The sanity of Peter Howson
Kenneth Roy
The painter who cut out the crowd
Also:
The Cafe
Readers’ comments
The Midgie
Ministerial reshuffle
Too big to fail?
Dick Mungin
The Homecoming fiasco
Also:
Walter Humes
Start of an avalanche?
Elga Graves
Cultural genocide
Pi in the sky
Alison Prince
The weekend essay
Also:
Robin Downie
We are too easily offended
Norman Fenton
What school did you go to?
Scary play
Angus Skinner
Another view of ‘Men Should Weep’
Also:
Catriona Walker
My Saltire in the snow
Gerard Rochford
The December Poem
Walter Humes
38 Degrees is the angle at which an avalanche is triggered. It is also the name of a campaigning organisation which aims to bring about real change in the UK based on the collective efforts of individuals: its slogan is ‘people, power, change’. It does not accept money from government, big business or political parties and relies on donations from private citizens to finance its campaigns.
I first became aware of the organisation when a friend asked if I would be willing to add my name to a protest being organised by 38 Degrees opposing Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to take full control of BSkyB. I was happy to do so, believing that a healthy democracy requires diversity and cultural range in the media, rather than control by a few multi-national companies interested only in mass audiences and commercial profit.
Working with another organisation, Avaaz (which describes itself as ‘the campaigning community bringing people-powered politics to decision-making worldwide’), 38 Degrees duly delivered more than 60,000 anti-Murdoch messages to Ofcom, after the business secretary, Vince Cable, authorised an enquiry into the proposed transaction. The outcome is expected shortly.
There was an interesting follow-up to the e-mail I sent supporting the campaign. On St Andrew’s Day I received a questionnaire from 38 Degrees specially designed for people in Scotland. The accompanying message claimed that there were 22,000 Scottish supporters of the organisation and one of the questions was about whether there should be more Scotland-specific campaigns or whether the focus should be on Westminster decisions that affect the whole of the UK. Respondents were asked to place in order of importance a number of topics. These included ‘the BBC’s media bias and mis-representation of the Scottish government’, keeping ‘Lossiemouth and Leuchars RAF bases open’, opposing ‘building a coal power station on mud flats in Hunterston, North Ayrshire’, and supporting ‘families facing eviction by Donald Trump’s golf course in Aberdeenshire’.
Whatever one may think of these particular issues, it is surely to be welcomed that a London-based organisation should be canvassing Scottish opinion on them.
It is worth reflecting on the reasons for, and significance of, the emergence of organisations such as 38 Degrees and Avaaz. Clearly it has been facilitated by the internet, which enables people in distant locations to communicate and mobilise quickly. It can also be seen as a reaction against the influence of private lobbying and PR companies which have enjoyed privileged, behind-the-scenes access to politicians and other power-brokers.
The new organisations are keen to insist on their democratic and independent credentials. Furthermore, unlike some of the early environmental groups, their campaigning is not confined to single issues: they will take up a wide range of causes as long as they attract a reasonable level of popular support. But perhaps the strongest motivation for the new activists has been the widespread public disenchantment with traditional party politics in the wake of the expenses scandal and financial crisis. People question the integrity of established political processes and doubt the capacity and willingness of many elected representativeness to reflect their views and aspirations.
Yet another campaigning organisation, called TheyWorkForYou, has as its explicit aim ‘keeping tabs on the UK’s parliaments and assemblies’, further indicating the climate of suspicion that now hangs over the world of politics, as conventionally practised.
Many of the people behind the new organisations are young, energetic and idealistic. These are admirable qualities, but to imagine that they will be sufficient to alter the political landscape substantially may be naive. Those who possess power (people and institutions) do not give it up lightly. Moreover, they are very skilful at seeming to make concessions while continuing to pull the strings that really matter.
Witness the way in which genuine reform of the House of Lords has been endlessly delayed and watered down. The Royal family and the Catholic Church are also striking examples of institutions which, when faced with calls for change, have generally managed to concede as little as possible as late as possible. And, of course, those under attack will not sit back passively and hope the critics will go away. They will use the very considerable resources at their disposal, including influential internet sites and well-placed contacts in the media, to attack and misrepresent their opponents.
Starting an avalanche of popular opinion to sweep away practices that are perceived to be unfair or anti-democratic is an appealing image, but the old guard are well equipped with protective gear and will hope to dig in and ride the storm.
Walter Humes is a visiting professor of education at the University of Stirling
Too big to fail?
Dick Mungin
Alastair Campbell’s quip that Alex Salmond is a man who could strut sitting down certainly wasn’t applicable to the appearance of the first minister before the public audit committee of the Scottish parliament last week. For once he was almost humble in demeanour when questioned on the now infamous £180k secret loan to The Gathering, that weekend-long, summer panto of Scottish history for dummies, which graced the streets of our capital city back in 2009. Mike Russell, culture minister at the time when dark Gathering deeds were done, was by contrast bombastic under questioning by the committee.
The ministerial double act may have been entertaining but it served to raise serious questions as to how this government, its agencies and some local politicians go about their business. Those SR readers who have followed my long series of articles on The Gathering will be familiar with the essentials of the tale; government agrees with others, including Edinburgh City Council, to fund a clan event run by a company with a £2 limited liability; company runs out of cash weeks before the event; first minister agrees £180k secret loan without due diligence; event takes place and ministers bask in glory; two weeks later, the company admits it’s bust; ministers scramble to rescue company (and their reputation); Edinburgh City Council brought aboard to effect rescue but is left holding the baby. The fate of around 100 private creditors and some £400k of their money, not to mention public sector debts of a similar scale, is now in the hands of the liquidator.
As media attention last week focussed on the appearance of Alex Salmond and Mike Russell before the committee, little or no attention was paid to a whole slew of written submissions published with the committee papers, including one from Edinburgh City Council’s press officer. The council leader Jenny Dawe and her deputy Steve Cardownie had told the committee that they had not approved a highly controversial press release indicating that an arms’-length company controlled by the council would assume the private sector debts of The Gathering.
Jenny Dawe had said: ‘I was not contacted prior to that press release going out’, while Steve Cardownie had stated: ‘It was certainly not signed off by me’. However, in his written statement to the committee, the press officer details the circumstances in which the press release was drawn up and he is able to say, almost to the minute, when his leader and her depute agreed the document: ‘I received oral changes and approval from councillor Cardownie via councillor Tom Buchanan and oral approval from councillor Dawe’. He goes on to tell the committee: ‘The oral approval from councillor Dawe came shortly before I left her office at 5.15pm’. As if further confirmation were needed he also told the committee that he had had two telephone conversations with Steve Cardownie the morning after the press release went out. The councillor hadn’t raised any doubts about the press release.
All along ministers have trumpeted the economic returns to Edinburgh and wider Scotland of The Gathering as justification for the £180k loan. Experts engaged by the parliamentary tourism committee have begged to differ.
The first minister and Mike Russell were questioned closely as to the secrecy, or otherwise, of the £180k loan. While being indignant in response – secret loan? not us – both were forced to admit that it might have been better had EventScotland, the lead government agency for The Gathering, told its partners, Edinburgh City Council and Scottish Enterprise, of the existence of this loan. Clearly we are expected to believe that no discussion took place between ministers, civil servants, quangocrats et al regarding who would be told of the loan.
I know of one creditor, out of pocket by many thousand pounds, who says he would have been delighted to know of the loan. His services were engaged when the loan was under discussion and knowledge would have enabled him to run a mile. I havve a feeling that many others, now creditors, would have joined him. Perhaps this is the real reason the loan had to be kept secret. One would have thought that EventScotland had a duty to their partners in The Gathering to let them know of the large black hole in the company’s cash flow which had just been stuffed with a very fat cheque drawn on the bank of the taxpayers. Have they ever heard of fiduciary duty? Have the ministers?
Towards the end of his evidence to the committee last week the first minister finally passed the buck for the failure to rescue The Gathering and its hapless creditors. His words were: ‘I’m disappointed that the city did not keep to the agreement that had been made’. The members of the committee were astonished. They had every right to be. The political and executive leadership of the city council had told them just a few weeks before that there was no agreement in place to rescue The Gathering if it burdened the city with the debts of the private sector creditors. Not surprisingly, following the first minister’s statement, the committee have called for further clarification from the city council.
All along ministers have trumpeted the economic returns to Edinburgh and wider Scotland of The Gathering as justification for the £180k loan. Experts engaged by the parliamentary tourism committee have begged to differ. I suppose that’s to be expected. What’s that saying about damned lies and statistics? What no one can distort are the real figures of financial loss incurred by the procession of eagle-feathered clan chiefs up the Royal Mile. In approving and funding the event, but handing the management of it to a small company with a £2 share capital and little track record, the Scottish government exposed the public purse to unlimited liability.
The Scottish Ambulance Service lost £11,738, Lothian and Borders Police £27, 204, Historic Scotland £73,585, HMRC £65,000 and Edinburgh City Council £24,000. It could have been much more. In reality Mr Salmond had no option but to reach for his cheque book and bail out the event. The Gathering was too big too fail; the loss of reputation to Scotland, and dare we whisper it to our first minister, was potentially too great.
But maybe the Scottish government now grasps the damage the whole affair may have caused. On 14 September 2010 it published a report written by the civil servants responsible to Mike Russell for liaison with the Scottish diaspora; which after all was what the Year of Homecoming was supposed to be about. It listed the ‘five signature diaspora events’ on which Mr Russell’s team had worked in that year-long celebration. None of them is The Gathering. Now, isn’t that strange?
Dick Mungin is a consultant who lives in the Highlands
Cultural genocide
Elga Graves
Photograph by Islay McLeod
The choice of Curriculum for Excellence as an appropriate vehicle to drive up the current standards of educational attainment in Scottish primary schools is a mistake. A recent report by the consultancy firm McKinsey tends to confirm this.
Evaluating the relation between value for money spent, the type of curricular system employed, and improvements in standards achieved on a country to country basis, the McKinsey report concludes that a country which has not yet attained ‘basic standards’ ought to employ a highly centralised system until standards are driven up.
Whilst both schools and Scottish local authorities are reluctant to publish attainment in basic skills in a format which is clear and accessible to parents, it is nevertheless absolutely clear that Scotland has yet to deliver basic standards in reading and handwriting to many children and families. Ominously, there is no commitment by government agencies to gather and evaluate data on attainment in basic skills under the new curricular provisions published by Learning and Teaching Scotland.
Stumbling one’s way, finger pointing and breath gasping from three letter word to three letter word on a 30-word page of jumbo-sized font is not reading. It is a deeply humiliating, disempowering experience for seven-year-old boys and girls. And research indicates that by eight years old it is already becoming too late to remedy the situation. This uncomfortable scenario is a commonplace in primary schools in many areas of Scotland.
A mistake is a mistake. However, the recently introduced Curriculum for Excellence is like buying a Ferrari for boys and girls who need roller skates. Indeed, it is possible that while other nations crawl their way out of the economic mire, the only thing Scotland may be on the way to achieving is a generation of non-readers, unemployable by any standards and without the tools to help themselves – a sort of cultural genocide carried out with indifference on our own people.
Of course, it is no bad thing for a government to own a vaunting scholastic ambition on behalf of its people. However, the scale of the waste and immodesty in this case is breathtaking. In the course of disbursing millions of pounds it looks like a small number of officials and politicians took a quick turn round Finland and then like Andy Pipkin in ‘Little Britain’ pronounced ‘Want that one!’ But Finland, having already progressed well beyond the ‘basic standards’, may not be the most useful model.
Frank Field’s report on child poverty published this week asserts that life chances may be lost for far too many children by the time that they arrive at the primary school gate. Which implies that action should be taken before that point. Learning and Teaching Scotland, the government agency charged with implementing improvements, claims on its website to have consulted parents at every stage of this eye-wateringly expensive fiasco. In any meaningful interpretation of the word consult this assertion is disingenuous. The only parent representative on the managing board of Learning and Teaching Scotland appears to be a paid official of the government education department.
There is no more respectable and courageous person than the parent, usually a mum, but sometimes a dad or a grandparent, who turns up to a school meeting and tells a teacher: ‘I had a dreadful time in school. I enjoyed no success at all. I still have some problems with reading and I want it to be different for my child. Tell me what to do and I will do it’.
What resources are available should be put to involving the family and helping them to help the child at the earliest stages: yes, there will be unreachable feckless, but the feckless are fewer than is supposed. Every family and every child deserves the tool of literacy as a right.
Elga Graves lives in Edinburgh. She teaches in a primary school and has a special interest in literacy issues
