Scottish Political News

I was pleased to see that Scottish Unionist named me as his number one Scottish political blog. My increasingly sporadic and rambling posts probably do not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as, say, Ideas of Civilisation or Jeff Breslin, but I will not complain!

Better than being number 1 in Scottish Unionist’s list, though, was the testimonial he gave this blog:

Non-partisan analysis from a thought-provoking contrarian. Fantastic.

Reading that particularly pleased me because it confirmed that I am achieving pretty much everything I have come to wish to achieve by blogging. Over the years I’ve been blogging (since 2002, would you believe), I have spent some time thinking about what I want to achieve as a blogger, what makes bloggers good and what sets them apart from the mainstream media.

One of my conclusions has been that there is no point in being predictable if you are a blogger. There is no point in setting up a little platform to express yourself only to be boring when you climb onto it.

One of the biggest crimes any writer can commit is to give you what you expect. When I started to go off newspapers, it was because the op-ed pages are always full of clichés, sloppy partisanship and ideological tub-thumping. More often than not, you can read the heading, see who wrote it, then practically write the column yourself.

Simply, what is the point in reading what Polly Toynbee has to say about rich people? Because you certainly won’t learn anything. I can only think that the only people who read Polly Toynbee are those who take delight in fisking her on one side, and those who are seeking to have their own prejudices confirmed on the other.

As a blogger — i.e. someone who says to people, “look at me and listen to what I have to say” — I owe it to my readers to be interesting. There would be no point in me writing something bland and predictable — and that is one of the reasons why my posting can become quite sporadic at times. Better to say nothing at all than to say something boring, I think. If it ever got to the stage where I stopped offering anything different, I would find myself with no readers left.

That perhaps means that I am tempted to exaggerate my views and emphasise the areas where I am out of phase with the general public. Indeed I do sometimes use “artistic license”. Often I will put forward what may be seen as an unusual view, though I do so more to ask the question and raise the point rather than because I actually agree with it. However I certainly don’t lie or put my name to something that I don’t believe in.

This is an extension of my “real life” self. I often find myself, almost unwittingly, arguing against my own beliefs in the instance where I agree with the person I’m having a conversation with. There is little that worries me more than agreement. Disagreements are what makes the world go round, and it can all get a bit too cosy if I find myself agreeing too often.

This isn’t because I am a combative person, because I am not. But I am genuinely scared of groupthink. If we all agree about things and fail to challenge received wisdom, we will soon find ourselves being the victim of the scenario we failed to foresee. Either that or we will find ourselves stunted by complacency. Debating issues keeps the mind sharp, focusses attention on why we believe something and reminds us why we reject the alternative. In short, disagreement is a good thing and should be encouraged in my view!

There is also the prospect that people are jumping on the bandwagon and are agreeing for the sake of agreement. You might say that I disagree for the sake of disagreement, but I think that my approach is the safer option. Almost inevitably, the truth lies somewhere between two extremes and I think it is wise to experiment with the balance to see where it lies.

So I was delighted to be described as a non-partisan, thought-provoking contrarian. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

I think, though, that most of us bloggers know all this. The blogosphere is a wonderful place to have a discussion. Our world is a normally respectful one where alternative ideas are discussed with seriousness. It can be a great platform for people who have ideas that are not well represented in the mainstream media.

That is one of the reasons for the existence of that gulf between Joe Blogs and Joe Public. We know there is no point in just regurgitating the views we see in the mainstream media. Our role is to question the mainstream media and consider the alternatives.

The blogosphere is no place for boilerplate clichés and ideological tubthumping. Boring, predictable writers are ignored in this great forum of interesting debate. So let’s see some more contrariness!

A wee while back, I spent a couple of nights in hospital. Nothing serious, a gastric problem.

The medical and nursing treatment was excellent. The journey of care, as I believe it is occasionally known, less so.

The ward was cluttered and crowded. Information was sporadic and, sometimes, contradictory. It was difficult to discern who was in charge of care provision.

Then there was the cabaret. One patient was apparently anxious to resume his maritime career. He told us, repeatedly and loudly, that he had to get back to the islands to rejoin his boat. He took especial care to stress this point during the middle of the night, lest we might doze off and miss something.

It might have been Pinteresque - a little like the character keen to get to Sidcup to collect his papers. Unaccountably, however, my dramatic sensitivities were a little dulled. Lack of sleep, perhaps.

Brutes that we were, we, his fellow patients, cheered inwardly when, finally, he did a runner, doubtless in search of his vessel. However, the police, with a greater sense of duty than mercy, picked him up close by and returned him to our company. The lamentations began again.

I thought of this as I heard Nicola Sturgeon on the wireless this morning making a distinction between medical/nursing treatment and the wider provision of care. The latter, she felt, had flaws.

And what, exactly, was she discussing? The fact that a corpse was left lying in a hospital ward for seven hours. Seven - count them - hours. Two meals went by. The deceased remained in situ.

For pity's sake, has it come to this? Spare us the soothing jargon, please. Full inquiry, must never happen again, errors in procedure. A corpse was left lying beside sick people. For seven hours.
The justification? The family of the deceased, to whom all sympathy, apparently wanted the body left in the ward to allow one relative time to get to the hospital.

Again, sympathy. But did no-one consider the competing interests of the other patients and their families? Rights are not absolute, even in death. They must be balanced with the rights of others. Did no-one at the hospital think that, on balance, it was preferable to say no to this request?

Even after the relative arrived, there was a further delay in moving the body. To repeat, a corpse lay in a hospital ward for seven hours. Forget Pinter. This is straight from Gogol. Give me strength.

My sympathy to the family of John MacDougall, who has died after a prolonged illness.

As others have borne witness, the length of the preparation does not lessen the shock of the final loss.

Born in Dunfermline, John MacDougall was a Fifer through and through. Indeed, his was almost the quintessential Fife Labour career.

Employment at the Methil yard, service as a union shop steward, Labour branch chair, Fife councillor and council leader, MP in Henry McLeish's old Fife constituency, then MP for the new Glenrothes seat.

He had, in truth, little opportunity to make an extensive or, more accurately, sustained impact at Westminster. Illness determined that: the insidious and hateful blight of Mesothelioma.

Political contest

But, added to his Westminster service, he will be remembered for his substantial work in union, council and party circles - plus his efforts within European politics. Plus his commitment to his native Fife.

His death, of course, means a by-election. That will involve a political contest, a sharply-fought political contest.

But not yet, I trust, not yet.