Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Society

Evicting people = compassionate Conservatism?

Aug 14

Posted by Jeff in Parties, Society | 27 Comments

One of the reasons that Scots largely don’t vote for the Tories is that there is always a fear that the old Conservative instinct of taking a big stick to the great unwashed can prove too tempting when the blues hold too much power. That old instinct has reared its ugly head this week with Tory councils across London stating that they intend to evict people who were involved in the rioting in recent days.

The move is so depressingly regressive and counter-productive that it almost defies belief. Even scumbags deserve a roof over their heads.

We have a legal system that serves to hand down appropriate sentences for crimes that have been committed, be it fines, community service or, at worst jail (though some right wingers would like to go even further than that). We don’t, or at least shouldn’t, seek to exercise revenge on wrong-doers just because we can and/or it makes us feel better. After all, what, precisely, are individuals and families supposed to do if they have nowhere to live?

My initial belief was that this was a threat handed out during the heat of the riots in order to disincentivise disorder and was not something that would ever see the light of day. It was a West Wing-style chess move, and nothing more. Indeed, it may well have proved to be an effective move for that purpose given the speed with which calmness descended on London since Thursday (the 16,000 tooled up, highly visible police officers may well have helped too). However, sadly, the threats have been followed through and eviction notices have been served, despite a pleasing level of arrests and sentences being handed down on the looters and fire-starters.

We can’t keep excluding people from the system and hope everything will magically get better. Closing down literacy and numeracy charities, increasing the number of homeless, increasing fuel poverty and slashing opportunities for various professions out there with seemingly no masterplan, no end game in sight other than just cross your fingers, it’s, well, it’s getting frustrating.

Cardboard City was created in 1983 in London, 4 years after the Conservatives came to power. With a new blue broom in Government, are we stepping ever closer towards a repeat dwelling being created a few years from now? Evicting people unnecessarily and for nothing more than spite surely won’t help.

So, I have a suggestion for the Conservative Party (though I suspect other parties are more likely to take me up on it), a move that can ensure that the top of the tree and those sleeping against the tree in dirty blankets can hammer out any differences that they have and find a combined solution to the country’s ills:

Homeless people and the unemployed are entitled to free membership of the Conservative Party.

It’s a policy that involves ‘we’re all in this together’ ‘compassionate Conservatism’ and ‘the Big Society’ rolled into one. I’m not holding my breath though. The Tories, as we’re seeing this week, just love that big stick option far too much.

I Vote Life – The complicated e-petition of Britain and Capital Punishment

Aug 9

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Society, Westminster | 6 Comments

Another guest post, this one from Alex MacDonald who is a social entrepreneur, political activist and university student.  He loves following current affairs and in particular, to read and write about the controversial issues of the day.  Susceptible to having his opinion swayed, and therefore would welcome your thoughts and views – brave man!

Epetitions.direct.gov.uk allows members of the public to create and sign petitions of their choice. The website is a fantastic opportunity to raise awareness of important and sometimes tender issues that the public want addressed in parliament and when it went live on 4th August, it crashed later that day due to overwhelming demand. Petitions need over 100,000 signatures to be passed into the House of Commons for debate and for parliamentary procedures to begin.  So far, the site’s first and second most popular petitions relate to Britain’s stance on the death penalty, with one calling for the restoration of capital punishment:

“We petition the government to review all treaties and international commitments which may inhibit the ability of Parliament to restore capital punishment. Following this review, the Ministry of Justice should map out the necessary legislative steps which will be required to restore the death penalty for the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty. The findings of the review and the necessary substantive legislation to be presented to House of Commons for debate no later than 12 months after this petition passes the acceptance threshold.” 

According to this petition, should an offender murder a child then the offender would be sentenced to death but should an offender commit serial murder on people over the age of 21, the offender would receive a life sentence.  This policy does not address murder as an entity but as two separate entities, murder that is not acceptable and murder that is more acceptable. It also promotes the understanding of hate crimes across the United Kingdom as it is a policy that protects a collective body of people. When in reality murder should be addressed as murder and not divided between social groups, gender and other variables.

The murder of a child is a devastating incident that  affects the whole country. However, another problem with this category is that it may be difficult to classify an individual as a ‘child’. Who exactly is a child, and by definition when is a child no longer a child? Parents  are able to claim child benefit until their children reach the age of 20, yet it may be hard to justify describing a 20 year old  as a ‘child’. As individuals, we can marry at 16, and we can drink, smoke and vote at 18. However, these milestones show how difficult it is to define the point when an individual is considered mature enough to take responsibility for their own decisions, which is an integral part of adulthood. So how can an arbitrary reference to age adopted in legislation be justified?

According to this petition, the intentional killing of a child is one of the more serious forms of murder. It could be argued that children are defenceless and particularly vulnerable victims. This acts as an aggravating factor, which makes the offence more serious. So from a legal perspective it can be argued that a separate sentencing may be appropriate for child murder.

This leaves many questions left unanswered as children are not the only defenceless and vulnerable group in society. Other vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the disabled should therefore be considered to be included in this petition. Yet further questions surround this issue, how old would one have to be to be considered elderly, and how disabled would one have to be to be considered handicapped? This new law on many occasions would fall into a grey area. Age is not a defining factor for the elderly, as people grow and die at different ages. Nor does disability necessarily inhibit a person’s understanding of certain situations and scenarios to make them more of a vulnerable victim.

Emotionally I feel that child murder is worse than any other murder, to lose a life that young is a devastating tragedy. However, logically it should not be the case that the law is based around emotional perspectives. If the law is written around emotional perspectives then that will counter balance a fair system.

The new law would promote one life over another and set up divisions between groups of people. One niche group would be protected by the death penalty where as other groups would not be. The law would be found asking itself which group is more important to society. If a crime is illegal then why is there the need of mixed sentencing? Murder is murder, regardless of the age, race, sexuality and etc of its victims. With this petition we question who is vulnerable and who is not. Minority groups and the homosexuals and lesbians are all examples of vulnerable people, so should the law protect them differently? Or as I previously mentioned, does this just needlessly group people?

The murder of police officers acting in the course of duty often provokes a public outcry. The police do a vital job in keeping Britain safe, and so when the death of a police officer hits the headlines, it is always difficult and upsetting to see.

However the idea of a law that solely protects the police promotes inequality amongst the British public, which further adds to bias crime acknowledgement. According to this policy the murder of an on duty policeman is worse than the murder of any other professional in any other job. What about when that policeman goes off duty? Is it still bias motivated crime? Or is it then a personal attack?

What about the murder of on duty doctors, firemen and the Prime Minister? Further to this, what about receptionists, jockeys and bankers? Surely all people should be protected equally by the law?

Such a distinction can be justified; children are vulnerable and need to be protected, and the police risk their lives on a daily basis to keep the public safe.  However, in conclusion , this petition fails to protect other vulnerable groups such as the disabled and the elderly.  The law should not draw an arbitrary distinction between different groups.

I am against capital punishment. If the state sentences a murderer to death, then the state is stepping on common ground with that murderer, regardless of the atrocities of the crime.

However, from a hypothetical perspective, if capital punishment is to be introduced back into the UK, then the law should protect all groups of people, regardless of age, career and other variables, as the law should be set to protect everyone in society.

But what do you think?

 

 

 

Pete Wishart MP: Proud to be British in an Independent Scotland

Jul 22

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Ideology, Society | 47 Comments

Being technologically challenged, I don’t know how to post this as being from a “guest”.  Hopefully one of the boys will appear at some point and sort it…. meantime, not from the Burd but from someone much more eminent and sensible, Pete Wishart.  Pete is the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire and is also the SNP Westminster spokesperson on all things constitutional, cultural and related to media, international development, home affairs and sport.  You can follow him on Twitter @PeteWishart.

Probably one of the most passionate debates we’re going to have in the run up to the referendum will be around the whole idea of identity and Britishness. Like many proud nationalists I have struggled with the idea of being British and have never described myself as such. But what will happen to the whole concept as Scotland moves towards independence and can the idea make a comeback and even become respectable in nationalist circles?

Firstly, I suppose Britishness is as much about geography as it is about identity and history. Coming from Perth in the northern part of the island of Greater Britain I am as much British as someone from Stockholm is Scandinavian.

It’s when we try and add the other bits that we start to get into the difficulties. If Britishness is to work as a cultural idea a shared story as well as a shared geography has to be constructed. And that’s the hard part. No one has ever come up with a convincing definition of Britishness because there probably isn’t one. And the concept has to be almost constantly rewritten – remember Gordon Brown’s clumsy and excruciating attempt and Michael Portillo’s recent nonsense about “anti-fanaticism”? Cultural Britishness is then a rather curious construct that can be almost anything, and usually is, hence the mom and apple pie attributes usually associated with Britishness when people are asked to define it.

But there is absolutely no doubt that people indeed do feel and identify themselves as British, even in Scotland. For me Britishness is so much more than the usual confused descriptions. For me cultural Britishness isn’t one thing but is the sum of the 300 years journey that we have enjoyed and endured on this island. It is what we have achieved and secured together in this partnership. It is about the great historic cultural achievements from the industrial revolution to our great rock and pop bands. It is about pride in our victories in the wars we fought together and the collective sense of shame in our historic crimes of colonialism and slavery. Britishness is in fact the social union, and being British belongs as much to me as a proud Scottish nationalist and Scottish patriot as it does to anyone from England.

Our gripe then isn’t with cultural Britishness, the social union, but with the current political arrangements within the United Kingdom. As civic nationalists we want the powers to grow our economy and make our own specific international contribution. We want to complete the powers of our Parliament and take responsibility for our own affairs. We have no issues with the past and our British inheritance is a crucial part of our own Scottish story.

Britishness will exist in Scotland long after we become independent. In fact I think that it could well be enhanced with independence. With independence we will get the opportunity to define a new Britishness, one based on equality and mutual respect. Britishness will still be all about our shared history and culture but it can also be about the new positive relationship we will seek to build.

I would also be happy to see any number of shared institutions being called British and it could and should be the brand name of our new enhanced and equal 21st century partnership. Who knows maybe independence can give Britishness a new lease of life.

So there you go, that’s me, British and proud of it in an independent Scotland.

Tags: , , ,

So you thought it was all over?

Jul 19

Posted by The Burd in Crime, Holyrood, Society, Sport | 1 Comment

Eek!  Whatever happened to the close season?  Less of a stop, more of a pause really.  The last football season ended with the Scottish Cup final played on 21 May and the new one starts this Saturday 23 July – eight short weeks apart.

There’s something faintly obscene about this rush to return to winter pastimes in mid summer.  And given the inglorious end to last season, and events this summer, a longer period of contemplation and respite might have done us all the world of good.  But no, common sense and football are distant companions these days.

The legislation might have been put on hold for more considered deliberation but the JAG – that’s Joint Action Group for the uninitiated – on Football has met and agreed 40 – count em! – points of action which aim to “improve the game”.  It’s a slightly misleading headline, because having scoured the recommendations on your behalf, dear reader, nowhere do I see proposals to clone Kenny Dalglish.

No, these recommendations aim to improve the conduct of football by players and spectators alike.  Some of it is so obvious the burd is frankly perturbed that it isn’t already commonplace.  Indeed, it is remarkable that after years of huffing and puffing by the powers that be, to the effect that the computer says no, the SPL has agreed upfront to significant changes in the scheduling of matches.

New Year’s Day football for the Old Firm is a thing of the past – the traditional derby will now be played on 28 December.  The police will have a say on the scheduling of the post-split Old Firm clash, Chief Police Officers will be consulted before the fixtures list is published each year to identify and consider any problematic fixtures and there will be only one mid week fixture round after the annual split.  This last one is welcome news for fans who get fed up being expected to get from one end of the country to the other on a working evening, just because an SPL computer deemed it necessary.

Of course, all of this is fine and dandy in theory but while the JAG can try to control a range of elements, there is one – the weather – which is sadly still outwith its control.  It better not snow on 28 December or the weather gods will have the First Minister to answer to.

Other proposals smack a little of of being seen to act instead of just acting.  Apparently in order to co-ordinate better policing of games we need a new national football policing unit with a wee bung of nearly £2 million to help it on its way.  Couldn’t they just all pick up the phone and speak to each other before and after “key games”?

Moreover, did we need to drag the SFA to a big meeting to get them to agree to develop rules preventing comment by club officials on appointed referees before matches, to reintroduce a Laws of the Game/refereeing decisions area to its website and to develop a “formal reporting protocol” for referees to “ensure absolute clarity and consistency in the reporting of all match related incidents”?

But for the main part, these are well-meaning, thoughtful efforts not only to clean up the vilest aspects of our national game, but also for the first time, attempt to link its role and impact on some of our other less edifying national pastimes.  Many of the proposed measures take a long term view and consider how we can change the culture surrounding football so that it can make a better contribution to the common weal.

Especially welcome is recognition of the role of supporters and bodies like the Supporters’ Trust in reshaping this culture and also of the needs of the long-suffering, well behaved majority.  For example. the coaching badge will contain a spectator safety element in the future, supporters will get their own code of conduct, minimum standard provisions will feature in all ticket sale conditions, and a better understanding of the role and responsibilities of police and stewards inside stadia will be developed.  The burd respectfully suggests that the first lesson should be that shrugging shoulders disinterestedly when a complaint is made about offensive fan behaviour is not the required response.

Anyone hoping to see a permanent marginalisation of football to the sidelines of life should look away now.  The JAG recommends that “there is early identification of the role that football/sport can play when initiatives are being considered at policy level, and that consideration is given to the early classification of the type of programme involved (Prevention, Early Intervention, Enforcement, Rehabilitation), supported by accurate identification of the target audience – recognising that unacceptable behaviour occurs throughout Scotland.”  Nope me neither.

Roughly translated, football can play a positive role in a wider social policy context.  Thus, one of the recommendations suggests that offenders who are also football supporters should be required to attend football-based programmes as part of their rehabilitation.  Also welcome is the plan to undertake research into the relationship between football and domestic abuse, as are the proposals to restrict alcohol consumption.

But there is a gaping silence at the heart of this plan:  it fails to address the need for football itself to clean up its act.  For years now, players have gotten away with behaving badly:  the cases that reach our eyes and ears for drug misuse, inappropriate sexual behaviour, drunkenness, speeding and the like are only the tip of a very big iceberg.   For every role model who is the archetypal family man, there is a team mate who indulges in all the excesses a large wage and a privileged position confer.  Whenever one oversteps the mark, ranks are closed, excuses are made and indiscretions are glossed over.

To fail to address this aspect of football, to leave it to clubs to agree a single code of conduct for everyone in Scottish football, to not make a clear and firm statement on the need for those inside football to adopt a zero tolerance approach to violence, drinking, inappropriate sexual behaviour and law-breaking represents a missed opportunity at an open goal.

Tags: , ,

Youth Gone Wild

Jul 13

Posted by Guest Blog in Democracy, Holyrood, Society | 15 Comments

We’re delighted to host another of our new MSPs on Better Nation.  Today sees Mark McDonald, the newly elected SNP MSP for North-East Scotland (who will apparently forever be known as the guy who “broke” the D’Hondt electoral system, even though he didn’t really!) pen an article for us.  Anyway, he’s a young MSP (if you are still young in your thirties, says Malc, who’s 27…), he’s been a young councillor and he’s considering being young and being in politics for us.

Hands up if you can tell me who the oldest council leader in the UK is? No googling, although that probably won’t do you any good. OK, how about the oldest council leader in Scotland? Still drawing a blank? Well I haven’t got a clue either, but thanks to the media we all now know that Callum McCaig is the youngest council leader in Scotland, and second youngest in the UK, behind the Lord Mayor of Belfast (which sounds like more of a civic role, but I won’t quibble).

“Councillor, 26, becomes Council Leader” was a stock headline over the course of the last week in June, as Callum became leader of Aberdeen City Council following two SNP by-election victories in quick succession.

Criticism of Callum being “too young” for the position quickly arrived from the Labour opposition, and when he and I were elected to the council four years ago, alongside Kirsty West and her brother John (who became, and remains, Scotland’s youngest councillor) we were widely criticised and patronised when we took on positions of responsibility in the administration. “Meet the kids running your council” ran one headline. So is 26 too young to lead a council? What is the ‘correct’ age to hold a position of responsibility? This whole saga has made me, a young politician, question whether the attitudes we have towards young people in politics are widespread, and if they might have some bearing on the democratic involvement of young people.

If we look to the make-up of the Scottish Parliament, we have around a dozen MSPs in their twenties and early thirties. Indeed Mark Griffin of Labour, at 25, is the youngest MSP ever to be elected. I don’t hear Labour voices critical of Mark’s role in the law-making process, and rightly so because if laws are to have an impact upon young people, then it is important that young people can see that they have voices in positions of influence and authority.

Similarly at a local authority level, service delivery impacts on all age groups, therefore it is only right that all age groups are represented. That’s why the administration on Aberdeen City Council contains councillors in their 20s right up to councillors in their 70s. It is a reflection of the diversity of our society, and we should be embracing and encouraging it, not undermining it by suggesting there is some undefined limit at which a person becomes old enough to hold a position of power, responsibility and authority.

Fans of The Apprentice will know that Lord Sugar is forever banging on about how young he was when he set up his first company, or made his first million, and there are plenty of stories of young entrepreneurs heading up massive enterprises like Facebook. Imagine if these people were told that they could not run a company until they were a certain age. Why should politicians of youth be somehow disregarded as capable, when there are many young captains of industry? Should we not accept that there is as much chance of a young councillor or MSP making a great leader or minister as someone twice their age?

When all is said and done, we forever hear much complaint and discussion on the reasons for young people being disengaged with politics and politicians. I don’t think that they are. I speak to young people all the time, be it a question and answer event at a local school, or via emails they send to me on various campaigns. Young people are incredibly interested in politics in its broadest sense. The problem is that politicians and political parties are generally not interested in them. By showing that young people can have councillors, MSPs and MPs from their own generation, we can start to reverse that and reconnect with them.

What will continue to turn them off, however, is to see age being cast up as a defining issue in terms of an individual politician’s competence. We allow people to put themselves forward to stand for election at the age of 18, if we continue to support that principle, then we should be prepared to allow those who are elected to hold positions of influence, and we should support them when they take on these positions, not cast doubt on their abilities, or make their age the sole characteristic by which we define them.

I still don’t know who the oldest council leader in Scotland is. Frankly, I don’t really care.