I'd been tempted to pen a few lines about Scottish Borders Council's largesse towards their own hard working, dedicated staff who are to receive an attractive range of perks, including discount cards, as a reward for having to suffer an outrageous pay freeze - part of the 'savage cuts'.
But I thought it better to keep my powder (and ink) dry until the Council had time to cobble together a press release explaining to cash-strapped taxpayers how they had managed to find £18,550 hidden down the back of the proverbial sofa in such straitened times.
Alas the spinners from the well staffed media team at the Newtown St Boswells HQ have (so far) failed to produce the goods. No doubt they were fully occupied with the usual selection of positive propaganda which finds its way into our media outlets with alarming regularity.
Unfortunately too many of our newspapers and broadcasters fall for the daily supply of positive guff and pass it on to readers and listeners without bothering to ask questions. The fact that these hand-outs are often far from newsworthy doesn't seem to matter as long as they fill space or time.
You see, everything in the municipal garden is always rosy. There's no room for negativity, and anything which might attract public criticism or threaten a council taxpayers' revolt receives very short shrift.
The failure to issue a release on the 'discount deals' means we have had to rely on direct coverage from inside the council chamber. This is why we need robust, inquisitive journalists to hold our councillors and senior officers to account.
The fact that the new range of perks received the unanimous backing from elected members seems to suggest everyone concerned believed the rewards were justified.
No doubt they agreed with the sentiments expressed by Councillor Michael Cook, the deputy leader, who apparently told the meeting: "It hardly sends a positive message that we value our staff if we are quibbling about spending £18,550 over three years. Let's not be so damned miserable and get on with this".
In the same week that Mr Cook and his colleagues were proving they were not going to be 'damned miserable' so far as their workforce was concerned, we were told that vulnerable clients of the Borders social work department will have to find an extra £464,000 to pay for essential services..
Even the press release on this topic, which will be bad news for those who pay for the support they rely on, carried a positive spin. The sizeable increases for the services were being levied following 'a review conducted with care and attention.' This resulted in : "A much fairer system based on solid principles of equity, transparency and consistency, in line with national guidance".
Just a thought. At the next council meeting perhaps a member of the administration could outline plans for a discount card for the elderly and disabled clients of their social work department. After all there must be a few more unused wads of our hard-earned cash concealed in the well upholstered Newtown sofa. Every little helps!
Sunday, 30 November 2014
Sunday, 9 November 2014
Tenth anniversary of FOI...nothing to celebrate
Ten years after the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation, an Act of Parliament allegedly devised to make public authorities more accountable, we are told that Scottish Borders Council is putting "new procedures" in place to ensure requests are handled more efficiently. Probably not before time, given the council's abysmal track record in the field of FOI.
Time after time SBC has failed to respond to requesters within the 20 working days allowed, and like most other councils, health boards and Scottish Government departments, our local authority frequently uses the long list of exclusions available within the confines of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA) to keep sensitive or embarrassing stuff under wraps.
At the same time council leader David Parker complains that the 1,000 requests his officials receive each year represent a "significant burden" on council resources. Apparently more staff are being taken on to resolve the problems within the FOI system, and this will undoubtedly ramp up costs still further.
Perhaps our councillors could consider a cheaper option....publish more information and statistics as a matter of routine without having to be asked.
Why should publicly funded bodies only have to release information after receiving a specific request? Unless your question is tightly and precisely worded they usually manage to avoid telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Let's have regular disclosures of credit card spending by senior officials, numbers of assaults on teachers and other council staff, and a host of other topics which regularly feature in FOI requests. That should cut the workload on hard-pressed administrative staff.
SBC's Information Management Team (IMT) is being transferred to the council's legal services department which means qualified lawyers will scrutinise FOI requests from now on. Is that likely to increase the flow of information when far too much council business is already conducted in private?
Meanwhile, according to the Scottish Information Commissioner's (SIC) website, a conference to "celebrate" the tenth anniversary of FOI will be held in Edinburgh next month. Speakers will include First Minister-in-Waiting Nicola Sturgeon, Lord Jim Wallace, and the Commissioner Rosemary Agnew.
It is to be hoped the conference does not issue a communique declaring that FOI has been an unqualified success. For given the number of failures by authorities to abide by the rules, and the equally depressing failure of the SIC to prosecute or even pursue the miscreants, the only people with anything to shout about are the public officials who enjoy a relative level of protection under FOISA.
Commissioner Agnew recently expressed her concern at the growing number of FOI requests which are not attracting responses within the statutory time even though the 20 working days allowed appears to be more than generous.
Unfortunately none of the authorities which break the law are ever hauled over the coals. So there is no incentive for these cavalier organisations to get their acts together and respond to the council taxpayers who keep them in business. Instead of "celebrating", the forthcoming conference would serve a more useful purpose if it considered how FOI might be improved for the benefit of the general public.
Ten years after the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation, an Act of Parliament allegedly devised to make public authorities more accountable, we are told that Scottish Borders Council is putting "new procedures" in place to ensure requests are handled more efficiently. Probably not before time, given the council's abysmal track record in the field of FOI.
Time after time SBC has failed to respond to requesters within the 20 working days allowed, and like most other councils, health boards and Scottish Government departments, our local authority frequently uses the long list of exclusions available within the confines of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA) to keep sensitive or embarrassing stuff under wraps.
At the same time council leader David Parker complains that the 1,000 requests his officials receive each year represent a "significant burden" on council resources. Apparently more staff are being taken on to resolve the problems within the FOI system, and this will undoubtedly ramp up costs still further.
Perhaps our councillors could consider a cheaper option....publish more information and statistics as a matter of routine without having to be asked.
Why should publicly funded bodies only have to release information after receiving a specific request? Unless your question is tightly and precisely worded they usually manage to avoid telling the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Let's have regular disclosures of credit card spending by senior officials, numbers of assaults on teachers and other council staff, and a host of other topics which regularly feature in FOI requests. That should cut the workload on hard-pressed administrative staff.
SBC's Information Management Team (IMT) is being transferred to the council's legal services department which means qualified lawyers will scrutinise FOI requests from now on. Is that likely to increase the flow of information when far too much council business is already conducted in private?
Meanwhile, according to the Scottish Information Commissioner's (SIC) website, a conference to "celebrate" the tenth anniversary of FOI will be held in Edinburgh next month. Speakers will include First Minister-in-Waiting Nicola Sturgeon, Lord Jim Wallace, and the Commissioner Rosemary Agnew.
It is to be hoped the conference does not issue a communique declaring that FOI has been an unqualified success. For given the number of failures by authorities to abide by the rules, and the equally depressing failure of the SIC to prosecute or even pursue the miscreants, the only people with anything to shout about are the public officials who enjoy a relative level of protection under FOISA.
Commissioner Agnew recently expressed her concern at the growing number of FOI requests which are not attracting responses within the statutory time even though the 20 working days allowed appears to be more than generous.
Unfortunately none of the authorities which break the law are ever hauled over the coals. So there is no incentive for these cavalier organisations to get their acts together and respond to the council taxpayers who keep them in business. Instead of "celebrating", the forthcoming conference would serve a more useful purpose if it considered how FOI might be improved for the benefit of the general public.
Monday, 20 October 2014
English MPs for a Scottish Issue?
A few hours after the majority of voters in the Scottish Borders rejected the chance to vote for an independent Scotland we witnessed the first divisions among Better Together campaigners with David Cameron's Downing Street dawn declaration promising English MPs for English laws. The slanging match surrounding the unsolved West Lothian question was well and truly under way.
The unholy alliance of Labour and Conservative politicians, and the eleventh hour intervention by a forgotten Fife MP by the name of Brown, may have salvaged the shaky Union. But it didn't take long for the uneasy bedfellows to switch to a "ferrets in a sack" posture after the No vote was delivered.
Cameron's pledge to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English matters in return for greater powers at Holyrood certainly received a warm reception south of the Tweed. But does it mean that under tit-for-tat reasoning three of his own MPs - Messrs Menzies, Paice and Reevell - will be precluded from further involvement in an important issue affecting the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway?
Earlier this year we brought you news of yet another Government backed 'probe' into the economic ills of the South of Scotland, a topic already done to death by an endless series of previous inquiries and investigations. Having already endured the 1968 Johnson-Marshall report which recommended a major injection of population to make the Sheep Country economy more stable, and a 1998 effort chaired by Scottish business and industry minister Gus Macdonald, there seemed little mileage left in such a tired old chestnut.
However, the current membership of Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee (SAC) certainly didn't accept they were flogging a dead horse when they embarked on their own voyage of discovery earlier this year. Apparently they've already found out that the people of the Borderlands - their word not mine - are not getting as good a deal as they should. You don't say!
But surely if any of those previous investigations stretching back 45 years had been worth a candle then the Borders and its neighbour to the west should have been competing on the proverbial level playing field by now. These costly projects appear to have achieved the square root of absolutely nothing, and there must be a fair chance the current round of visits and consultations by the SAC will also fail to deliver a remedy for our complicated set of issues and problems even though a more generous allocation of resources would probably do the trick.
Which leads me back to the dilemma soon to face Menzies, Paice and Reevell, all of them Tory members of the SAC but representing English constituencies. Mark Menzies, who represents Fylde (Lancashire), Sir James Paice, the MP for South-east Cambridgeshire, and Simon Reevell, (Dewsbury, Yorkshire) sit on the committee because their Party doesn't have more than one elected MP in Scotland, and he's a junior minister in the Scotland Office.
If you haven't already sent in your written submission to the SAC with evidence of how they might improve the lot of us Borderers then you'd better get your skates on as the deadline for the consultation is Friday November 28.
But if Mr Cameron succeeds in his bid to banish Scottish MPs from debates featuring English subjects then should the three English Conservatives from his Party who serve on the SAC be allowed to read your submissions then discuss and vote on an exclusively Scottish subject? Not that it is likely to make much difference unless the Committee breaks the mould and produces something positive and useful.
The unholy alliance of Labour and Conservative politicians, and the eleventh hour intervention by a forgotten Fife MP by the name of Brown, may have salvaged the shaky Union. But it didn't take long for the uneasy bedfellows to switch to a "ferrets in a sack" posture after the No vote was delivered.
Cameron's pledge to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English matters in return for greater powers at Holyrood certainly received a warm reception south of the Tweed. But does it mean that under tit-for-tat reasoning three of his own MPs - Messrs Menzies, Paice and Reevell - will be precluded from further involvement in an important issue affecting the Borders and Dumfries & Galloway?
Earlier this year we brought you news of yet another Government backed 'probe' into the economic ills of the South of Scotland, a topic already done to death by an endless series of previous inquiries and investigations. Having already endured the 1968 Johnson-Marshall report which recommended a major injection of population to make the Sheep Country economy more stable, and a 1998 effort chaired by Scottish business and industry minister Gus Macdonald, there seemed little mileage left in such a tired old chestnut.
However, the current membership of Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee (SAC) certainly didn't accept they were flogging a dead horse when they embarked on their own voyage of discovery earlier this year. Apparently they've already found out that the people of the Borderlands - their word not mine - are not getting as good a deal as they should. You don't say!
But surely if any of those previous investigations stretching back 45 years had been worth a candle then the Borders and its neighbour to the west should have been competing on the proverbial level playing field by now. These costly projects appear to have achieved the square root of absolutely nothing, and there must be a fair chance the current round of visits and consultations by the SAC will also fail to deliver a remedy for our complicated set of issues and problems even though a more generous allocation of resources would probably do the trick.
Which leads me back to the dilemma soon to face Menzies, Paice and Reevell, all of them Tory members of the SAC but representing English constituencies. Mark Menzies, who represents Fylde (Lancashire), Sir James Paice, the MP for South-east Cambridgeshire, and Simon Reevell, (Dewsbury, Yorkshire) sit on the committee because their Party doesn't have more than one elected MP in Scotland, and he's a junior minister in the Scotland Office.
If you haven't already sent in your written submission to the SAC with evidence of how they might improve the lot of us Borderers then you'd better get your skates on as the deadline for the consultation is Friday November 28.
But if Mr Cameron succeeds in his bid to banish Scottish MPs from debates featuring English subjects then should the three English Conservatives from his Party who serve on the SAC be allowed to read your submissions then discuss and vote on an exclusively Scottish subject? Not that it is likely to make much difference unless the Committee breaks the mould and produces something positive and useful.
Wednesday, 1 October 2014
Quest for truth closed down by MSPs
Every public body in Scotland will have taken time out for a huge sigh of combined relief today after members of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee snuffed out attempts aimed at forcing councils, health boards and government departments to tell the truth.
It may come as a surprise to many, but there is no obligation under the present Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) for your local authority to furnish you with an honest and accurate response when you submit a Freedom of Information request.
It has been claimed that up to 25 per cent of the 60,000 answers supplied by FOI compliant bodies in Scotland may be inaccurate as they attempt to conceal the truth or distort the facts. The ability to mislead the people they are supposed to serve renders the entire Freedom of Information system virtually worthless. And the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) - the so-called guardian of FOISA - has shown a consistent reluctance to prosecute authorities which flout the law by withholding information or by issuing false responses to FOI requests.
In a bid to have an "honesty" clause inserted into the legislation, a petition was lodged at the Parliament earlier this year. It attracted support from ordinary citizens, some of them telling the petitions committee that they had been misled after submitting FOI requests.
But unfortunately the petition also attracted a totally hostile reaction from the Scottish Government and the SIC. Both of these organisations dismissed the proposed change in the law as both unnecessary and unworkable. The committee was even invited by its own clerk to close the petition down in April before the members had heard a shred of evidence. Hardly an example of democracy at work.
Those authorities whose wrongdoings might be exposed by a more robust version of FOISA had too much to lose. They were never going to allow a sensible amendment or addition to the Act to eliminate the wriggle room which allows dishonest public officials to avoid disclosing accurate, and potentially embarrassing information.
The completely gutless performance of the SIC, who has failed to promote a single prosecution since Freedom of Information legislation was introduced a decade ago, was highlighted by one supporter of the petition, a Mr M.
In a written submission to the petitions committee Mr M described how he provided evidence to the SIC after being misled by his local authority in their handling of his FOI requests.
He added: "The SIC investigating officer left me with a clear impression that pursuing a case under
Section 65 of FOISA was virtually impossible, had never been done, and would require me
to have already provided him with firm supporting evidence of 'criminal intent to withhold'
on the part of one or more individuals."
But the saga did not end there. In a bizarre twist, Mr M was invited to meet the chief executive of the council concerned who "acknowledged the Council's responses to my requests for information could have been handled better and offered the Council's apology.
"I presented the Chief Executive with correspondence and records which made a sufficiently compelling case - of Council Officers' inescapable awareness of apparent non-compliance with statutory obligations (for which they were also responsible) and of them having misled me whilst failing to provide records (which they could hardly be unaware of) I'd requested under FOISA - that the Chief Executive undertook to commission an independent investigation into the matters arising from my freedom of information requests.I did not request that meeting nor did I suggest that she commission an independent investigation."
But even strong testimony like that failed to convince MSPs on the committee that there were serious issues surrounding Freedom of Information which needed to be addressed. They preferred the evidence of the SIC and of other civil servants who maintained the present flawed FOISA should be left alone.
At their meeting earlier this week the elected members closed ranks with the Establishment in deciding: "The Committee agreed to close the petition, under Rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government has stated it shares the view of the Scottish Information Commissioner that the changes being proposed are not needed and would be unworkable."
As the petitioner told the Committee: " At the moment any requester who has evidence of dishonesty or inaccuracy by a responding authority stands no chance of achieving redress given the complete failure or unwillingness by the Commissioner and the police to even submit reports with a view to prosecution. Regrettably, that sad state of affairs is set to continue."
It may come as a surprise to many, but there is no obligation under the present Freedom of Information Scotland Act (FOISA) for your local authority to furnish you with an honest and accurate response when you submit a Freedom of Information request.
It has been claimed that up to 25 per cent of the 60,000 answers supplied by FOI compliant bodies in Scotland may be inaccurate as they attempt to conceal the truth or distort the facts. The ability to mislead the people they are supposed to serve renders the entire Freedom of Information system virtually worthless. And the Scottish Information Commissioner (SIC) - the so-called guardian of FOISA - has shown a consistent reluctance to prosecute authorities which flout the law by withholding information or by issuing false responses to FOI requests.
In a bid to have an "honesty" clause inserted into the legislation, a petition was lodged at the Parliament earlier this year. It attracted support from ordinary citizens, some of them telling the petitions committee that they had been misled after submitting FOI requests.
But unfortunately the petition also attracted a totally hostile reaction from the Scottish Government and the SIC. Both of these organisations dismissed the proposed change in the law as both unnecessary and unworkable. The committee was even invited by its own clerk to close the petition down in April before the members had heard a shred of evidence. Hardly an example of democracy at work.
Those authorities whose wrongdoings might be exposed by a more robust version of FOISA had too much to lose. They were never going to allow a sensible amendment or addition to the Act to eliminate the wriggle room which allows dishonest public officials to avoid disclosing accurate, and potentially embarrassing information.
The completely gutless performance of the SIC, who has failed to promote a single prosecution since Freedom of Information legislation was introduced a decade ago, was highlighted by one supporter of the petition, a Mr M.
In a written submission to the petitions committee Mr M described how he provided evidence to the SIC after being misled by his local authority in their handling of his FOI requests.
He added: "The SIC investigating officer left me with a clear impression that pursuing a case under
Section 65 of FOISA was virtually impossible, had never been done, and would require me
to have already provided him with firm supporting evidence of 'criminal intent to withhold'
on the part of one or more individuals."
But the saga did not end there. In a bizarre twist, Mr M was invited to meet the chief executive of the council concerned who "acknowledged the Council's responses to my requests for information could have been handled better and offered the Council's apology.
"I presented the Chief Executive with correspondence and records which made a sufficiently compelling case - of Council Officers' inescapable awareness of apparent non-compliance with statutory obligations (for which they were also responsible) and of them having misled me whilst failing to provide records (which they could hardly be unaware of) I'd requested under FOISA - that the Chief Executive undertook to commission an independent investigation into the matters arising from my freedom of information requests.I did not request that meeting nor did I suggest that she commission an independent investigation."
But even strong testimony like that failed to convince MSPs on the committee that there were serious issues surrounding Freedom of Information which needed to be addressed. They preferred the evidence of the SIC and of other civil servants who maintained the present flawed FOISA should be left alone.
At their meeting earlier this week the elected members closed ranks with the Establishment in deciding: "The Committee agreed to close the petition, under Rule 15.7, on the basis that the Scottish Government has stated it shares the view of the Scottish Information Commissioner that the changes being proposed are not needed and would be unworkable."
As the petitioner told the Committee: " At the moment any requester who has evidence of dishonesty or inaccuracy by a responding authority stands no chance of achieving redress given the complete failure or unwillingness by the Commissioner and the police to even submit reports with a view to prosecution. Regrettably, that sad state of affairs is set to continue."
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
Borders Railway property costs well above estimate
EXCLUSIVE - by Doug Collie, Staff Reporter
The amount of money spent on the acquisition of residential and commercial properties blighted by the Borders Railway Project far outstripped the estimates set out in the scheme's original Business Plan, according to figures disclosed by Transport Scotland.
Statistics obtained via a Freedom of Information request and passed on to the Not Just Sheep and Rugby office show the rail developers had to fork out 50 per cent more for homes and businesses in the Scottish Borders and Midlothian than originally planned. And that overspend has taken place despite fewer acquisitions than were originally envisaged by the Scottish Government and the construction companies working on the project.
The Waverley Railway Outline Business Case suggested it would be necessary to purchase 51 residential properties together with three commercial premises in the Borders to make way for the reinstatement of the line between Edinburgh and Tweedbank. The cost of the acquisitions was put at £5.555 million.
At the same time the project team claimed it would be necessary to buy 12 houses and two businesses in Midlothian at a total cost of £2.17 million. The business case concluded that by re-selling some or all of the affected properties some £4.1 million would be recouped once the project was completed.
Transport Scotland has now confirmed that 38 residential buildings and nine commercial properties have been acquired or are in the process of being purchased in the Borders involving a total outlay of £7.8 million which is 40% higher than the original cost estimate.
Meanwhile the amount spent in Midlothian on the purchase of 11 houses and two businesses adds up to £3.8 million, 75% above the figure contained in the Business Plan.
The Freedom of Information response adds: "No resale value has yet been achieved as resale of the properties is unlikely to take place before twelve months has elapsed after the new line opens. Network Rail need to be confident that in operating the line they have retained control of all operational land."
Latest estimates for the total cost of the Borders Railway put the final figure at £353 million, well over double the original sum quoted when the project was first mooted.
It has also been claimed that Scottish Borders Council's hopes of paying their share of the project - some £8 million - through developer contributions from house builders have already been dashed because of much lower levels of activity by the construction industry than anticipated.
Trains are expected to be running to and from the Central Borders by September 2015. The Waverley Line closed in 1969, a victim of the Beeching Report which recommended the withdrawal of uneconomic rail services from many parts of the country.
The amount of money spent on the acquisition of residential and commercial properties blighted by the Borders Railway Project far outstripped the estimates set out in the scheme's original Business Plan, according to figures disclosed by Transport Scotland.
Statistics obtained via a Freedom of Information request and passed on to the Not Just Sheep and Rugby office show the rail developers had to fork out 50 per cent more for homes and businesses in the Scottish Borders and Midlothian than originally planned. And that overspend has taken place despite fewer acquisitions than were originally envisaged by the Scottish Government and the construction companies working on the project.
The Waverley Railway Outline Business Case suggested it would be necessary to purchase 51 residential properties together with three commercial premises in the Borders to make way for the reinstatement of the line between Edinburgh and Tweedbank. The cost of the acquisitions was put at £5.555 million.
At the same time the project team claimed it would be necessary to buy 12 houses and two businesses in Midlothian at a total cost of £2.17 million. The business case concluded that by re-selling some or all of the affected properties some £4.1 million would be recouped once the project was completed.
Transport Scotland has now confirmed that 38 residential buildings and nine commercial properties have been acquired or are in the process of being purchased in the Borders involving a total outlay of £7.8 million which is 40% higher than the original cost estimate.
Meanwhile the amount spent in Midlothian on the purchase of 11 houses and two businesses adds up to £3.8 million, 75% above the figure contained in the Business Plan.
The Freedom of Information response adds: "No resale value has yet been achieved as resale of the properties is unlikely to take place before twelve months has elapsed after the new line opens. Network Rail need to be confident that in operating the line they have retained control of all operational land."
Latest estimates for the total cost of the Borders Railway put the final figure at £353 million, well over double the original sum quoted when the project was first mooted.
It has also been claimed that Scottish Borders Council's hopes of paying their share of the project - some £8 million - through developer contributions from house builders have already been dashed because of much lower levels of activity by the construction industry than anticipated.
Trains are expected to be running to and from the Central Borders by September 2015. The Waverley Line closed in 1969, a victim of the Beeching Report which recommended the withdrawal of uneconomic rail services from many parts of the country.
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Referendum coverage an insult to Scots' intelligence
With just a couple of days left till polling day I suppose any hopes of sourcing a measure of balanced coverage of the Great Debate have completely disappeared. Quite frankly the contribution made by the print press has been disgraceful and woeful; they should hang their combined heads in shame.
I'm old enough to recall previous campaigns asking us if we wanted Scottish devolution and European Union membership when the papers concentrated for the most part on straight, factual reporting without pushing the views of their proprietors down our throats at every opportunity.
In those days there was a clear division between the news pages and the Opinion column where the leader writer put forward his or her views sedately and without rancour. The readers were then left to make up their own minds.
But nowadays fact, opinion and pure fiction can be found in the same paragraph of an article purporting to be news. Little wonder newspaper sales are collapsing as their once loyal readership cry "Enough!" and stop buying the title they'd been taking for a generation.
The influence of the press also seems to be diminishing fast. Even though the vast majority of titles have offered strong support for Better Together, the Yes camp appears to have closed a 20 per cent gap to create a neck-and-neck contest. So much for the host of ridiculous scare stories and half truths that have filled many a column from day one of the current campaign.
How many potential No voters have switched allegiance after reading some of the bilge washed up in the pages of the Scottish Daily Mail, for instance? They've resorted to every trick in the book from world markets crashing at the very thought of Scottish Independence to allegations of bullying by fanatical nationalists, or cybernats as the Mail has dubbed them.
The truth of the matter is the pound fell by just under a cent against the dollar on one particular day last week, and both the value of sterling and the stock market recovered fully within 24 hours. And there has been no mention of the No campaigners who have vowed to make life hell for Yes supporters once the referendum is done and dusted.
The Mail, which once branded Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister in the entire history of the United Kingdom, and blamed Alistair Darling for the economic crash of 2008, recently afforded both of these gentlemen hero status for their roles as the 'big beasts' of Better Together. How cynical and opportunistic is that? Even 'Red' Ed Miliband, another of the Mail's hate figures, suddenly became lovable as he urged voters to stick with the Union.
On the other side of the fence the Sunday Herald - the first title to declare for Yes - has been equally blinkered in its presentation of the case for separation. The disadvantages of splitting from the rest of the nation have been set aside and virtually ignored in an all-embracing rush to persuade readers to plump for independence.
So where does an undecided voter turn for a straight down the middle presentation of the pros and cons? Well even the BBC is tainted with allegations of bias, and closer to home the coverage of referendum issues in some of our local Borders weeklies has hardly been even handed.
Maybe half their readership has been alienated in the process, something weekly papers should avoid at all costs with circulation in a continuous downward spiral.
According to the pundits social media has been the main player in disseminating information in 2014. But when you read some of the nasty stuff on Facebook and Twitter those outlets can hardly be trusted either.
I'm sure like me many of you have felt insulted by some of the crass articles written by so-called journalists who have been programmed to deliver a certain message, mainly it seems for the benefit of the No lobby. It's as though we are all wee bairns, incapable of making our minds up by carrying out our own research before deciding which way to cast our X on the ballot paper.
Whichever way you vote on Thursday here's hoping you get the result you desire. But before casting your vote remember this: don't believe everything you read in the papers!
I'm old enough to recall previous campaigns asking us if we wanted Scottish devolution and European Union membership when the papers concentrated for the most part on straight, factual reporting without pushing the views of their proprietors down our throats at every opportunity.
In those days there was a clear division between the news pages and the Opinion column where the leader writer put forward his or her views sedately and without rancour. The readers were then left to make up their own minds.
But nowadays fact, opinion and pure fiction can be found in the same paragraph of an article purporting to be news. Little wonder newspaper sales are collapsing as their once loyal readership cry "Enough!" and stop buying the title they'd been taking for a generation.
The influence of the press also seems to be diminishing fast. Even though the vast majority of titles have offered strong support for Better Together, the Yes camp appears to have closed a 20 per cent gap to create a neck-and-neck contest. So much for the host of ridiculous scare stories and half truths that have filled many a column from day one of the current campaign.
How many potential No voters have switched allegiance after reading some of the bilge washed up in the pages of the Scottish Daily Mail, for instance? They've resorted to every trick in the book from world markets crashing at the very thought of Scottish Independence to allegations of bullying by fanatical nationalists, or cybernats as the Mail has dubbed them.
The truth of the matter is the pound fell by just under a cent against the dollar on one particular day last week, and both the value of sterling and the stock market recovered fully within 24 hours. And there has been no mention of the No campaigners who have vowed to make life hell for Yes supporters once the referendum is done and dusted.
The Mail, which once branded Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister in the entire history of the United Kingdom, and blamed Alistair Darling for the economic crash of 2008, recently afforded both of these gentlemen hero status for their roles as the 'big beasts' of Better Together. How cynical and opportunistic is that? Even 'Red' Ed Miliband, another of the Mail's hate figures, suddenly became lovable as he urged voters to stick with the Union.
On the other side of the fence the Sunday Herald - the first title to declare for Yes - has been equally blinkered in its presentation of the case for separation. The disadvantages of splitting from the rest of the nation have been set aside and virtually ignored in an all-embracing rush to persuade readers to plump for independence.
So where does an undecided voter turn for a straight down the middle presentation of the pros and cons? Well even the BBC is tainted with allegations of bias, and closer to home the coverage of referendum issues in some of our local Borders weeklies has hardly been even handed.
Maybe half their readership has been alienated in the process, something weekly papers should avoid at all costs with circulation in a continuous downward spiral.
According to the pundits social media has been the main player in disseminating information in 2014. But when you read some of the nasty stuff on Facebook and Twitter those outlets can hardly be trusted either.
I'm sure like me many of you have felt insulted by some of the crass articles written by so-called journalists who have been programmed to deliver a certain message, mainly it seems for the benefit of the No lobby. It's as though we are all wee bairns, incapable of making our minds up by carrying out our own research before deciding which way to cast our X on the ballot paper.
Whichever way you vote on Thursday here's hoping you get the result you desire. But before casting your vote remember this: don't believe everything you read in the papers!
Sunday, 7 September 2014
Callants Club: 'Hawick should have Great Tapestry of Scotland'
The controversial proposal to locate The Great Tapestry of Scotland in a £5 million visitor centre at Tweedbank has sparked a fierce war of words between Hawick Callants Club and David Parker, the leader of Scottish Borders Council (SBC).
Club members have been angered following a failed attempt to bring the tapestry to Hawick, regarded by many as the principal centre for textiles in the Borders. And they have made their strong feelings known in correspondence with Mr Parker who is championing the Tweedbank option.
Local MSP John Lamont has also been dragged into the dispute with accusations of his "lack of action" in pressing Hawick's case.
In a letter to Mr Parker, Derick Tait, the Callants Club president, wrote: "Your attempt to shift the blame for inaction on to John Lamont is quite shameful and does you no credit."
Mr Tait claims Hawick is the ideal location for the Borders to capitalise on the Tapestry. He adds: "The late President of the United States, John F Kennedy had a saying - 'An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it'.
"Quite obviously an error has been made in choosing Tweedbank as a location for the tapestry. By recognising the real worthiness of Hawick as the best location you can avoid your error becoming a mistake."
Hawick was discarded as a potential host town for the tapestry because there was said to be no suitable building capable of housing it, a conclusion hotly disputed by the Callants Club.
But Mr Tait and his colleagues have vowed to fight on. Their letter to the council leader concludes: " We would urge you to heed the advice given and recognise that if the tapestry is to come to the Borders, then Hawick has the strongest case, and as such is the obvious location."
The council has commissioned a £40,000 feasibility study into the Tweedbank proposals, and the findings are due to be considered later this year. But an announcement last month - credited to First Minister Alex Salmond - suggesting the project would be developed at the southern end of the Borders Railway, took many people by surprise.
It has since been confirmed that the Scottish Government will become a funding partner along with SBC and any external sponsorship that can be attracted for the Tweedbank venture. It means the council will have to commit money to the scheme if it goes ahead.
In a robust rebuttal of Mr Tait's claims, Councillor Parker writes: "I reject entirely your comment that my actions are shameful over the issue of John Lamont MSP's inaction. From everything I have been told, Mr Lamont called the meeting [in Hawick], agreed to follow up one potential site but never made contact again with the two other representatives who were at the meeting.
"From September 2013, John Lamont was well aware the Trustees [of the Tapestry] were seeking a home for the tapestry and it is a reasonable proposition to question whether Mr Lamont could have, and should have done more if he truly wanted the Tapestry located in Hawick".
Mr Parker also explains the recent announcement concerning the project at Tweedbank is still subject to approval by the elected members, with the study, business case and other elements likely to be considered in November.
He adds: "As the leader of Scottish Borders Council it is my role to do what is best for the whole of the Scottish Borders. The fact that we may have secured the Great Tapestry of Scotland for our region, at the expense of other parts of Scotland, must surely be welcomed."
Mr Parker warns that the Trustees have a number of other potential sites that are attractive to them outwith the Scottish Borders that they have indicated they will take forward in the event that Tweedbank is not secured.
Club members have been angered following a failed attempt to bring the tapestry to Hawick, regarded by many as the principal centre for textiles in the Borders. And they have made their strong feelings known in correspondence with Mr Parker who is championing the Tweedbank option.
Local MSP John Lamont has also been dragged into the dispute with accusations of his "lack of action" in pressing Hawick's case.
In a letter to Mr Parker, Derick Tait, the Callants Club president, wrote: "Your attempt to shift the blame for inaction on to John Lamont is quite shameful and does you no credit."
Mr Tait claims Hawick is the ideal location for the Borders to capitalise on the Tapestry. He adds: "The late President of the United States, John F Kennedy had a saying - 'An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it'.
"Quite obviously an error has been made in choosing Tweedbank as a location for the tapestry. By recognising the real worthiness of Hawick as the best location you can avoid your error becoming a mistake."
Hawick was discarded as a potential host town for the tapestry because there was said to be no suitable building capable of housing it, a conclusion hotly disputed by the Callants Club.
But Mr Tait and his colleagues have vowed to fight on. Their letter to the council leader concludes: " We would urge you to heed the advice given and recognise that if the tapestry is to come to the Borders, then Hawick has the strongest case, and as such is the obvious location."
The council has commissioned a £40,000 feasibility study into the Tweedbank proposals, and the findings are due to be considered later this year. But an announcement last month - credited to First Minister Alex Salmond - suggesting the project would be developed at the southern end of the Borders Railway, took many people by surprise.
It has since been confirmed that the Scottish Government will become a funding partner along with SBC and any external sponsorship that can be attracted for the Tweedbank venture. It means the council will have to commit money to the scheme if it goes ahead.
In a robust rebuttal of Mr Tait's claims, Councillor Parker writes: "I reject entirely your comment that my actions are shameful over the issue of John Lamont MSP's inaction. From everything I have been told, Mr Lamont called the meeting [in Hawick], agreed to follow up one potential site but never made contact again with the two other representatives who were at the meeting.
"From September 2013, John Lamont was well aware the Trustees [of the Tapestry] were seeking a home for the tapestry and it is a reasonable proposition to question whether Mr Lamont could have, and should have done more if he truly wanted the Tapestry located in Hawick".
Mr Parker also explains the recent announcement concerning the project at Tweedbank is still subject to approval by the elected members, with the study, business case and other elements likely to be considered in November.
He adds: "As the leader of Scottish Borders Council it is my role to do what is best for the whole of the Scottish Borders. The fact that we may have secured the Great Tapestry of Scotland for our region, at the expense of other parts of Scotland, must surely be welcomed."
Mr Parker warns that the Trustees have a number of other potential sites that are attractive to them outwith the Scottish Borders that they have indicated they will take forward in the event that Tweedbank is not secured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)