CAMPAIGNING FOR SCOTLAND (Owned, Edited and Printed in Scotland since November 1926) "Promoting all that is best in Scottish Nationalism and all that is best in Scotland." Content of the Flag in the Wind Web Site is the copyright of the Scots Independent Newspaper. [ Issue 345 -  12th January 2007]

Compiled by Richard Thomson

Lib Dums (Part MCXVIII)

I simply had to start my first ‘Flag’ of 2007 by having a laugh at the antics of everyone’s favourite opposition/government (delete according to circumstances) party, the Liberal Democrats. For quite simply, in this week’s Scottish Parliament debate on government spending, they proved for all time the wisdom in the old adage that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

Deciding on this occasion that they were government rather than opposition, they decided to accuse the SNP of having uncosted spending commitments. This they did in the time-honoured fashion of saying that ‘if you’re going to spend this amount on doing that, where’s the money to do it going to come from?’.

Tee-hee-hee - how clever. Sadly for the Lib Dem speakers, though, the SNP’s Alex Neil was on the case, and managed to intervene to ask what spending the Lib Dems planned to cut in order to fund their proposed cuts in income tax. Three times Alex intervened on three different speakers, and each time answer came there none. The sound of rapidly escaping air was deafening.

Jeremy Purvis also took to his feet, and used his time to claim that SNP figures in a document called ‘Scotland in Surplus’, were wrong because they didn’t take into account the party’s proposed cut in corporation tax. Sadly for Jeremy, the SNP figures to which he refers represent an analysis of the revenues and expenditure which take place in Scotland in the current year, and not a dynamic budget showing what the SNP would do in government. This is something the document explains very clearly – that lack of attention to detail won’t do your ministerial chances any good, Jeremy!

However, to spare Mr. Purvis’ blushes, the ‘chump of the day’ title had to be split between Argyll MSP George Lyon and his equally irascible colleague for North East Fife, Iain Smith, both of whom claimed that the SNP had hacked out £750m of defence spending between the party’s July ‘Scotland in Surplus’ paper and it’s December update.

Whoops-a-daisy! That correction for the government’s overestimated defence spending in Scotland was in the July document as well. For future reference, boys, it’s in the bit about ‘Expenditure’ under the heading ‘Defence’. There’s also a dirty big appendix on page 12, ‘appendix 1’ as it happens’, which explains the figure more fully.

Still, it’s not my fault if you can’t be bothered to do your homework properly. Now, if only I was able to find some way to get the theme tune for ‘The Muppets’ out of my head…

Protesting Too Much?

Well, well, well. If the ‘Sunday Herald’ newspaper is to be believed, it seems like one of Labour's Scottish MPs is in talks with the SNP about crossing the floor.

The MP, whom it is claimed has had several discussions with SNP bigwigs about joining the party, is said to be unhappy with the decision to renew Trident, as well as with the current situation in Iraq. If it does come to pass before next May, it will represent a body-blow to Labour's chances of re-election in the Scottish Parliamentary elections.

I'll say here and now that I'm too far down the SNP food chain to know whether this is true or not. For that reason, I would have been inclined to file it under the category of 'I'll believe it when I see it'. However, that was before I read Labour's denial on the BBC News website.

Describing the story as "Fundamentally untrue", a Labour spokesman said: "These talks are so secret that no Labour MP has been involved in them". He then went on to bluster about imaginary black holes, before making a silly remark that perhaps "Alex Salmond is so keen to speak to Labour MPs because Labour is the party with ideas for Scotland's future that will unlock the potential of every Scot, and SNP MPs are fighting like ferrets in a sack."

Does anyone else think this denial might be just a little too spirited, a touch too vehement? It would have been enough to dismiss the story as untrue, but to describe it as 'fundamentally untrue' before launching into an unusually vigorous version of his party's standard ad hominem anti-SNP diatribe, suggests that a nerve might have been touched.

No smoke without fire? Who can tell. One thing's for certain, though. With discontent over Blair reaching a crescendo and Labour about to lose a large chunk of their local government base thanks to PR, their internal cohesion is likely to be tested over the next few months as never before.

Making Waves Around the World

A new global TV station hit the airwaves towards the end of last year, offering a round-the-clock diet of news and analysis. It's probably fair to say that the big boys of international news coverage, the BBC, CNN and Al-Jazeera, are not presently quaking with fear and apprehension at the arrival of the upstart France 24. Nonetheless, the launch of the station, a joint venture between TF1 and France Télévisions, is significant if only for the reminder that not everyone in the Western world shares the slant on events offered by newsrooms in London and Atlanta.

France 24 will broadcast for a global audience via cable, satellite and over the internet, and aims to present the world through French eyes. While there has been some Anglocentric one-upmanship about the fact the station will have to broadcast in English to secure its coveted global audience, the French have clearly taken the pragmatic decision that the perspective offered by the channel is far more important than the language in which it is delivered.

Of course, it’s not just the French who appreciate the significance of the broadcast media. Governments have always realised the influence which broadcasting beyond one's borders could bring, mainly because of the importance of broadcasting at home. That's because our broadcasters have a unique place in our national life, in that they reflect the interests of a country's people, influence how issues are perceived, and help give people a sense of who they are.

This being so, what would an international evesdropper deduce from the output of a typical day on Radio Scotland? If they tuned into 'Good Morning Scotland', they might get an idea of a country interested in politics and international affairs, but not so interested as to insist on coverage as probing or intelligent as that provided by Radio 4. However, despite a promising enough start, by 8.50am it all starts to go horribly, horribly wrong.

I've nothing against radio phone-ins. Just so long as they're hosted by someone who can balance the need to be polite to callers, with being ruthless enough to challenge the irrelevant, the nonsensical and the downright deluded. Alas, this is a category into which presenter Gary Robertson does not seem to fall.

Don't get me wrong, he sounds a pleasant enough guy and you have to work with the material you are given. But while accepting that the folk who are both able to listen to the programme and have the inclination to call in are unlikely to be representative, in giving voice to a steady procession of the crabbit, the intolerant and the plain miserable, his programme manages to serve as the radio equivalent of a letter written in green ink.

If our listener had managed to resist the temptation to throw themself off a high building before the programme's end, they would next be treated to Fred MacAuley. Perhaps its just the sort of palliative needed after the psychological damage inflicted by the phone-in, but anodyne would be too strong a description for it. In a slot traditionally given over to probing discussion, this is a programme which seems designed to put late risers back to sleep and drive students out to their lectures.

The afternoon is made up with the quirky chat and eclectic musical tastes of Tom Morton, before giving way to the drivetime news and traffic reports as those too busy to phone Gary Robertson in the morning struggle back home from work. Then after an hour or so of music, it's fitba' time. It matters not whether there is a game on - just 90 minutes of action from the previous Saturday is sufficient to fill up 3 hours of airtime every night for the rest of the week. And from there, its over to Ian Anderson, before the insomniacs are either treated to snippets from the archives or handed back to the tender mercies of Radio 5.

Now, bashing BBC Scotland can be something of a national pastime, and I've no desire to become the sort of bore who still chunters about how things have never been the same since Art Sutter and Jimmy McGregor were moved on. Nonetheless, even a comparison with 10 years ago should be enough to convince the impartial observer that Radio Scotland is now a shadow of what it once became.

I can still remember the pounding that former controller James Boyle took when he dragged the station kicking and screaming into the 1990's. While he might have upset the unco guid of the New Town, his legacy was a revitalised station and a barrowload of industry plaudits. For a time, Radio Scotland again became a station worth listening to, reflecting the very best of the nation it aspired to represent while retaining a common touch and a wry, dry sense of humour.

There’s no shortage of pundits around prepared to tell us that in today’s globalised world, being able to present your own unique view of the world matters less and less. The problem is that even if that were true, no-one seems to have told the rest of the world. How ironic it would be if we were to heed these siren voices at home and tolerate our national broadcaster’s continued decline, just as the French decide its time to take up cudgels in the international battle of the bandwidth.