Control of the media is key to any dictatorship. The state broadcaster is a branch of the ruling party and a definite part of the government. In the West a lot of work goes into keeping the relationship between state broadcasters and the government at arm's length. But a problem can arise when a journalist from a Western state broadcaster interviews a representative of a dictatorship. Now, members of a dictatorship deserve to be given a good journalistic grilling. The key words here are "good journalistic". On too many occasions the reporter hasn't done his or her homework before the interview and doesn't listen to the answers the dictator gives. The result is an ill-tempered, aggressive and just downright rude interview. I've noticed that the more uncertain of themselves a person is, the more aggressive they tend to be. None of this would matter too much if it wasn't that in the dictator's world the state broadcaster is a branch of government. Rudeness and aggression from an interviewer is interpreted as a reflection of the Western government's attitude to the dictator's country. One fool interviewer can do a lot of damage. You  would think that the people who run state broadcasting in the West would take their responsibility to not to let reporters with less than half a brain loose on dictators or their spokesmen. But from some of the interviews I've heard recently, they don't.

A couple of years ago I remember my heart going out to a Canadian sergeant who had lost half his team in Afghanistan. The Canadian sergeant, the equivalent of a British corporal, had obviously told his boys that if they did their battle drills correctly, he’d bring them back alive. That wasn’t the way things worked out and he felt guilty. The truth is that while good training and battle drills can increase the chances of avoiding death or horrendous injury, a battlefield is a terrible lottery. Who lives and who dies is more a matter of luck, or bad luck if you will, than anything else. It’s a lottery in which a winning ticket means you get to finish the day in the same physical state as you began it. Perhaps that’s why I was so pissed off when I thought I’d lost my lucky Silver Dollar in Kosovo. Talismans are an important part of the equation. They’re up there with rituals such as putting on your helmet last before going out on patrol or which boot you tie up first. Despite all the hi-tech gear, in many ways many Western soldiers are no different from a 19th Century Fuzzy-Wuzzy or African warrior who believed a charm or witch doctor's spell made him bullet-proof. Farmers and soldiers may be amongst the last people in the West who grasp how fickle the Finger of Fate can be. By the way, it turned out I hadn’t lost my Silver Dollar.

I was struck recently by the similarities between the British campaign in Helmand and the Allied Intervention against the Bolsheviks in Northern Russia 1918-1919. And look how the Intervention turned out. In both campaigns the British over-extended themselves by occupying villages for political rather than military reasons. The political reasons involved appeasing a corrupt local administration that was incompetent and unrepresentative of the local people. Sound familiar? The British also had to work with troops from other armies and their quality varied. Some were not worth their rations. Once again, sound familiar? The British were also involved in training locally raised troops who were expected to fight the Bolsheviks when the British left. Once again, the local troops were of variable quality and some murdered their British trainers. Ringing any bells? The local population in North Russia was at best indifferent and at worst openly hostile. Most wanted to see who was going to win before committing themselves to one side or the other. The local population also had an instinctive distrust of foreigners. Both sides waged a propaganda war for the hearts and minds of the villagers. The Intervention was not popular back in Britain and the reasoning behind it not properly explained. British troop numbers were too low for the tasks set and equipment was not always suitable for the harsh climate and living conditions. I wonder if anyone has dusted off the Lessons Learned file from the 1918-1919 Intervention. It doesn't look like it.

Once, in a town far away, some nutbar set fire to a block of flats. A lot of innocent people lost their homes and all their worldly possessions in the fire. The nutbar was already on bail after being accused of an insanely violent crime. I think this illustrates a problem with the legal system. The people who gave the nutbar bail didn’t have to live next to the guy. Maybe it’s time folks in court system did have a tangible stake in the bail system. I  sat through enough court cases when I was a reporter not to mistaking the law for justice. So, here’s my idea. If a lawyer applies for bail for his client, then the lawyer should be told that if his client appears in court for an offence allegedly committed while on the bail, then lawyer will be joining his client in the cells. Does the lawyer still think the client should be bailed? Why should the nutbar’s neighbours be the only people placed in jeopardy by the decision to grant bail? I can’t decide what should happen to the lawyer in the longer run. Should the lawyer be held until the client is brought to trial? Or perhaps three months in custody might be enough. Or maybe the lawyer could receive the same sentence as is ultimately imposed on the client. For too many lawyers the criminal “justice” system is a game. A game to be won by hook or by crook. It’s time their court room antics had some real-life consequences. I remember a rape case in which is what put to the victim during cross-examination that she’d had consensual sex with three men  at a bus stop the night before the attack. No evidence was produced to back up this claim. Personally, I would have made sure the lawyer involved never appeared in court again.

One of the questions I haven’t seen asked in connection with what would happen to the British military if Scotland gets independence is who will run the defence forces. Plenty of questions about the nuclear submarine base at Faslane and even would the Scottish infantry regiments get their old names back. But looking at the biographies of the officers appointed to the Royal Regiment of Scotland, I can’t help noticing how that about half of them are young Englishmen; often products of private schools. So, in an independent Scotland, where will the army officers come from? The British Army obviously doesn’t think there are enough Scots boys with brains to meet the requirements needed to be an officer in the RRoS. What if it’s right?
I think one guy from my high school became an officer in the old Queen’s Own Highlanders. I suspect if I’d gone to a private school such as Ampleforth in Yorkshire, a whole battalion’s worth of former classmates would have become officers. And certainly, when I had dealings with junior officers from the Highland regiments in my younger days, they all had English accents (though admittedly several of the Scottish private schools teach their pupils to speak with English accents).
A book I was reading recently suggested there was a degree of unease and distrust between the last Labour government and the Army. Scots were over-represented in senior government posts at the time, and sometimes that was for legitimate reasons. But perhaps the distrust and unease came from the fact that none of the Scottish Labour MPs had ever known anyone who was or became an officer in the British Army.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there are no Scottish officers in the British Army, and not all of those Scots selected went to private schools. What I am saying is that there might be a problem finding enough qualified men to run even a small defence force in an independent Scotland.