A decade-and-a-half of institutional pigheadedness at the MoD

Many years ago, Sir John Day and Sir William Wratten, the two RAF Reviewing Officers who found the deceased pilots of the Mull of Kintyre crash guilty of gross negligence, appeared before a House of Lords committee that was inquiring into the affair. Barely had the chairman managed to finish uttering his first question before Day and Wratten's astonishing arrogance was on full display. The question was irrelevant, they insisted, because it was about safety issues relating to the Chinook fleet, which had nothing to do with their rationale for finding the pilots guilty. All that mattered was that the pilots had been flying dangerously low in their approach to the Mull of Kintyre - no-one need trouble themselves with any details beyond that. And if anyone took issue with that proposition, it was because they lacked the Reviewing Officers' immense expertise.

The irony, of course, as yesterday's report makes abundantly clear, is that there was a key factor that the Reviewing Officers themselves should never have looked beyond, that should have utterly precluded them from finding the pilots guilty, and that was only set aside because of their own lack of expertise in the relevant area. That factor was the incredibly high standard of proof required to find deceased pilots guilty of gross negligence, ie. "absolutely no doubt whatsoever". You only need to look at the difference between that and the standard criminal test of "beyond reasonable doubt" to understand the implications - even an "unreasonable doubt" may be sufficient reason to acquit. OK, perhaps not the possibility that the aircraft was hijacked by pixies, but just about any other conceivable doubt you might care to raise. As it happens, the report lists so many potential grounds for doubt that the Reviewing Officers chose to ignore that it's hard to see how even the "beyond reasonable doubt" test could be said to have been satisfied.

The real disgrace, though, is not the original verdict, but the way that the MoD have pig-headedly attempted to defend it to the death over the last decade-and-a-half, in spite of the obvious flaws in the Reviewing Officers' reasoning. It's also been incredibly telling that every single Defence Secretary (and indeed every junior Defence minister) over that period has "gone native" and obediently defended the verdict, rather than engaging their own brain cells and examining the issues objectively. The worst offender (unsurprisingly) was John Reid, that obsequious loyalist to "the British way" and venerable British institutions like the MoD, who we learned on Channel 4 News acted like a petulant "two-year-old" when two aviation experts had the audacity to raise concerns with him - he apparently sat in his chair with his finger to his mouth, refusing to acknowledge or engage with anything that was being said.

Given her known views about Mr Reid, it's a rather delicious irony that Helen Liddell, of all people, sat on the panel that finally cleared the pilots, and savaged the MoD's conduct over the years.

Will the last Murdoch apologist to leave the building please turn out the lights

On the morning of the 1992 general election, The Sun ran one of the most infamous headlines in British history -

"If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights"

Curiously, however, we learned from a Murdoch apologist on Newsnight last night that this was in no sense an attempt to tell people "not to vote for Kinnock".

Crikey. It does rather beg the question - what on earth would a proper anti-Kinnock headline have looked like?

Questions for Alex Gallagher (to which the answer may well be "I no speak so good zee Eengleesh")

I've just caught up with Councillor Alex Gallagher's latest "contribution to the debate" on independence over at Labour Hame. Some of his musings do give rise to a few intriguing questions, if he can spare the time...

"But they are sure that we must have referendum. Nae buts, nae mebbes, it’s the seasonal right of the Nat Triumphal that s/he must have a single/double/triple question consultation with the – it has to be said – largely uninterested populace.

But.

Wait a wee minute. Aren’t we leaping ahead just a tiny wee bit? Do we really need it?"

D'you know, Alex, I seem to recall a time, not so long ago, when Labour told us that "we were getting ahead of ourselves" by seeking an independence referendum before winning a specific mandate for it. There now is an utterly unambiguous mandate for a referendum. If that is no longer the test for determining if a referendum is appropriate, just exactly what is? Whether Mr Alex Gallagher, Labour councillor for North Coast and Cumbraes, personally approves of it? Forgive our sniggers as you sheepishly admit the answer to that question is "yes".

"Nor have I heard any positive, comprehensive and coherent case made by any Nationalist from any wing of the party that would convince anyone, on mature reflection, that it is better for the people of Scotland that we sever our links with our neighbours"

Given that opinion polls consistently show a significant minority of the Scottish people are convinced by the arguments for independence (indeed there has sometimes been a plurality in favour), does that mean you are by definition branding every single one of those people "immature" and incapable of "reflection"? Once again, forgive our sniggers as you sheepishly admit the answer to that question is "yes".

"But that fact in itself doesn’t seem to me a sufficient argument for breaking the subsequent, and successful, union of these countries"

Don't we first have to establish whether it actually is "successful" or not, before we can take that as read? Once again, we appear to have something of a problem with benchmarks here, because it's only a matter of weeks since Councillor Gallagher informed us that if the majority of people rejected the notion that the union is "successful" by voting against its continuation in a referendum, that was neither here nor there - Scotland should be forced to remain in the union, because the minority of people "mature" enough to understand (snigger) are apparently the only ones entitled to adjudicate upon the question. I believe scientists would call this a falsifiability problem - how do we know if someone is sufficiently "mature"? Why, by checking if they agree with Mr Alex Gallagher, Labour councillor for North Coast and Cumbraes, of course.

"By that argument, the principalities of pre-Bismarck Germany or 18th century Italy should all be independent. Indeed, if once-upon-a-time difference was a case for independence, why not return to the borders of Pictland or Dalriada or any other of the ancient kingdoms?"

Alex, mate, deep breath here, and I will try to help you understand. You appear to be using the line "Scotland was once independent" as a muddled proxy for the argument that nationalists actually put forward - that Scotland is a nation and thus has the right to self-determination. Not that it must be independent because it once was, but that it has the right to choose for itself. The reason why the Scottish independence debate has absolutely no bearing on the future of the "principalities of pre-Bismarck Germany" is because we have no right to choose for them, and they have no right to choose for us. But if you want to pursue this logic, it certainly has rather profound implications - are you suggesting that we should never alter our income tax rates, without ensuring (by military force if necessary) that the new rates also apply in Peru? After all, how can we seriously argue that something is good for Scotland if we don't have the courage of our convictions by demanding that it must also be good for Peru, or Mongolia, or Equitorial Guinea? Actually, don't bother answering, Alex - the entire planet can see you're havering on this one. Moving on...

"What is the point of claiming sovereignty from the UK only to invest it in the EU? All the arguments about remoteness from decision making and the differences in culture (London’s too far away, the English don’t understand Scotland) just look silly when the idea is to replace London with Brussels and UK law makers with law makers from 27 other countries – including, incidentally, England. It’s frankly nuts."

Excellent, Alex - would you therefore confirm that you now support only pooling sovereignty with the rest of the UK to the far, far more limited extent that EU states pool sovereignty with each other? What do you mean, "no"? In that case, I'm slightly unclear as to what point you think you're making here. What do you mean, "er"?

"Meanwhile, on the real evidence in the real world, there are strong indications that an “independent” Scotland would have significant economic weaknesses as compared to its current position."

What, you mean like the real-world evidence in GERS that an independent Scotland would have a proportionately smaller deficit than the UK does at present?

"The collapse of the Scottish banks and Alex Salmond’s preferred Celtic Tiger model has laid bare (some would say threadbare) the paucity of the Nationalists’ economic analysis."

Given that the collapse of those "Scottish banks" occurred under the regulation laid down by the UK Labour government, doesn't it say rather more about the paucity of Gordon Brown's economic analysis?

"It’s likely that an “independent” Scotland would be weaker in defence and security terms as well"

Just when are the Russians planning to invade, Alex? Given that Labour is (or so Duncan Hothersall assures me) an "international movement", shouldn't you be doing something to warn those in an even "weaker" position to defend themselves, such as poor little Luxembourg?

"Better to pretend that their Scotland wouldn’t have a military or a defence posture or even a foreign policy, a ridiculous position but acceptable to the SNP, apparently."

Could you direct me to the relevant link on the SNP website, please, Alex? Certainly the first I've heard of any of this.

And, last but not least, here comes the biggie -

If you're so happy to post under your own name on Labour Hame and a variety of other websites, Councillor Alex, why are you so mysteriously bashful on your own blog?

Hisse et ho, Santiano...

Way back in the mists of time (well, 1999 to be specific) I was on a family holiday in Brittany, and we just happened to be doing some sightseeing in Saint Malo when the Tall Ships Race was in town.  I mainly just regarded it as a nuisance, as we got stuck in traffic as the procession of competitors went by at a snail's pace.  Later on, I got into a conversation with a couple from Jersey who were enthusing about the whole thing ("oh, isn't it marvellous?), and asking me if I had been down to see the ships "yet".  I didn't have the heart to tell them I had no intention of doing so!  A couple of weeks later I was back home, and as it turned out the next stop for the race was in Greenock, and the media were talking about it as if it was the biggest thing ever.  I started to feel a bit silly for having passed up the opportunity in Saint Malo, so I decided to have a second bite of the cherry.  It was very good, although the organisation left a lot to be desired - there were mile-long queues at the train stations in both directions, no doubt as a result of the over-the-top decision to virtually cordon off the whole of Greenock.

Twelve years on, and the event is back in Greenock, so I went along again yesterday. I'm pleased to report the organisation is much better this time, although when I was making my way back I did feel like strangling someone who forced me to go about a quarter-of-a-mile out of my way because I had attempted to enter Bogston Station by the 'wrong entrance for my destination'!  I later discovered that if I'd just told him I'd been going to Gourock instead of Glasgow I could have saved myself the walk and he'd have been none the wiser - I think it was a health and safety measure that was being over-zealously applied at a time when the station was extremely quiet.

The event itself is a bit curious - it's a bit difficult to soak up the maritime atmosphere when you have a Duran Duran tribute band belting out Hungry Like the Wolf a few feet away!  Other random highlights included 'Four Poofs and a Piano' performing an Abba medley, a dance group called 'The Temptress Girls' (or something of the sort) performing a routine that was a bit on the racy side for an audience that must have been at least 20% comprised of confused-looking children, and last but not least "TV's Colin and Justin" pacing up and down purposefully in very sharp suits.  It may not have made a lot of sense, but at least there was no danger of boredom!

Photos on Friday : Barcelona, Besalu and (possibly) Girona

In spite of the 'sensational' news that the News of the World is to be replaced by the 'Sun on Sunday' (will life ever be the same again?), and even in spite of the supreme irony of Tory-supporting online posters suddenly becoming the friend of the downtrodden working man and lamenting that "the workforce have been hounded out of their jobs by Ed Miliband" (!), I must admit I'm feeling distinctly "politicked out" at the moment. So I thought I'd do a trial run of a potential new regular non-political feature, and one that is considerably less time-consuming than Word-Search Wednesday at that. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Photos on Friday, in which Scot Goes Pop! showcases the very finest in travel photography from all around the worl...well, OK, it's my holiday snaps.

I thought I'd start with some more of my Catalan pictures from last September.  The first one is from the very picturesque small town of Besalu, the second is...I'm not quite sure, it might be from the top of Barcelona Cathedral, but I think it's more likely to be the Arab Baths in Girona.  The third could also be either the interior of Barcelona or Girona Cathedral (I really must learn to take notes).  The others are all definitely from Barcelona, though!  As ever, click to enlarge.

A critic of the Murdoch empire? Get out of your parents' basement and GROW UP.

When a UK news story makes headlines across the Atlantic, it's always entertaining to read right-wing reaction on the online comments threads. Over at the CNN website, there seems to be a pro-Murdoch/Fox News rebuttal squad in operation, although trying to work out the exact relationship of the 'rebuttal' to the comment being 'rebutted' is something of a challenge. A few choice examples...

BinaryTruth : Fox News Channel is the greatest domestic terrorist threat in America today.

jerrycc : I just read about America's lost generation of boys in their 20's languishing away in their parents basements playing video games, surfing the web and refusing to work or grow up. I guess you do exist.

A nerve was hit, I think we can conclude.

Monkeynuts : Hugh Grant should get a knighthood for some of the interviews he's given in the last few days. The man's a genius.

GDINY2 : Here in the US, a knight is a piece on a chessboard and not some effete, callow schmuck who has to be called "sir" to establish his masculinity. Try moving out of the middle ages, limey.

Chess? Masculinity? What? But no, absolutely, let's move out of the middle ages and become an egalitarian country like...er, America.

cummings01 : What has happened to the Britain I knew and loved?

jerrycc : Socialism destroyed Britain a long time ago.

Quite right. If you want to know how the media in Britain came to be completely dominated by a single right-wing Australian billionaire, look no further than "socialism".

'Ye dinnae ken me but I ken you'

Three years ago, there was an infamous incident in the world of curling when the Scottish women's team ended up playing their concluding games at the World Championship with only three players. What had seemingly happened was that the skip Gail Munro had been dropped from the team, her third Lyndsay Wilson had refused to play without her, and Munro had subsequently refused to re-enter the team to fill the gap left by Wilson. Yesterday, however, Munro won a defamation case against the then-national coach Derek Brown, and it is now clear that everything was not quite as it appeared.

Leaving aside the catastrophic breakdown in the relationship between the players and the coaching staff, what leapt out at me from the judge's ruling was this extraordinary account of how the public had reacted to Munro on the basis of false information -

"Some of the local population where she lived had sympathised with her, but others had not. By way of illustration she described having been out for lunch recently and overhearing her name mentioned. When she had turned round an older gentleman had looked her in the eye and said "Aye, ye dinnae ken me but I ken you. You're the lass that didnae play for your country"."

Even if that hadn't turned out to be untrue, it has to be asked - what is with some people that they think they have a God-given right to intrude into the lives of strangers like that? I think if I'd been in Munro's position I'd have been tempted to reply - "Don't you think there's probably a very good reason why I dinnae ken you?"

The amateurism of modern journalism : a small example

A couple of days back, I discussed how startlingly amateurish journalists can be sometimes. A good example of this can be seen right now in relation to a subject that I've raised on this blog in the past - Dr. Aubrey de Grey's predictions that a breakthrough in life extension technologies may be made in the next few decades. If you type his name into the Google news search function, you'll see a flurry of uncannily similar news reports from the last 24 hours, all of which seem to have been modelled on a single report from Reuters. Nothing wrong with that, so long as the journalists concerned have checked for accuracy. But as it is, many of the articles contain an identical error. For instance, this is from the Daily Mail -

"It's a milestone that few, if any, of us expect to reach.

But the first person who will live to see their 150th birthday has already been born, according to a leading scientist.

Even more incredibly, Aubrey De Grey believes that the first person to live for 1,000 years will be born in the next two decades."

And this from Opposing Views -

"A British doctor claims we are not too far away from virtually living forever -- in fact, he thinks the first person to live 1,000 years will be born in our lifetime."

In reality, as the quickest of internet searches would have revealed, de Grey has been saying for many years that he thinks the first 1000-year-old has probably already been born, and indeed may now be in the latter half of middle age. In this case, the journalists are potentially doing him a favour by (unwittingly) toning the prediction down, because the boldness of his claim tends to encounter instinctive resistance, but even so it's a very sloppy reporting error. So how did it happen? Presumably, de Grey told Reuters that the first 150-year-old had probably already been born, and that the first 1000-year-old was probably less than twenty years younger than that person. Someone then put 2 and 2 together, made 22, and took that as an indication that the first 1000-year-old was due to be born in the next twenty years. A whole series of news outlets went on to take their cue in herd-like fashion.

This sort of thing is, alas, scarcely uncommon in journalists' reporting of pronouncements by scientists. At the height of the BSE scare, every new snippet of information was heralded by hysterical headlines suggesting either that millions were about to die, or that the problem was now completely over - in spite of the fact that the information itself was almost always extremely ambiguous. It seems that many journalists are simply allergic to ambiguity, nuance or detail - but even if that won't be changing any time soon, it would at least be a start if they actually wrote their own articles from scratch, rather than using a ready-made template and very superficially "putting it into their own words".

'You do not speak for Scotland, sir'

Gerry Hassan has written a very detailed analysis of last night's Newsnight debate on 'the future of the Union'. I must say that personally I wouldn't be quite so effusive about Rory Stewart's performance - he's undoubtedly very articulate and has a 'screen presence', but he got himself into very unwise territory when he flatly informed a Scot in the audience who gave primacy to a Scottish identity that "you do not speak for Scotland, sir". Stewart's proof for this assertion was that his own father is Scottish, lives in Crieff and is "very proud to be British". This, of course, is the classic Tory delusion that got them into such a pickle over the Poll Tax - forget about elections and opinion polls, authentic Scottish opinion is represented by their father or third cousin once removed, or that well-bred chap they once canvassed in Drymen. Admittedly, for as long as there is more than one view held among the public, no-one can literally claim to speak for all of Scotland, but what evidence we have on majority opinion is clear enough - the Scot in the audience was much closer to speaking for modern Scotland's aspirations than that British imperial throwback Rory Stewart, former Deputy Governor of two Iraqi provinces. No wonder Rory still thinks there is something terribly "precious" to be lost if the Union bites the dust - how many other thirtysomething Scots have been given the wizard opportunity to rule a conquered Middle Eastern country? Would never happen under independence.

While we've seen much worse from Paxman, he was scarcely the most even-handed moderator, allowing Michael Portillo to wax lyrical for several minutes about the supposed historic British tradition of anti-fanaticism, but almost biting Joan McAlpine's head off when she tried to introduce a bit of balance by pointing out that one of the first acts of the British state was a pogrom in the Highlands of Scotland. "Oh, we're not going back to that," he groaned after an apparent Damascene conversion about the unimportance of British history, "I want to look forward". Earlier, he had taunted McAlpine about the failure of the "Scottish banks", but ten seconds later airily brushed off a member of the audience who pointed out that many of the bankers in those "Scottish banks" were English. My own point would have been more that those banks failed under UK rather than Scottish regulation, but doubtless Paxo would have regarded that as a "cheap shot" as well. He's certainly the expert on those.

The other thing that leapt out at me from the debate was the utter incoherence of the argument put forward by the representative of the English Democrats. Once again, it seems that underneath the veneer they are classic right-wing Brit Nats, who are lashing out at Scottish and Welsh presumptuousness with an affectation of English nationalism. What England is crying out for is an equivalent of the SNP or Plaid - a left-of-centre (or at the very least centrist) civic nationalist party that believes in English self-government for the right reasons.

Questions to which the answer is 'look into my eyes, look into my eyes, don't look around the eyes, the eyes, the eyes, you're under...when you wake up you will under NO CIRCUMSTANCES remember you have just asked me a question'

A quick follow-up to the UNANSWERED question I asked of our Labour Hame friends the other day -

You recently claimed that Alex Salmond had no need to call a referendum in order to secure new powers for the Scottish Parliament, citing the Calman process as a precedent. Why, then, is Labour peer (and Labour Hame contributor) George Foulkes tabling an amendment to the Scotland Bill that insists the Calman proposals can only come into effect after an affirmative vote in a referendum?

In your own time, guys...