Power and energy

Iain MacWhirter in The Herald wonders about the Prime Minister's new-found passion for nuclear energy:

"The problems with nuclear waste management are as great today as ever. Indeed, the more you look at the arguments for building a new generation of nuclear power stations, the more improbable it seems that any of them will ever be built. One of the most persuasive is that we have already 11 nuclear plants, nestling in their own contaminated hot-spots, which will be radioactive for aeons anyway. So, why not just replace these and maintain the nuclear status quo? It's becoming increasingly clear that even this argument is fatally flawed.
As the environment editor of the Sunday Herald, Rob Edwards, revealed at the weekend, a report commissioned by the nuclear waste executive, Nirex, has warned that we may not be able to store nuclear waste, or build new power stations, on their existing sites. The reason: global warming. One of the most predictable consequences of climate change is the melting of the polar ice-caps and the consequent raising of sea levels. It's already happening. Our existing nuclear stations were mostly built near the sea, at places like Torness, or Hunterston.
This means they stand to be inundated in the not too distant future. Needless to say, when a nuclear power station is submerged by sea-water, the contamination is literally unfathomable. It would make Chernobyl look like a central heating problem. No-one knows when, exactly, the seas might rise and engulf these plants – but we know it is going to happen. Yet the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is expected to recommend soon the long-term storage of future nuclear waste at the existing Sellafield site in Cumbria. It would be criminally irresponsible to locate a waste repository or build new reactors on sites that are so manifestly unsafe. We simply cannot inflict this risk on humanity simply to prolong our current energy-profligate lifestyle for a few more years. We can no longer plead ignorance about global warming. This means looking for new sites inland. There hasn't been a planning inquiry into a new nuclear station since Sizewell B in the 1980s. That took nearly five years. Imagine what it would be like trying to site 10 new Sizewells today near centres of population? It just isn't going to happen."

Even if planning permission was given (or more likely by-passed), the demonstrators would have a field-day during construction and they would probably attract the sympathy of significant parts of the population. But if there are to be no new nuclear facilities, what do we replace them with? It seems doubtful if renewables can fill the gap.

Meanwhile, our esteemed First Minister dodges the issue (here at First Minister's Questions last week):

"We will argue for a balanced energy policy and state clearly our position that we will not support further development of nuclear power stations while waste management issues remain unresolved."

which is a cop-out, if ever there was one.

Scare stories

Is this kind of reporting in The Herald credible:

"The scale of Scotland's obesity crisis was exposed yesterday as an official health poll revealed two-thirds of men and nearly 60% of women are overweight or obese. In eight years, the proportion of women with a weight problem has grown from below 50% to 59.7%. A nutrition expert described the results as "frightening".

Two-thirds of men are overweight? Look around - is this confirmed by your own eyes? One day, we may have a real problem and, because all the health professionals and nutrition experts have been crying wolf so long, no-one will listen.

Even the Health Minister is in denial. This is from the same Herald article:

"The survey suggested Scotland is failing to meet the dietary targets set a decade ago for the end of 2005. The number of people eating five fruit and vegetables a day is still hovering around one in five, the same level reported by a Food Standards Agency survey in 2001. Andy Kerr, health minister, said there were positive signals. "We are now beginning to see signs that we are starting to shed the sick man of Europe tag. Fewer Scots are dying prematurely from the big three killers of cancer, heart disease and stroke."

Despite being overweight, binge-drinking and not eating enough fruit and veg?

Surfing at Dunbar

Dunbar is a quiet wee tourist village/dormitory town on the Scottish east coast. According to The Independent, they held a surfing competition yesterday. The air temperature was 2 degrees celsius. The winner of the competition said:

"We have some of the best surfing beaches in Europe, if not the world. We were getting rides of up to 15 seconds on the waves as they came in over the reef at the entrance to the bay ... 100-metre rides at times. We have really good waves here, it's just that not too many people are aware of it yet. The only difference between here and Hawaii is it is not quite so warm and there aren't any semi-naked girls lying on the beaches."

Aye, right...

Pensions and other boring stuff

Unlike many financial journalists, Stephen King (no, not that one) in The Independent is able to offer a reasonably lucid explanation of the current spat between the Chancellor and Lord Turner:

"In the UK's case, we've come to depend on a three-tier system: a basic, pay-as-you-go, system which guarantees a minimum amount of income to prevent the old and infirm from starving or freezing to death: a funded system in either the private or public sector which is invested in assets designed to provide a decent return when people eventually retire, and a voluntary "top-up" funded system for those that feel that the likely income from the first two tiers just isn't up to scratch.
The spat between the Chancellor and Adair Turner really focuses on the first of these tiers. Turner wants to make sure that everyone has access to a "pay-as-you-go" system, indexed according to wage growth. The Chancellor prefers a means-tested system which is indexed according to inflation.
There are two key differences between these approaches. First, a system indexed according to wage growth is more expensive than one linked to inflation - one of the reasons that Margaret Thatcher severed the link to earnings in the early-1980s. A system linked to wage growth effectively means that pensioners will share in an economy's ongoing productivity gains. To reduce the cost of this policy, Lord Turner is suggesting that the retirement age should gradually rise, in line with likely advances in life expectancy.
Second, a means-tested system suffers from moral hazard problems: if you know that you will be bailed out in old age whether or not you've saved in earlier years, then you might as well carry on spending. Under a means-tested system, you know that future taxpayers will be forced to bail you out for your earlier spending indiscretions."

As Mr King admits, this is a relative sideshow compared with the deeper questions offered to society by an aging population. From a selfish point of view, however, it may be worth pointing out that, even if the current single person's old age pension of about £70 per week were doubled to £150, it is still not going to provide anyone with a comfortable living. Which we means that we have to rely on the other two "tiers", not a particularly comfortable prospect unless you are lucky enough to be provided with a pension linked to final salary.

Woolly-minded liberal thinking

Iain MacWhirter in The Sunday Herald tries to convey a more balanced picture of the asylum row (here) and incidentally reports:

"The MP for Drumchapel, John Robertson, said that he not only supported the dawn raid on his constituents, he also said on the BBC’s Politics Scotland show that “handcuffs are there to protect the children”.

I heard him say this on the programme but couldn't believe my ears - which is why I waited until now before posting. I suppose I could conceive of circumstances in which it might be acceptable to handcuff children, but I am far from sure that the fact that a family is about to be deported is justification in itself. But to suggest that handcuffs are there "to protect the children" is surely going too far.

Pensions row

The Independent reports:

"Gordon Brown has demanded an inquiry into the leaking of his letter to Lord Turner's Pensions Commission as the row with Tony Blair over the direction of pensions reform deepened.
Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, immediately launched an investigation yesterday and began interviewing the small circle of officials in Downing Street and the Treasury who had seen the Chancellor's letter.
Mr Brown was furious over the leak, which led to the Chancellor being accused by Blairites of attempting to block the review before it reports next week. Clearly suspecting that his letter had been leaked by Downing Street, Mr Brown demanded that the Treasury Permanent Secretary, Nicholas McPherson, take action. Mr McPherson called in the Cabinet Secretary.
A Brown ally said: "Gordon was clear he wanted the correct procedures taken because he was being accused by opposition MPs and others with being responsible for the leak. He was clear no one in the Treasury was responsible."
It would be hugely embarrassing for No 10 if they were found to be responsible. Mr Blair's spokesman said: "I can categorically deny as far as my knowledge goes ... that we were responsible for the leak."

Remarkable: a No 10 denial which is neither categorical nor convincing...

To hell on a handcart (part 29)

This exchange occurred in the House of Commons yesterday, during questions following the statement by the Leader of the House (here):

"Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on the beers offered for sale in Strangers Bar? Will he lend his authority as Leader of the House to my concerns about the replacement of Youngs ordinary bitter—one of the most famous cask-conditioned ales in this country, which has been on sale in Strangers for more than 10 years and is brewed in Britain's oldest brewery, based in my constituency—with San Miguel, a lager from the Philippines, which is not only greatly inferior but far more alcoholic? In the name of good taste and parliamentary sobriety, will he help us to get Youngs back?
Mr. Hoon: I never cease to be amazed by the range of my responsibilities. I am delighted to discover that I might have responsibility for that matter. I am sure that it will be investigated now that my hon. Friend has raised it so eloquently."

What kind of tasteless philistines are running the House of Commons nowadays? To replace Youngs with San Miguel is disgusting.

Asylum seekers

In the light of the recent brou-haha over the treatment of failed asylum seekers, I have been asked to explain why opinion in Scotland seems relatively favourable with regard to immigration, at least by comparison with the position south of the border.
This is not easy, especially as it involves giving credit to the Scottish Executive and, particularly, to Jack McConnell for what I would regard as an enlightened outlook on the matter. But let us begin with Duncan MacNiven, the Registrar-General for Scotland, a nice enough guy (although not very good at sums). Duncan has been pontificating on a regular basis to the effect that Scotland's population is in serious decline - although when we actually dip below 5 million is a matter for constant revision. In the light of the more disastrous prognostications, the First Minister brought forward an initiative to encourage non-UK students to remain in Scotland after graduation. Rather to everyone's surprise, the Scottish media and, indeed, the Scottish political establishment thought that this was a good idea and there was no serious opposition. (The initiative is probably doomed, as the UK immigration policy is entirely happy to accept foreign students prepared to pay for their higher education but would prefer to see them depart after graduation.)
Into this situation was thrown the Vucaj family, a family of asylum seekers from Kosova who had been deposited in Glasgow some four years ago. The family settled in satisfactorily and the kids went to the local school where, naturally enough, they acquired a Scottish accent and Scottish chums. Earlier this year, their asylum application was turned down and the Immigration Service, in its apparently usual fashion, turned up at 5am one morning to take them away. Breaking down the door, 12 officials dressed in armoured uniforms handcuffed the parents and whisked off the children in their pyjamas to whereever the Immigration Service takes failed asylum seekers. The family was subsequently deported back to Kosova.
Their removal and especially the manner of the removal caused outrage to Scottish opinion - which means the tabloids got upset. But largely because the schoolchums of the Vucaj kids mounted a protest which attracted the attention of politicians of all parties. The matter was raised in the Scottish Parliament and everyone agreed that the "dawn raids" policy of the Home Office/Immigration Service was unacceptable. Although policy on immigration and asylum seekers is a reserved matter for the Westminster Parliament, Mr McConnell agreed to pursue the matter with the Home Office. It is his apparent failure to make any progress which is causing the current row.
But it remains encouraging that significant proportions of Scotland's population are prepared to welcome immigrants. One can feel proud of the schoolkids who protested the removal of their chums. And one can applaud the relatively enlightened attitude of politicians in the Scottish Parliament. If there is a disappointing aspect to the matter, it concerns the Scottish MPs at Westminster most of whom have kept their heads firmly under the parapet. And the First Minister might have put a bit more pressure on the Home Office, although it is probable that he was always flogging a dead horse.

Deeper and deeper

You couldn't make it up! The Times reports:

"JACK McCONNELL’s vulnerability on the question of the forced removal of failed asylum-seekers in Scotland was again laid bare last night after it emerged that he had not raised the issue of so-called “dawn raids” with the Home Office.
The revelation contributed to a widespread feeling at Holyrood that the First Minister’s claim that he was on the way to winning a special deal for Scotland covering deportation was without foundation.
Nationalist, Green and Conservative MSPs joined forces yesterday to demand an explanation from Mr McConnell over the disclosure from Home Office officials on Monday that any changes to the way forced removals are handled will be UK-wide and will not be tailored for Scotland. The
controversy intensified after the First Minister’s spokesman agreed that he had not raised the dawn raids issue with the Home Office, even though these are the nub of MSP complaints about how the deportation system operates.
The critics of the removal system say that dawn raids, during which the homes of failed asylum-seeking families are visited early in the morning prior to removals, must stop.
Mr McConnell, in previous pronouncements, left the clear impression in the minds of the Scottish public, MSPs and the media that he was the driving force behind changes to the removal system that would apply primarily in Scotland."

Rendition

Contrasting stories in The Herald (here):

"Chris Ballance, the Green MSP, had asked Strathclyde Police to investigate whether "rendition" flights landing at Prestwick and Glasgow were illegal. But a letter from Ian Learmonth, the force's assistant chief constable, said police could investigate only where there was evidence of a criminal act in Scotland. He added: "There must be more than mere speculation. If you have additional material which you could make available, I confirm the matter could be looked at afresh." Mr Ballance said this amounted to "the police asking a politician to do the police's job". According to records obtained by The Herald from the US Federal Aviation Administration, Prestwick and Glasgow top the rendition pit-stop league table north of the border with 75 and 74 visits respectively since 2001, followed by 14 for Edinburgh, six for RAF Leuchars, five for
Inverness and two for Wick."

and in The Independent (here):

"An investigation into claims that the CIA held al-Qa'ida suspects in secret prisons in Europe has been stepped up, with 45 countries being sent a formal demand to provide information.
Austria's air force is investigating reports that a US transport plane containing suspected terrorist captives passed through the neutral country's air space in 2003. And Denmark is to ask US authorities for details about claims that detainees were flown across its territory. Two eastern European countries are said to be involved, and the UK presidency of the EU is sending a letter to the US seeking more information.
Terry Davis, the secretary general of the Council of Europe, set a 21 February deadline for his 45 member nations to answer questions on overflights, landings and possible secret detention centres.
Dick Marty, a Swiss MP, said he was investigating the flight plans of 31 aircraft that landed in Europe in recent years, but he believes the suspected detention centres are likely to be small, and have probably been closed. He appealed to the UN, Nato, the EU and Eurocontrol, which coordinates European air traffic navigation, for help."

Mr Marty can appeal to the UN, NATO and the EU, but he better not approach Strathclyde's finest.

I suspect that we are about to hear a lot more on this matter.

Flu jabs

The Independent reports something of a row south of the border:

"A furious Tony Blair was forced on the defensive over the flu vaccination crisis amid continuing anger over the Department of Health's handling of the affair.
Mr Blair distanced himself from the insistence by the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, that doctors were responsible for ordering the vaccine.
He declined to blame doctors for over-prescribing winter flu jabs as he faced repeated claims that the Government was guilty of "inefficiency and incompetence" for allowing vaccine supplies to dry up.
Ms Hewitt sparked irritation from GPs on Tuesday when she blamed doctors for failing to give priority to people who were at most risk of catching flu - mainly the over-65s.
The Health Secretary apologised yesterday to patients who were unable to get their injections, but she said that she hoped all people at risk would get a vaccination before the end of the winter."

A fat lot of good it will do to be given a flu jab at the end of the winter. Meanwhile, all is sweetness and light in the Scottish Parliament, according to The Scotsman (here):

"HOLYROOD managers were condemned as "daft" and "insensitive" last night after it emerged that MSPs had been offered flu jabs while there is a shortage of the vaccine for Scotland's sick and elderly.
Despite the shortfall, 28 MSPs took up the parliament's offer of a flu jab this year - about 20 per cent of the total.
They were joined by 119 members of staff at the parliament out of a total parliamentary population of about 1,200.
Some pensioners have been told to wait for their flu jabs because of the unexpectedly high demand for the vaccination among other, less vulnerable, sections of the population."

Sniffle, sniffle...

Police mystery

The BBC reports the latest developments:

"The identities of two prime suspects in the shooting of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky have been circulated to police forces nationwide, the BBC has learned.
Detectives confirmed they were now actively seeking three men after significant developments in the case.
Pc Beshenivsky was shot dead and her colleague, Pc Teresa Milburn, injured during a robbery at a travel agents.
Police also issued details of a silver Toyota hire car thought to be have been used in Friday's robbery in Bradford.
Five Somalian men, and a woman, were arrested in London over the weekend and brought to police stations in West Yorkshire but have all now been released. "

There has been surprisingly little comment on the release of those previously arrested. It was only Monday that these were conducted to Bradford with some pomp and circumstance, as admirably recorded by Bystander:

"But did you see the TV news footage of those suspects being taken up the M1? Something like a dozen vehicles, including many armed officers, proceeding at a stately speed up the motorway, with junctions closed as they passed, and other vehicles being kept away. At the scene of the murder, armed officers stood about in their baseball caps, looking at the cameras that were looking at them.
What exactly were the police so worried about? This wasn’t Al-Quaeda or the IRA, was it? The police are looking for a bunch of small-time losers, albeit armed ones, who tried to knock over a travel agency in a run-down part of a run-down town, not a paramilitary group. Was it really so necessary to deploy scores of officers (who could presumably be more use elsewhere) on escort duty, or on standing around in the cold cradling a Heckler and Koch automatic carbine? Did anyone seriously fear an attempt to release the suspects, or to burst into the crime scene and mess up the evidence?I suspect that every time a middle-ranking officer sees this kind of grandstanding he becomes determined that when it’s his turn to be in charge, he too will throw everything he has at the problem for the benefit of the cameras. Where is the managerial assessment of the problem, and the proportionate use of resources?"

All this fuss, and two days later the suspects are released? What is going on?

Socks 2

Michael Gove in The Times patronises the peasants on their choice of hosiery:

"Sir Christopher’s real mistake was in the hosiery department. John Prescott’s revelation that Our Man in Washington was known throughout his time in the States as “the red-socked fop” exposed the real frailty in judgment. Just as every man over the age of 35 needs to know how to deal with aural hair growth, so no man over the age of 25 should attempt individuality with his socks.
Brightly coloured or, even worse, patterned, socks worn with business suits are a catastrophic faux pas, up there with novelty ties bearing the image of cartoon characters, bow-ties of any colour other than black, worn with anything other than a dinner jacket, braces of more than one colour, cufflinks with any writing on them other than your initials, and baseball caps worn for any purpose other than playing the game or logging in the Canadian Rockies.
The decision to go for red is meant to show an air of devil-may-care individuality and loveableness. But I fear it’s the sartorial equivalent of hanging a “You don’t have to be mad to work here, but it helps!” poster above your desk. It is, in the profoundest sense of the word, a deeply Brentian act."

Who cares what some hoity-toity Tory MP thinks about socks? Wear whatever seems comfortable. A good socialist will never sneer at wearing red. And, as for novelty ties, bring a little colour into your life!

Socks

Michael Gove in The Times dispenses useful sartorial advice:

"Sir Christopher’s real mistake was in the hosiery department. John Prescott’s revelation that Our Man in Washington was known throughout his time in the States as “the red-socked fop” exposed the real frailty in judgment. Just as every man over the age of 35 needs to know how to deal with aural hair growth, so no man over the age of 25 should attempt individuality with his socks.
Brightly coloured or, even worse, patterned, socks worn with business suits are a catastrophic faux pas, up there with novelty ties bearing the image of cartoon characters, bow-ties of any colour other than black, worn with anything other than a dinner jacket, braces of more than one colour, cufflinks with any writing on them other than your initials, and baseball caps worn for any purpose other than playing the game or logging in the Canadian Rockies.
The decision to go for red is meant to show an air of devil-may-care individuality and loveableness. But I fear it’s the sartorial equivalent of hanging a “You don’t have to be mad to work here, but it helps!” poster above your desk. It is, in the profoundest sense of the word, a deeply Brentian act."

For the record, socks should be black or navy blue. Unless you are wearing a brown suit - but if you are you shouldn't be...

Executive keeps on digging

Following last night's row about asylum seekers, the Executive is seeking to blame Home Office officials. Thus here in The Herald :

"The officials said educational or medical criteria for children would be taken into consideration, but pointed out this was already happening across the UK and was not a concession to the Scottish Executive. A source close to Mr McConnell later said: "This was a cack-handed briefing by a couple of Home Office officials."

And here in The Scotsman:

"The First Minister's advisers insisted last night that ministers had reached an agreement in principle with UK ministers to change the way asylum seekers are treated, following the Mr McConnell's intervention, and Home Office civil servants were to blame for yesterday's confusion because they did not know what was going on."

Let us see for how long such a line of briefing remains sustainable. (It is seldom a good idea to attack those who can pull the rug from under your feet.)

Would anyone seriously believe that senior Home Office officials, briefing the press in advance of a visit to Scotland by their Minister, do not know what is going on?

"There's a guy works down the chip-shop swears he's Elvis.."

The BBC reports that the Home Office has ruled out any special arrangements for dealing with failed asylum seekers, thus putting paid to the First Minister's hopes of a "protocol":

"The UK Government has dismissed the first minister's call for Scotland to be given special treatment on the issue of the removal of asylum seekers. Immigration Minister Tony McNulty said no concessions could be made for Scotland, despite the Scottish Executive's unease at the system. Jack McConnell had hoped that the executive would be consulted before failed asylum
seekers were removed.
...
Mr McNulty will be in Scotland on Thursday to meet Scottish Executive officials and organisations involved with asylum seekers. Ahead of his visit, it has emerged that he will tell Mr McConnell there can be no special arrangements with the executive on the issue of dawn raids.
BBC Scotland home affairs correspondent Reevel Alderson said educational or medical criteria would be taken into consideration but he pointed out that that was already happening across the UK and was not a concession to the executive. "

As recently as last Thursday (17 November), Mr McConnell told the Parliament:

"Discussions continue with the Home Office on the agreement that we seek to reach with it... We are determined that cases that concern young children involve the education and social services that, in this country, have a responsibility for those youngsters. That is the agreement that we are seeking to reach with the Home Office. When we have made detailed progress on that, we will, of course, report to Parliament."

and:

"There needs to be an agreement with the Home Office. However, it would be far better for us to have the right agreement than to have an agreement that is reached in haste. That is why we will ensure that the discussions progress towards the right conclusion. I will not set some arbitrary date, as that might mean that the agreement could be inadequate. I want to ensure that the agreement is properly completed, and that is the point at which we will report to Parliament."

It is now clear that there will be no agreement with the Home Office. So why did the First Minister think that there would be? I find it difficult to believe that the Home Office misled the Executive. Perhaps, the First Minister thought that he could bounce the Home Office into it - in which case, he has been proved mistaken. Or perhaps political pressure forced him to clutch at a mythical straw. In any event, I bet he wishes that he had stuck to the line of stating that this was a reserved matter and taking whatever flak came down as a result. The position is now much worse: not only has he - at least arguably - misled the Parliament, he has revealed himself as totally unable to influence his Westminster colleagues. The issue is unlikely to go away in a hurry.

Smokers lead such interesting lives...

There can be advantages in nipping out to have a fag. From the Guardian:

"Brummies mingled with Westminster and City folk at the recent 50th birthday bash of CBI boss and Birmingham boy Digby Jones. The mixed crowd led to all manner of interesting exchanges, such as when one woman slipped outside the Blenheim Palace venue for a fag and met another smoker: "My name's Alison, what's yours?" "Eddie." "Pleased to meet you Eddie," said the Birmingham housewife. "What do you do?" "I used to run the Bank of England," said former governor Sir Eddie George."

But there can also be disadvantages:

"A French woman who is terrified of flying admitted in a Brisbane court yesterday that, while drunk, she tried to open an aircraft door mid-flight to smoke a cigarette.Sadrine Sellies, 34, was placed on a good behaviour bond after pleading guilty to endangering the safety of an aircraft. Sellies was on a Cathay Pacific flight from Hong Kong to Brisbane on Saturday with her husband, the court heard. She was arrested and charged on arrival at Brisbane airport. Defence lawyer Helen Shilton told the court Sellies had taken sleeping tablets with alcohol before takeoff and had no memory of the incident."

Two wheel superstar

The Guardian considers the biking prowess of President Bush:

"He's a pretty serious mountain biker. The bike is a carbon-fibre Trek, with Rock Shox front forks. Not totally top-end, but you get an awful lot of bike for $3,000 these days. He's wearing Sidi off-road shoes - $200 items designed for competition: light, stiff, with ski-binding-style cleats. Admittedly, the president's jacket and shorts are bulky and baggy, compared with the Chinese cyclists' more professional all-in-one Lycra suits. But, in fact, his style is mainstream for off-roaders - and, arguably, Bush wins brownie points for not wearing those wussy tights the Chinese team have on. Even the President of the United States must sometimes have to stand bare-legged. The helmet is generic but late-model; the full-finger gloves are purpose-made; and the eyewear is sophisticated with lenses that enhance vision in low-light conditions. But the real give-away here is that his wristwatch is not a watch at all - it's a heartrate monitor (HRM). Now that's a real bike nut's piece of kit.
What this means is that when Bush was packing his bags to go to China, he wasn't thinking about trade or Tibet. He was thinking: Jeez, three days without a workout ... you know what, I'm going to take my bike - better take the HRM, too. Last year, a journalist from Associated Press joined the president on a lap of his Crawford ranch. Bush's heart rate, Scott Lindlaw reported, peaked at 168 beats per minute during the 18-mile loop. For a man of his age (59), that's likely to be about 95% of his maximum - which is the sort of intensity only elite athletes train at. According to AP, Bush completed the ride in an hour and 20 minutes. That's more than 13mph, which may not sound all that fast, but for an off-road cyclist, believe me, it's shifting. His resting pulse - a good rule-of-thumb indicator of fitness - is down in the 40s. On this form, Bush could not only hold his own in age-related cross-country races, he'd win some."

I just wish that he would put the same degree of effort into the day job. And is there not something slightly sad, even fetishistic, about a 59 year-old going to these lengths to remain an "athlete"?

Executive advertising

The Scottish Executive freedom of information site reveals the amount spent by the Executive on advertising in newspapers. By far the biggest beneficiary is The Daily Record, which in the period from 1 August 2004 to the present received £443,182, out of a total spend of £1,751,937. By comparison, The Sun received only £78,343, The Scotsman received £50,581 and The Herald received £40,895; almost bottom of the list was The West Highland Free Press which received a paltry £174.

I have no idea why The Daily Record should bag more than 25% of the Executive's spend on advertising in newspapers. It is presumably the whole page adverts for campaigns that incur the biggest costs, but why should The Record exceed The Sun by a factor of more than 5?

Second thoughts on booze

The Herald reports:

"THE Scottish Executive is planning a U-turn on the controversial off-licence reform law by giving the green light to 24-hour off-sales in out-of-town shopping centres.The reforms were voted through by parliament during a day of high farce last week.According to sources, the executive intends to make use of a flexibility clause in the new act which would keep the newly-agreed hours – 10am to 10pm – in place for off-licences in town centres, but could liberalise hours in premises away from high streets. Labour ministers are believed willing to relax the new laws to reduce tensions within the coalition and with the licensed trade itself. Details of precisely how they would use the flexibility clause have yet to be worked out but it is thought that, at some point before the new law comes into effect in 2008-09, it would have to be approved by parliament. Liberal Democrat ministers want to go further and plan to try to overturn the restrictions in the off-sales law passed by Labour and Tory MSPs after the coalition split on the issue."

Did they not think about this last week (or during any of the last four years)? Or are we eternally condemned to suffer policy-making on the spur of the moment - subject to the latest whims of the media or whatever the Labour Executive thinks will get them a decent headline? And how can you possibly justify allowing Tesco to sell booze before 10 am out of town, while restricting sales in town centres?