The Cafe

Andrew Hook
It's no disgrace

There is much in Kenneth Roy's attack on the BBC's handling of the TV debates between the party leaders with which one can agree (SR 241). The inability to get Mr Salmond's name right is revealing, outrageous and inexcusable. But on the main point at issue – the refusal to allow the leaders of the nationalist parties to take part in the final deabte – I'm not sure he's got it right.
     Mr Salmond describes the decision as 'a democratic disgrace' and Mr Roy agrees. But is it? There are at least three reasons why I doubt it. First of all it's hard not to feel that there is something anomalous about two party leaders taking part in a debate about the future leadership of the United Kingdom when the only raison d'etre of the parties they lead is the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Mr Salmond is not even a candidate in the forthcoming election. Surely there is a case to be made that these debates are just not their business.
     Then Mr Roy implies that it is the presence of Nick Clegg in the debates that should have opened the door to the others. He ridicules the idea that anyone could have seriously imagined that Mr Clegg could be in contention for the role of prime minister of the United Kingdom. But a whole barrage of opinion polls since the first debate show – rightly or wrongly – that he is.
     But even if this development had not occurred I'd argue that the real democratic disgrace would have been any attempt to exclude Nick Clegg from these debates. It's simply wrong to imply that UK politics remains a two-party game. In the last parliament the Liberal Democrats had 63 MPs. And for years now the party has floated around the 20% mark in voters' support. Maybe it is a minority party – but the support of at least one in five voters makes it a very substantial one. A prime ministerial debate without the Lib Dems just could not have happened.
     Lastly if the argument in favour of including the leaders of the nationalist parties is basically one about democratic fairness, then I find it difficult to imagine how, with the nationalist leaders present, the leaders of other parties contesting the Westminster election could logically be excluded. Mind you the presence of Lord Pearson, the leader of UKIP which is contesting over 500 seats, would be almost endearing: on the 'World at One' phone-in last week he protested that he was not a professional politician and so couldn't be expected to know every detail of his party's programme. Then of course there's the issue of the BNP which is contesting 338 seats.
     On another aspect of the debates I'm strongly in agreement with Kenneth Roy. They represent another step in the direction of morphing a British parliamentary election into an American-style presidential one. The dark side of such a change was vividly on view last week with the concerted onslaught of the Tory-supporting newspapers on Nick Clegg; all of them had clearly gone into overdrive in a desperate search to find material with which to smear him.
     In America the so-called 'birther' movement which argues that Barack Obama is an illegitimate president because he was born outside America, refuses to go away; only 52% of Americans are sure that their president was born in the USA. So perhaps we should not have been surprised to find the Daily Mail telling its readers that Nick Clegg worked in Brussels, had Russian and Dutch ancestry, parents who lived in France, and a Spanish wife. Well, I suppose they might have suggested that the Lib Dem leader was no better than an immigrant.

Robert Ingram
Power to the people 1

As a volunteer member of Kemnay Community Council I would respectfully suggest that Kenneth Roy is wrong about the lack of community spirit (SR 240). All across Scotland there are over 400 community councils staffed by volunteers who are carrying out valuable work for their communities. The limiting factor for these volunteers being the minimalistic authority devolved to them by the local councils.
     Scottish community councils have little or no authority and funds in comparison to their counterparts in England – the parish councils. There is a range of local services which could be devolved to the community councils by the local councils – this would encourage more volunteers (with more knowlege about the needs and aspirations of their communities than local councils) to contribute to the range of community-oriented services. At present the local councils mainly provide lip service towards the views of the community councils – little wonder that our small towns and communities are so poorly served by the politically motivated local councils.

Gordon Cowtan
Power to the people 2

I've just read Kenneth Roy's very good article about the 'Big Society' (SR 240). It does seem a shame that the idea has been voiced by the wrong party – if it had been the Lib Dems, Labour or the SNP I suspect it would have got a far more favourable response – but coming from the Tories, the party that has in recent years 'known the price of everything and the value of nothing', it has been viewed with deep suspicion. And to be honest, given their track record, probably rightly.
     All I can add from personal experience is that our village has a very active community. Our local drama club is a regular entrant in the Scottish Community Drama Association's annual festival and I believe has been highly placed in recent years. And we have a major community energy project, that I'm involved with, which has a relationship with a local windfarm and is making things happen in the village. But I know only too well the amount of time and effort it takes to make these things happen.

John MacLeod
She should have checked

Alf Young is right to draw attention in 'Britain is guilty of a shameful attack on the free exchange of ideas' (SR 241) to the problems for some legitimate short-term visitors with regard to gaining entry to the UK.
     As someone who has on many occasions had to gain entry into countries as diverse as the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand for purposes similar to the speaker in question, and who has also had to advise others in similar circumstances, I'm well aware that it's a matter to which very careful attention must be given before entry is attempted. That demands careful research by both those doing the inviting and by those who are invited. 
     It is foolish to attempt entry into any country without an awareness of the precise category under which entry is being sought and without having to hand any paperwork necessary to confirm all the relevant facts. It was open to the individual mentioned by Mr Young to make her own inquiries of the British Embassy. She is also an academic at the University of Michigan: surely she could have made inquiries of some of her colleagues?
     The UK Border Agency does indeed make life difficult for many charitable organisations, not least for churches, many of which have been caught out by the new regulations which have been drafted in a way which shows little understanding of, far less sympathy for, such bodies.  Sympathy, however, is not going to be forthcoming from the UK Border Agency. Meticulous advance planning from both ends is now a vital pre-requisite for any such visit and that planning may have to involve the use of a MP's office in securing some appropriate authoritative guidance in cases of doubt.

Andrew Sarle
How to improve your life

When a brother of Alfred Nobel died, one newspaper got it devastatingly wrong, and published an obituary for Alfred under a headline that ran something like 'The great merchant of death is dead'. 
     When he read this, he realised what the world thought of him and his munitions industry, and rewrote his will to include substantial bequests which would fund the Nobel Prizes. So I agree wholeheartedly with Alistair Brownlie (SR 240) that obituaries should be made available pre-mortem so the subject has the opportunity to correct any 'errors', in his or her life, as well as in the newspaper's summary of it!

Cafe contributions to islay@scottishreview.net