically, also roughly when Labour were also at the height of their powers. Then, independence was favoured over devolution for, as far as I can tell, the only time in history. Over the preceding decade support for independence has flitted up and down but has been in a pronounced decline since 2005.

Another point to note is that this, the SNP’s most successful period ever, has come at a time when the SNP has played down its support for independence. Take the slogan it has used since last year’s election campaign. Instead of things like “Michty me, we’ll soon be free” and all that sort of thing, their slogan was: “It’s time.” Time for what? Time for bed? The SNP don’t say.

You have to admit, it is a fiendishly clever slogan. Classic dog whistle stuff. So SNP activists and hardened advocates for independence think it’s time for independence. Anti-Labour voters see it and think it’s time for a change, time to kick Labour out. In fact, it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Crucially, the independence issue was not rammed down people’s throats by the SNP. Given the closeness of last year’s election, that could well have been what swung it for them.

You should also bear in mind that the SNP are very far away from being a single-issue party. A vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence, and often an SNP activist will be the first person to tell you this. For instance, Richard Leyton got this line from no less a person than Nicola Sturgeon.

Don’t want an independent Scotland? It doesn’t matter. The SNP have made it very clear that independence will only come after a referendum victory. In the meantime, there is a “national conversation” about independence where you can express your views if you so wish. In effect, the SNP have tried as hard as possible to divorce the independence issue from Scottish Parliament and Westminster elections. The debate over independence now runs separately.

So what explains the SNP’s success? It’s the policies stupid. It is conceivable that Fifers who voted for the SNP did so because they were enticed by their promise to abolish the bridge tolls. Students may have been attracted to their promise to “dump student debt”. And of course, the people who felt that there should be a change in government were always likely to vote SNP because they are the second largest party in Scotland, and the only party in a position to stand up to Labour.

It must also be said that Alex Salmond’s leadership has a lot to do with the SNP’s current success. Yes, he splits opinion. But like him or loathe him, you have to admit that he is a great politician. He is good orator and has the charisma and leadership qualities necessary. The only other Scottish leader that can compare to him in my book is Annabel Goldie, and even she is pretty colourless compared to Alex Salmond.

Particularly when you compare him to the likes of Nicol Stephen and Jack McConnell, who both look permanently nervous, Alex Salmond towers above everyone else in the Scottish Parliament. Wendy Alexander was no match for him either, particularly given the state of disarray Labour are in at the moment. With Alex Salmond at the helm, the SNP should expect an upswing in fortunes, especially since their leader at the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary election was the dull and ineffective John Swinney.

Back in Glasgow East, from what I gather, the issue of independence was not completely ignored, but it certainly did not form a major part of the campaign. Instead, it was presented as a contest where the electorate would pass judgement on the records of the Labour Government in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood.

The SNP were also hugely advantaged by the fact that they were already in 2nd place in the constituency. If my theory about whichever party being in a position to beat Labour will win is correct, then it is no wonder the SNP did well while the Lib Dems tanked.

Most votes are wasted anyway, especially under the FPTP system. But a sure-fire way to waste your vote in Glasgow East was to vote for the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Only hardened Tories and Lib Dems who despise Labour and the SNP equally will have voted for them (or, indeed, any of the other smaller parties).

In summary, I think that the SNP’s victory in Glasgow East means almost nothing for the union.

That is not to say that I think that the status quo will prevail. I think I am right when I say that all of the parties currently represented in the Scottish Parliament, and the largest parties that are not represented in the Scottish Parliament, all support some kind of increased devolution to varying degrees. That includes the Conservatives, who appear pretty open to the idea of the Scottish Parliament having some leverage over fiscal policy.

Even Labour, painted into a unionist corner by their opposition to the SNP, have toyed with the idea of fiscal autonomy. Mind you, that was under the leadership of Wendy Alexander, who seemed to be a bit of a loose cannon when it came to trying to tackle the issue of the constitution. Who knows what direction Labour will take under their new leader, but I suspect that they will find it difficult to maintain support unless the take the majority view that the Scottish Parliament should have a greater degree of fiscal autonomy.

All of this, though, is almost incidental to the success or otherwise of the SNP. Increased powers for the Scottish Parliament will not come about as a result of SNP success. It can come about as a result of the success of any party.

Richard Thomson says: You Scotland — RIP?

A couple of weeks ago, a video appeared on YouTube featuring Tommy Sheppard, former Labour apparatchik and owner of ‘The Stand’ comedy clubs. The film was a request for feedback from the founding fathers of a website called ‘YouScotland.com‘, asking whether or not they should continue with their venture.

That their video has at the time of writing had only 257 hits and attracted precisely zero viewer comments, is probably all the feedback they need.

Back when YouScotland launched, I wrote a rather critical post. It looked as though I was wrong when their viral, The Best Wee Numpty in the World, proved to be immensely successful.

But since then, nothing again. I have to admit that before Richard Thomson’s post, I had completely forgotten about YouScotland. I suppose it is natural that YouScotland was going to quieten down a bit once the election was over. But these are the people who thought they could kick-start a second enlightenment. One funny video then disappearing without a trace isn’t enough to achieve that sort of thing.

Looking at site’s failings, I think Richard Thomson hits the nail on the head. And I can’t help feeling that I was right when I wrote my first post about YouScotland in February. The virals made me have a re-think, but it looks like my initial gut instincts turned out to be right.

Funniest of all about YouScotland was the fact that they tried their best to sound like a state-of-the-art Web 2.0 campaigning machine. But the middle-aged clique who ran it fundamentally misunderstood what Web 2.0 is all about. I’m afraid it was a real disco Dad moment.

Even more embarrassingly, they seemed to misunderstand how grass-roots movements form. Hint: grass-roots movements tend to form from the bottom-up, not at the say-so of a clique.

And now that the SNP are in charge, they can’t really point at Scottish Labour and complain about the establishment any more. Change happened. They can’t use the same old anti-establishment rhetoric, because a pro-independence party is the establishment now!

They were also not helped by the fact that they didn’t seem to be very different to a lot of pro-independence organisations, or the established pro-change movement as a whole. Why be bombarded with requests for donations at YouScotland when it didn’t offer anything different?

Ah yes, those requests for donations. In Tommy Sheppard’s latest video, he says that the only way YouScotland could continue is if all of its users donated “a minimum of ten pounds”. Ten pounds!! What?!

I mean, really, how expensive is it to make a website like YouScotland (which was shoddy anyway)? There are any number of political movements who do not go around cap in hand — and they certainly do not ask for a minimum of £10.

As I said in my original post about YouScotland, it costs nothing to set up a blog. While I accept that you could not expect a website like YouScotland to be made for nothing, you have to ask what they were intending to spend the money on?

I mean, say that YouScotland managed to get 1,000 members (in some ways, quite modest for a revolutionary, rip-roaring grass-roots movement). If each member donates a tenner per year, YouScotland would have £10,000 to spend every single year. I mean, what on earth was that website going to have on it for it to cost that much to make?!

Try to visit YouScotland today and the website will not load. If I had donated some money in the run-up to the election, I reckon I would feel pretty short-changed.

The election has been a two-horse race, but for me it was between two baddies. I rub my hands with glee considering the prospect of Jack McConnell and the Labour mafia being knocked off their perch.

But at the same time, I would love to see the smug grin wiped off Alex Salmond’s face. And I would laugh my arse off if he doesn’t become an MSP.

Perhaps an ideal situation would be for the SNP to win the election, but for Alex Salmond to fail to win a seat. But then again, Salmond as First Minister would be quite good. He is far more statesmanlike than McConnell, who is nervous, reedy-voiced and always looks as though he’s got the shits.

But how many normal people could actually answer a question like this? I certainly could never tell you who had won the Grand National. That’s not because I’m out of touch. It’s just because I’m not a gambler and I’m not interested in horse racing.

Annabel Goldie might have been pleased to get Nicol Stephen’s question right. But, combined with the fact that she knew who is top of the SPL (a question that I probably would have got, although I don’t follow football that closely), it just looks as though she was just sitting in front of the television all Saturday.

I also would have probably correctly guessed who was at number one — but I wouldn’t have been certain and it would only have been because I blogged about it a couple of weeks ago. Most weeks I haven’t got the slightest clue who is at number one.

And then there is the price of a pint of milk. I am somewhat surprised that Jack McConnell didn’t get this correct. It is the classic ‘reality check’ question, and I would have thought that he would at least make sure he had a vague idea of the answer.

But it’s not as if I would know. Anyone who doesn’t do the shopping for their household (like me for instance) — or just doesn’t drink milk — would be scratching their heads at this one. But does that make me, or Jack McConnell or any politician who gets this question wrong, somehow less real than avid milk guzzlers?

What really attracts my attention about this edition of The Scotsman is the fact that they have got Jack McConnell looking like an ostrich. He looks like he is about to peck at Alex Salmond like an emu to a Parky.

It doesn’t help that McConnell is appearing under a heading, “Our national bird?” Well, he does mince a bit when he’s walking if that’s what you mean…

Of course, here in Scotland the big debate is: Who should Scots support? And is it wrong not to support England?

Once, a few years ago, my brother said something like, “There is nothing better than England getting beaten, but there is nothing worse than all the crowing about it at school the next day.”

I’m a bit of the opposite. I don’t really mind to see England win, but the media is just unbearable. Even the most tenuous link to 1966 is pounced upon by smug commentators from every angle. It is very tedious, especially when they are referring to England as “we” when there is no “we” about it for anybody who happens to be living in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, which is roughly 20% of the entire population. And the wall-to-wall coverage of Wayne Rooney’s metatarsal really is not needed!

The recent case with Mars is a prime example. Digbeth explains here. I didn’t believe it at first, but I have seen two of these billboards in Kirkcaldy. It really is terrible. They have clearly considered Scotland as an afterthought. Shoddy. It would have been better for them to just not advertise north of the border at all. Have they done the same in Wales?

STV’s trailers for the World Cup are also tragic. STV, the Scottish ITV broadcaster, has obviously taken the ITV network’s promo and slapped the STV logo on the end. This efficient tactic works with most programmes, but there is a slight problem in this instance: every single player featured in the promo is English! Honestly! Did they not think it through?! What would people in England be saying if a broadcaster produced a promo featuring nothing but German players?

When England is shoved down your throat all the time even when you don’t live there, it shouldn’t be a surprise. It is probably fair to say that the majority of Scots will not be supporting England in the World Cup. This year, the trendy team for Scots to support is Trinidad and Tobago, who have four players based in Scotland, one of whom happens to be called Scotland. Oh, and there is the small matter that they are in England’s group as well.

Jack McConnell got himself into a wee bit of hot water when he said that he wouldn’t be supporting England at the World Cup. But when Gordon Brown said he’d be supporting England he got even more stick from it, particularly from the SNP (who else?).

English people have been known to complain about the rivalry between Scotland and England. They protest that they are happy enough to support Scotland, so why shouldn’t Scots support England? Well, as David Farrer excellently points out in this post, that is completely missing the point.

Because, in footballing terms, it’s not a fellow team, but is perceived by Scots to be the number one rival. If Celtic are playing against Barcelona in a European match, do Rangers fans cheer on their “fellow” Glaswegians? Aye, right! Were Chelsea, Spurs and West Ham fans in tears over Arsenal’s recent defeat in the Champions’ League final? I don’t think so.

…Scotland aren’t (sadly) a threat to England. It’s no big deal for English folk to support Scotland in those circumstances.

Who says Scotland aren’t being represented in the World Cup though? We all know that isn’t true!

It is perhaps true that Scotland’s rivalry with England is a little childish. But then again, England has its own childish rivalries with Germany, Argentina, France, Turkey……

Scotland has regressed into an inward-looking, slightly chip-on-shoulder, slightly Anglophobic country with no clear sense of direction.

I think the controversial bit is where they suggest that it wasn’t all of those things before devolution.

If Jack McConnell’s angry, you know it must be right.

Update: Having read it all now, I think it’s not a bad article. Interesting that it should come up at the same time as there has been a little bit of chatter about next year’s election prospects. Incidentally, MatGB added his views on it yesterday. The Economist article, though, is looking at it from a slightly more long-term perspective. Given that everybody’s been saying that things are looking bad for Labour, hence good for the SNP, it’s interesting to see The Economist describe the SNP as still the big loser from devolution.

I liked this bit of the article:

The strongest factor that prevents politicians’ minds from turning to the size of the state, however, is the fact that they do not have to raise the money to pay for it, or even the 60% of government spending they are responsible for. Over £20 billion simply drops into their hands every year from Whitehall, providing total public spending per Scot of £7,597 (in 2004-05)…

Holyrood’s politicians can hardly be blamed for this. The block grant gives them the money, and they spend it. They do not overspend; and if they are too lavish on one item they must be stricter on another. They do not, however, suffer the discipline of having to raise their revenue themselves: they are like teenagers on an allowance. And they have no incentive to promote economic growth through taxation.

The case for abolishing the block grant and giving Holyrood tax-raising powers is increasingly being made, most recently by a Liberal Democrat commission under the parliament first’s presiding officer, David Steel. Its report, drawing on the experience of other countries, is a happy exception to the parties’ generally dull introspection and poverty of thought. But most Scots, if the opinion polls are right, would be pleased to see tax-raising (and some other powers) brought home.

Beforehand I wasn’t sure about the need for more fiscal autonomy. But that is quite a convincing argument.

Anyway, I’ve never quite been able to make my mind up about this smoking ban. For purely selfish reasons, of course, I couldn’t wait for this smoking ban to go ahead. Too often it simply isn’t worth going out if you’re going to spend the rest of the day stinking of smoke. I will probably end up going down the pub more — I’ve already accepted one invitation that I probably wouldn’t have prior to Sunday. So instead of being on the fags I’ll be on the booze.

I’m pretty sure most people are in favour of the ban. I saw Jack McConnell on the television the other day going on about how young people in particular are heavily in favour of the ban. For once, I think he’s right. Maybe it’s just because I mainly associate with student lefties, but I can only think of one person who I’ve met in the flesh who was against the ban.

As a generation, we youngsters have had it hammered home to us pretty relentlessly. And not just by the government. Smoking family friends and relatives warn you never to start. Meanwhile, parents would disown you if you did. We know, we know: smoking will make you die horribly and slowly and those people who make you breathe in their second-hand smoke are absolute bastards.

There is just a feeling of inevitability about it all. The tide is very much against the smoking industry, and nobody is even attempting to turn the tide back in the other direction any more. Smoking in adverts is gone, smoking adverts themselves are gone, smoking in public places and workplaces is gone. And most people (particularly young people) seem pretty ambivalent about it. A friend told me he was half-expecting to see people smoking five at a time, but when I was out on Saturday I didn’t see any evidence of last-minute pre-ban defiance. It all felt very normal, in fact, as if the collective response was just, “Yeah, smoking ends tomorrow. Big deal.”

Given all this, though, I’m surprised the government even needs to step in. If there’s such a high demand for smoke-free environments, why aren’t employers and pub managers prohibiting smoking themselves? I heard that smoke-free pubs existed prior to the ban, but I certainly wouldn’t have been able to tell you where. I’d be amazed if there were any in Kirkcaldy, although I heard that there were three in Edinburgh (still not a lot though when you consider how many pubs there must be in Edinburgh).

I guess businessmen are just really risk-averse and are afraid to be the first to make that kind of decision. Just look at how all the broadsheets have turned to tabloid one-by-one. They’ve been banging on for as long as I can remember about how going tabloid will increase the number of readers because broadsheets are bloody ridiculous and give everybody a sore back. Yet none of the broadsheets made the switch, until a couple of years ago when The Independent had no other choice than to take a risk. Surprise surprise, more people began to read the Indy and then almost everybody else followed suit soon afterwards. See? It wasn’t so hard after all.

Anyway, back to the pub. There was the predicted huddle of smokers standing at the doorway, despite the fact that it was absolutely pissing it down today, but only at one of the four times I found myself passing through the door. It wasn’t the most pleasent tunnel I’ve ever been through, but it was a hell of a lot better than contending with a foggy pub for the entire duration of your visit.

Was the smoke cloaking other smells for all those years? The jury is out. It didn’t feel weird when I first walked in — everybody did turn round and stare at me and the pub did still smell like a pub. I reckoned the new carpet played a part in that smell, though some said it just smelled like stale beer. At our particular corner it smelled of old man and old man urine. Nice. I might have marginally preferred the smoke in that instance. But back home, and you wouldn’t have known I was in a pub because my clothes didn’t stink of smoke, so that is a major plus point.

All-in-all, I have personally enjoyed the new improved smoke-free Scotland. But I think the ban has gone too far. For instance, The Devil’s Kitchen has had a couple of posts detailing how our favourite television characters will no longer be able to light up. And according to The Sunday Times, “Even a request to permit herbal cigarettes has been rejected.” Isn’t that going a bit too far?

Will Howells also wrote about the regulations that businesses now face. There I wrote a comment about my experience at the train station.

…when I used the toilet at Waverley Station recently it was clear that somebody had just been smoking in it. It’s like high school or something. My clothes stank for the rest of the day.

I wonder if the smoking ban is merely going to lead people to smoke in public places secretly rather than stop smoking in public places altogether…

Maybe I’m missing something really obvious here, but I would have preferred a licensing system. If you have to have a license to sell alcohol, why not have a licensing system to give people the choice of both smoking and non-smoking pubs?

One last thing about my trip to the pub. I thought I was given a counterfeit fiver in my change. But then I realised that it was a Jack Nicklaus fiver! I’m surprised any of these are still in circulation.

When David Farrer wrote about them when they were first issued they were going at £102+. They mostly still seem to be going for more than £5. Although if I were to use this note to pay for something it would only be worth a fiver. And it made up £5 of my change. If I think about this much more my head will probably detatch itself and walk off Beachy Head.

Jonathan Calder has a good post about the fact that this success has led to politicians taking the credit. His Toneness was very modest by pointing out the hard work his colleagues in the Scottish Executive have done:

I think people worked hard before the games as well and I know that Jack McConnell, (Sports Minister) Patricia Ferguson, the Scottish Institute of Sport – they’ve all been putting their shoulder to the wheel and it’s paid off.

I doubt, though, that Jack McConnell had much influence on any of Scotland’s eleven gold medal winners. Indeed. I’ve never really understood why these individual successes should be celebrated as national successes (never mind state successes!). If I were an athlete who had won a major sporting event, I would probably be a bit upset if the entire nation tried to free-ride on my personal awesomeness. I swam backwards through my own arsehole in record-breaking time, not the neds kicking about outside Spar. Sitting on my bum did not cause Sheena Sharp to score a gold in the shooting. As Jonathan pointed out:

The people to be praised are the medalists themselves, their coaches and (I suspect most of all) the parents who gave up their spare time to ferry them from event to event when they were younger.

I have never understood why so much public money is spent on sport. I’ve just about thought of a vaguely justifiable reason for spending public money on most things, even the arts. But sport, I just cannot understand. Maybe they’ll build a nice new stadium every now and again, but it will always be in a place that doesn’t really need one.

And why spend so much time, money and effort into getting homegrown athletes to break some record which will only be broken by somebody else from another country a few years down the line anyway? I can’t think of any reason how this can add to the quality of anybody’s life, apart from people who manage sport organisations.

There were two subjects that I couldn’t understand at school. One of them was drama, which is teaching kids to lie in a convoluted way. Well, you can see how politicians’ influence comes into that one. But nothing could top PE. I absolutely detested it. It is a bit like slavery really.

People joke that you have to “jump through hoops” if something is made unnecessarily difficult. But in PE you are made to literally jump through hoops. And swim through hoops. And swim to the bottom of the pool to collect a brick. And play rounders. And dodgeball. Does anybody do any of this shit after they’ve left school? No, not even at the Commonwealth Games! As soon as I left school the doctor told me that the best exercise I could take was to go on a walk! So thanks, national curriculum, for keeping me fit!

As Iain said in the comments at Liberal England, “if the government claims credit for sporting achievements, should they not share the blame too?” I’ve not seen Englandandwales’ sports minister apologising for any of England’s embarassments. Failing to pass the baton is embarassing enough on school sports day, never mind at a major international event.

Formula 1 coverage used to be fairly light on the patriotism. But that was back when Britain’s only decent driver was a Scot. Now ITV spend their whole time prattling on about Jenson Button. “Meeeeeeeeeeeeh, when’s Jenson Button going to get his first win?” They seem to spend about half an hour every race talking him up and how he’s surely bound to win some time soon. His Englishness has blinded everybody to the fact that Button is nothing more than an enormous, smug prick and the sort of person who will sign a contract then do everything in his power to wriggle out of it — twice.