A month ago Martin Ford was a fairly anonymous, quietly efficient and widely respected chair of the Infrastructures Planning Committee at Aberdeenshire Council. Today he was sacked from his job as chair of that committee by a vote that included a very large number of abstentions. Sacked – not for bringing the Council into disrepute by immoral, dishonest or otherwise disreputable behaviour, but because he acted within agreed and established Council standing orders and used his casting vote.

The problem is, he used it according to his conscience, and his conviction of what was right for the local authority he was elected to represent. He dared to not support a £1 billion pound development on the Aberdeenshire coast. He felt unable to approve a multi-million plan that would, in his view be detrimental to the area. He had the courage / stupidity / wisdom / folly (delete as you think applicable) to defy corporate America. But whether his judgement was right or wrong,(opinions vary wildly) whether he drives a car or not (and he doesn’t), whether he approves airport expansion or not ( he doesn’t), whether he represents business interests and aspirations ( and he clearly doesn’t), he was duly appointed after being locally elected. And now he has been removed in a charade that renders local democratic expression irrelevant. So he is removed; the constitution is to be changed to ensure that, in the opinions of the chief movers, such a ridiculous, unthinkable, outrageously blinkered decision cannot be made again by ensuring that in future the big applications go to the full Council.

Now I can see why people are angry with Mr Ford. I think the Council are entitled to change the constitution. I fully understand how it can be that opinion is deeply divided between business interests (almost unanimously for) and environmental and local concerns (almost unanimously against). But I see no justification for sacking a man who has done nothing wrong; who has not acted irresponsibly (after all his was a casting vote out of 13 – so six others shared whatever hesitations lead folk to vote against such a massive development opportunity. And several of them have spoken of bullying, assault and other personal threats.

But the Trump organisation now feel they are making good progress. Maybe so. But there is a political shabbiness, a moral distaste, an unpleasant odour caused by anxious sweating over filthy lucre, when concerted actions  remove an honourable man from an appointed position, because he acted according to conscience, within the proper procedures and processes, and as a duly elected local government official. I sometimes wonder what it would take for a Scottish Government, of whatever party, but especially one espousing independence(small ‘i’ deliberate) to take seriously the personal and practical cost of believing its own rhetoric. The chair of a local council ‘stood against them’…, ‘and sent them homewards, tae think again’, and his colleagues sacked him. The Scottish nation shaped ‘the democratic intellect’, contributed hugely to the development of a political process where equality, justice and respect were rooted in deep values, – surely we have more political principle, sense of justice and right, and cultural faithfulness than such goings on – but apparently not.

In some cultures to tear your clothes is a sign of grief, a symbolic way of showing that the fabric of life has been ripped apart by circumstances. It is a gesture of both recognition and resistance. The clothes we choose to wear make a statement, they send out social signals of who we are, how we feel about ourselves, and the place we inhabit in the lives of those around us. To rip up our clothes in public isn’t such a common protest in a culture which either pays silly money for designer labels, or pays silly money for  the ultra cheap.

So when an Archibishop of the Church of England, cuts up his dog-collar on a prime time Sunday Morning TV programme, we know we are seeing something extraordinary. Archbishop Sentamu spoke with passionate. prophetic bluntness about the regime of Robert Mugabe, the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe, and called for people to pray, march and protext. As he cut up his dog collar, which is a public sign of his identity, he vowed not to wear it again till Mugabe is gone. Just as the Mugabe regime has cut up people’s identity and taken it away, so the Archbishop of York in word and action, criticises, judges and names the political and economic evils that poison the life of the people of Zimbabwe.

I have nothing but admiration for this man, for his moral courage and the way he brings his own cultural heritage to his vocation as Archbishop. He is in the tradition of great lovers of Africa such as Aggrey of Ghana, Trevor Huddleston, Alan Paton, Desmond Tutu in speaking truth to power, and symbolising in action the hunger for righteousness that should drive those who follow Jesus and who pray and work for the Kingdom of God. In a culture saturated with political spin, verbal evasiveness and moral ambiguity, and with many politicians and cultural voices being heard in the stereophonic tones of self-preservation and self promotion, there is something ethically bracing and culturally hopeful about an Archbishop whose moral outrage is given theological force at vocational cost.

I for one salute the integrity and righteous anger of the Right Honourable and Most Reverend John Sentamu, Archbishop of York. The pieces of that ruined dog-collar take on sacramental significance, signs of that grace that will always confront the world at its worst.

Go see this gracious act of prophetic protest over here at a paper I don’t often read!

Alex Salmond is furious! The SNP Government have called in Donald Trump’s planning application after it was rejected by a local infrastructure committee. Now just to be clear, the SNP is the party committed to independence, and when it suits, becomes vocal about Scotland‘s beauty, its capacity to be self-sustaining, and the Scottish character trait of independence of mind.

How dare a local authority committee thwart corporate America? Sure the planned site up at Balmedie (see photo) is an area of outstanding beauty. And yes it is recognised as an area of special scientific interest on a world scale. Oh, and yes, it is the stopping point for thousands and thousands of migrating birds. And then, it’s surely too much to ask Mr Trump and his corporate executive go-getters to adjust the plans, to make concessions to local concerns. And then again, having failed to get planning permission because of a casting vote by a single committee convener, Mr Trump magnanimously declines to appeal, leaving the next move to a Scottish Government as independent as a struggling cash-strapped business afraid of losing the big contract.

But a Government isn’t a business – it is an elected body accountable to the people, and required to respect the decisions of democratically elected and locally devolved expressions of government. But Mr Salmond is furious! So let’s move the goalposts and change their dimensions; and let’s add on as much extra time as it takes; and we could show a couple of red cards to the opposition for something or other; oh, and what about ensuring the referee knows who’s paying his match fee. In other words, let’s call this decision in, even if it isn’t appealed, and since Mr Salmond is sidelined cos the proposed development is in his constituency, let’s have an impartial discussion that gets the decision right this time so that Mr Salmond can stop being furious.

If independence means anything other than defining ourselves by who we are not, then there is a serious political and moral-philosophical problem here. The political problem is who owns the word independence and who has the right to define its content and meaning? Is local government allowed to act independently and reflect the local concerns and context in their decision-making; or should every local committee now see its more significant decisions as provisional, hanging on the approval or say-so of Ministers more influenced by dollar-toting developers than local opinion, ecological concerns, or matters of Scottish heritage? Can local committees be treated in such a way that Martin Ford, convener of the offending committee, says unequivocally that members of the committee have been bullied? Will there be a public enquiry we wonder, where wider questions, local voices, and informed discussion can take place? And if there is, will Mr Trump’s spokes-people do the courtesy of attending, listening, and perhaps even modifying plans as requested previously? Or is it a case of money talking, one of the most powerful weapons of economic imperialism, and best resisted with that Scottish character trait – independence, of mind and nation.

The moral-philosophical problem arises when the interests of economic development conflict with the interests of natural heritage and ecological concern. That will always be a complex and contested discussion – as it should be. What is not so clear is whether the SNP Government have any interest, at least in this particular debate, in giving any serious consideration to what such a development would do to a significant and beautiful part of Scotland‘s natural heritage. What chance tern colonies, visiting waders, unique ferns and mosses, 4,000 year old sand dunes, long windswept white sanded beaches and some of the most attractive coastline in Scotland? Just what price would we put on natural beauty?

Then of course there is the question of footprints. I don’t mean the intriguingly lingering prints of beach walkers who have walked these beaches in their thousands for centuries without worrying about yells of ‘four’. I mean the carbon footprints of thousands of golfers jetting in, playing golf and jetting off. I mean the cost in energy and materials of building the project, maintaining it, creating the infrastructure. Again all complex stuff. But how much weight will such issues carry in discussions and decisions once the Ministers ‘call in’ the decision?

Mr Salmond is furious. I’m not too pleased myself.

Steve Maclaren will get £2.5 million compensation and is sacked. Half a dozen English football players get that much each in six months, and they are the ones who win or lose games. Why not start sacking football players from national teams when they don’t perform – clearance sale in January?

More seriously, why should a man who tries to do his best, even if that in the end isn’t good enough, be treated as if he had betrayed his country by selling its biggest secrets, or undermining its economy? A football game was lost at Wembley and the manager is savaged. A football match is lost at Hampden and the manager is head hunted by Birmingham. The English manager is humiliated in the press, and the Scottish manager’s market value soars. But Scotland against Georgia were no better than England against Croatia.

I love football – but why the rancourous fervour and unforgiving pseudo-solemnity with which a man is sacked? 

I lived in Aberdeen for years, and knew Robert who was a big player in the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. He used to talk about quotas, black fish, Brussels, the common fisheries policies, the way it was and the way it is. The balance between the needs of the industry and of the fishermen whose livelihoods depend on the sea, has been hard to maintain ever since the advent of factory scale fishing and declining stocks.

Today we discover that around 50% to 60% of catches are dumped as dead fish because they can’t be landed, and much of these are cod, one of the most threatened species in the North Sea. The chief fisheries officer in Europe says it’s immoral – which is about the least that can be said about it. I know the world is complicated, complex and that simple common-sense often doesn’t make sense when applied to the realities of modern economic activity. But in a world where millions are malnourished, on a planet already over-harvested, at a time when the proportion of world population to global food capacity is narrowing dangerously, to toss tens of thousands of tons of fish back into the sea, dead and thus unusable, is accurately described as an environmental crime. Theologically such required practices are a demonstration of structural sin; that is economic laws, national vested interests, technological power, market forces, and each of these driven and shaped by human activity, create a situation where such moral nonsense enables such iniquitous policies.

Somewhere around the glossy executive conference tables, in Brussels or elsewhere, decisions are made about the stewardship of our natural resources. In that hierarchy of arguments that are presented and debated, where is the weight placed – on scientific data, economic necessities, political constraints, social consequences or moral principles? And where in the entire debate is the idea of stewardship allowed to balance such ideas as exploitation, waste, ownership, market, national interest? Because only when stewardship means more than conserving in order to go on exploiting, only then will we be able to prevent the obscene spectacle of men feeding the seagulls thousands of tons of fish suppers.

None of us can claim to know the mind of the Creator, but in Genesis 1.26 when God said of human beings, ‘let them rule over the fish of the sea’, I respectfully suggest, as a consideration worth weighing, that it is probably unlikely and therefore a reasonably safe conclusion to draw, when due allowance is made for other viewpoints, that God didn’t have any of this in mind!

Scotland 1- Italy 2

Fair enough.

But just how good were Scotland today, and in this whole Euro 2008 campaign? Hard not to be flat after losing a goal at the end, and to a seriously dodgy refereeing decision. But not the slightest critical of a Scotland team who have given us some of our best footballing moments for decades.

Think ah’m gonnae buy a tartan tie – saw wan in yon Tie Rack at Braeheid, so they must be cool. In fact think ah might get a wee tartan tee shirt – no believe me. Here’s a wee photie o’ wan. Noo, kin ye wear a tie wi’ a tee-shirt?

Earlier this week I sat watching the evening news, and the report on the first SNP budget since coming into government. The ditching of the commitment to write off student loans rightly raised the temperature and deserved some serious debate. What we got was a slanging match, and the First Minister behaving like a yah-boo schoolboy. It doesn’t matter which party the First Minister represents, he or she represents the public face of Scotland and the pubic image of Scottish politics. Mr salmond was an embarrassment. So I emailed him, and so far have no response. But here’s what I wrote. Tell me if I am being unreasonably optimistic about the public role played by poltiicians who represent the Scottish people

Dear Mr Salmond

I have just listened to the TV coverage of your response to questions about non fulfilment of election commitments. Now I realise that there are ways of interpreting election promises, such as those made in relation to student debt. I work in academia and see first-hand the impact of debt on student morale and motivation. No doubt you have more substantial arguments / responses / excuses.

However my question is much more straightforward – are we to assume that the First Minister of Scotland, can only respond to opposition questions at the high intellectual level of worn out cliches such as over the moon, and sick as a parrot. The dignity of office, and the right of the Scottish Parliament to be taken seriously within and beyond Scotland, deserves better than this ranting rhetoric more suited to a playground show-off than one who aspires to lead this country to Independence. Funny it was not – embarrassing it certainly was, coming from a senior politician, and playing games with the disappointment of many of the young people whose commitment to Scotland will matter in our future

 

Yours with considerable disappointment,

Was in the coffee shop today and the only paper on the rack was the Daily Express (The Deadly Excess). The headline in 2 inch bold "

"70% Don’t believe McCanns"

Now like most people who’ve thought about this at all, I have no idea what happened to their little girl, Madeleine. It’s a mystery, an enigma, a tragedy and undoubtedly, a crime. But what can it possibly mean to print a headline like that? What moral contortions might justify the use of such unsubstantiated nonsense?

OK. 70% of whom? Oh, it turns out to be those who phoned in to the station, following the interview they gave to Spanish TV. So, in true scientific, objective, reliably monitored fashion, we now know that 70% of those who saw the broadcast, AND who felt strongly enough to phone in, don’t believe the McCann’s account of  the circumstances surrouinding the disappearance of their daughter.

So here’s another statistic. 100% of those who phoned in are no wiser than the rest of us about what happened. Here’s another. 100% of those who phoned in have less information than the least informed policeman on the outer margins of an enquiry that has had its own very public shortcomings. And for good measure, here’s another. 100% of those who phoned in have no idea what it might be like to be a parent whose child is abducted, to not know if she is alive, and to live with the kind of cruel stupidity that allows editors to publish such verbal mince as in the public interest, or even as news. When will the public tumble to the fact that completely uninformed opinion solicited for a phone-in poll, has no evidential value whatsoever. Its value is to encourage a mindset that thinks public opinion is itself evidence. The old-fashioned name for doing justice by polling the ignorant, and deciding on guilt by subjective opinion, was lynching.

The McCanns have been in the news now for over six months. They may or may not be telling the whole truth – how can any of us know. But until the truth is discovered, it is better not to condemn people with innuendo, public poll, trial by media, or any of the other processes that threaten that fundamental right that no one should have taken away – the right not to be condemned by blind prejudice – the word prejudice is interesting with a hyphen inserted; it then reads "pre-judice", that is, to judge before the evidence is heard.

I lament the loss of fairness as an important strand in the fabric of our social security. One of these days those who unfairly accuse, who practice prejudice, may find themselves judged, not for what they have done, but merely on the basis of what someone else who doesn’t know them, thought about them.

And in all of this, a wee girl is missing.

Lord have mercy.

This is a picture of Iraqi children learning in school, courtesy of UNICEF.

The following quotation is taken from the front page of the Herald today:

American forces killed 19 insurgents and 15 women and children in air strikes north of Iraq’s capital targeting suspected leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the US military said last night. "We regret that civilians are hurt or killed while coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism", Major Brad Leighton, a military spokesman said. "These terrorists chose to deliberately place innocent Iraqi women and children in danger by their actions and presence."

I have two initial comments. The first is a tiresomely persistent question: What is the difference between the suicide bomber who targets innocent civilians motivated by their own unchallengeable sense of their own rightness and justice, and a military attack in which coalition forces target terrorists who use innocent civilians as a human shield, said military forces motivated by their own unchallengeable sense of their own rightness and justice?

Secondly, the terrorist doesn’t care about the slaughter of the innocent, indeed terrorism can be defined as seeing the innocent as dispensable in pursuit of the greater goal. If the terrorists chose to deliberately place innocent Iraqi women and children in danger, why didn’t the military deliberately choose to restrain the use of lethal force? Isn’t that what defines the difference between terrorism and ‘legitimate military action’ – the respect for human life that makes such an action as deliberately targeting terrorists in civilian areas unacceptable – because making the killing of civilian innocents an acceptable cost is far too near the moral nihilism of terrorism?

I am struggling to understand the moral difference, from the point of view of the women and children, whether in the market place, or in a target area as human shields, between these decisions made by others to end their lives? There are times when I am ashamed of what we have come to tolerate. And of what the UK and the US increasingly judge acceptable levels of ‘collateral damage’ (a serpent tongued phrase if ever there was one).

Incidentally, The Herald’s coverage of this story was given less than three column inches. The story about the Speaker of the House of Commons spending £21,500 of public money defending a libel got SEVEN times as much. £21,500 might buy you a second-hand, lower end of the market 4×4; or a few components needed for the guidance system of air to surface missiles. Alongside 15 lives…………….9 of them children – subtract the first two rows from the picture above….

How long, O Lord? How long?