A woman walks along a random street, hundreds of miles from home. She passes a phone box where the phone is ringing, and out of curiosity answers it. On the other end of the line is her husband, who addresses her by name. He thinks he is talking to her on her mobile phone, but has got the wrong number.
Some people are scared by a coincidence like that. They assume that it could not possibly happen by random chance, and must have some underlying meaning. In many ways that's the foundation of superstition - and perhaps of one or two religions as well.
But, in truth, science tells us that it's statistically inevitable that these amazing coincidences will occasionally occur - so much so, in fact, that we ought to be far more frightened if they don't happen. So when we discover that Inverclyde's Labour MP Iain McKenzie rented a flat using taxpayers' money, and by completely random chance discovered later that he had accidentally ended up with a fellow Labour MP as his landlady, we shouldn't be scared, and we certainly shouldn't be sceptical of his story. We should simply embrace it as one of those extraordinary phenomena, like the aurora borealis, that enrich our world with so much beauty. And when we discover that, even more remarkably, three other MPs also accidentally rented flats from fellow MPs, we should feel even more enriched.
This is, it must be said, a special moment for those of us who predicted that something truly wonderful would happen if the people of Inverclyde had the good sense to elect McKenzie as their MP.
* * *
I've just heard that George Osborne has been caught sitting in the first-class compartment of a train with a standard-class ticket. He asked the conductor for special permission to stay where he was to avoid having to mix with the plebs, but was refused. As per what happened on a ScotRail train last year, I trust a "big man" arrived on the scene to deliver swift and violent justice to the fare-dodger, with the cheers of fellow passengers and the right-wing press ringing in his ears?
Friday, October 19, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Ipsos-Mori poll : SNP retain solid Holyrood lead
Ipsos-Mori's latest Scottish poll suggests that the SNP's lead in voting intention for the Scottish Parliament has narrowed, but still stands at a reasonably healthy five points. The party's raw share of the vote is, at 40%, some seven points higher than when Alex Salmond first took power in 2007. Here are the full figures -
SNP 40% (-5)
Labour 35% (+3)
Conservatives 13% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+2)
There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum.
Yes 30% (-5)
No 58% (+3)
Which is very much in line with the drop in support for independence recorded recently by TNS-BMRB. As I said the other day in my guest post at PB, the obvious grounds for optimism is the possibility that we are currently witnessing a "London 2012" blip, which will shortly be reversed as memories of the summer gradually fade. It seems entirely plausible that will prove to be the case (after all, the Olympics were a complete one-off, and certainly won't be replicated by 'celebrating' the 100th anniversary of the start of a global catastrophe), but only time will tell.
Oh, and by the way, the Times seem to think Alex Salmond should regard his net personal rating of +10 as bad news. Just remind me of how far below zero Cameron, Miliband and Clegg currently are?
UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
"There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures..."
In fact, the question asked was identical to the one proposed by the Scottish Government, ie. "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?". The reason for my mistake is that I wrote the post overnight, when Ipsos-Mori hadn't yet (as far as I could see) posted the details of the poll on their website, so I was reliant on an extract from the Times report which gave the impression that respondents had been asked if they supported the union or independence.
I'm very happy to correct the error, and I also hope that Ipsos-Mori's excellent practice in using the real referendum question will now be followed by other pollsters, notably YouGov and TNS-BMRB. There really is no remaining excuse for them not to do so, especially now that we know the Scottish Parliament will ultimately control the wording of the question.
* * *
There are times when all you can do with Simon 'Says Separation' Johnson of the Telegraph is sit back and admire his unique artistry. Has there ever been such an exquisitely contradictory sentence as this?
"The FCO said independence could even result in customs posts at the Border as Scotland would no longer benefit from the UK’s opt-out to the Schengen Agreement, which guarantees free movement between EU member states."
OK, let's untangle this, if such a feat is humanly possible. Scotland would no longer benefit from NOT having the benefit of free movement between EU member states. So it seems the existence of border posts and a lack of free movement is in itself a benefit. Presumably this means that having even more border posts imposed on us by partitionists in London would constitute even more of a benefit? Er...no.
The sophistication of this theology is positively Harrisian. Border posts and restrictions on movement are simultaneously both a good thing and a bad thing. Okey-dokey.
"Although the document does not name specific threats to Britain’s influence, it is understood they fear Argentina would try and have the UK removed as one of the five permanent members of the UN’s Security Council."
I must say I'm extraordinarily relaxed about the idea of the UK losing its permanent seat on the Security Council. The veto power of the permanent members is a relic of colonialism, and should be scrapped as soon as possible - but won't be, for the obvious reason that a change in the rules would be vetoed by the permanent members. And there's the point - I'm sure Argentina and a whole host of other countries would be only too delighted to see the UK dislodged from the council, but they are powerless to make that happen. The only permanent member to have been previously cast out by a vote in the General Assembly was Taiwan - but that was done by the sleight of hand of redefining what was meant by "China", and replacing the Republic of China with the People's Republic of China. The automatic right of China itself to a permanent place on the council was never in question. I suppose Argentina could always try redefining what is meant by "the UK" (perhaps it means Scotland?) but I doubt if they'd gain much traction.
In other words : red herring. Alas.
"The UK’s criticism of regimes in countries like Iran and Syria would also be blunted, with their leaders likely to crow over Scotland deciding to separate."
Are we really supposed to believe that the Western Alliance is so feeble that it can't survive a tiny bit of "crowing"?
"Scotland would lose its representation on the Security Council or the G20 group of the world’s largest economies, the submission said."
Scotland doesn't have any representation to lose, Simon. Or perhaps you're talking about William Hague? Dear God...
"Its ability to influence the EU would also suffer under a new proportional voting system that favours larger nations being introduced in 2014."
Can an increase in voting power from zero to a proportionate share really be characterised as "suffering"?
"Scots abroad could also be put at greater risk of "child abduction, forced marriage or crime" through the loss of the UK's consular assistance."
Snigger. Will that happen before or after UK embassies cripple our economy by withdrawing their tireless promotional efforts for Scotch whisky?
SNP 40% (-5)
Labour 35% (+3)
Conservatives 13% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (+2)
There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum.
Yes 30% (-5)
No 58% (+3)
Which is very much in line with the drop in support for independence recorded recently by TNS-BMRB. As I said the other day in my guest post at PB, the obvious grounds for optimism is the possibility that we are currently witnessing a "London 2012" blip, which will shortly be reversed as memories of the summer gradually fade. It seems entirely plausible that will prove to be the case (after all, the Olympics were a complete one-off, and certainly won't be replicated by 'celebrating' the 100th anniversary of the start of a global catastrophe), but only time will tell.
Oh, and by the way, the Times seem to think Alex Salmond should regard his net personal rating of +10 as bad news. Just remind me of how far below zero Cameron, Miliband and Clegg currently are?
UPDATE : Ipsos-Mori have been in touch, and have asked me to correct this post, which originally stated -
"There is also a question on voting intention for the independence referendum. Caution should be exercised here, because from the little I've seen of the report in the Times, it looks very much like this is yet another example of a unionist newspaper commissioning a pollster to ask a question that bears little resemblance to the actual proposed referendum question. However, for what it's worth, here are the figures..."
In fact, the question asked was identical to the one proposed by the Scottish Government, ie. "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?". The reason for my mistake is that I wrote the post overnight, when Ipsos-Mori hadn't yet (as far as I could see) posted the details of the poll on their website, so I was reliant on an extract from the Times report which gave the impression that respondents had been asked if they supported the union or independence.
I'm very happy to correct the error, and I also hope that Ipsos-Mori's excellent practice in using the real referendum question will now be followed by other pollsters, notably YouGov and TNS-BMRB. There really is no remaining excuse for them not to do so, especially now that we know the Scottish Parliament will ultimately control the wording of the question.
* * *
There are times when all you can do with Simon 'Says Separation' Johnson of the Telegraph is sit back and admire his unique artistry. Has there ever been such an exquisitely contradictory sentence as this?
"The FCO said independence could even result in customs posts at the Border as Scotland would no longer benefit from the UK’s opt-out to the Schengen Agreement, which guarantees free movement between EU member states."
OK, let's untangle this, if such a feat is humanly possible. Scotland would no longer benefit from NOT having the benefit of free movement between EU member states. So it seems the existence of border posts and a lack of free movement is in itself a benefit. Presumably this means that having even more border posts imposed on us by partitionists in London would constitute even more of a benefit? Er...no.
The sophistication of this theology is positively Harrisian. Border posts and restrictions on movement are simultaneously both a good thing and a bad thing. Okey-dokey.
"Although the document does not name specific threats to Britain’s influence, it is understood they fear Argentina would try and have the UK removed as one of the five permanent members of the UN’s Security Council."
I must say I'm extraordinarily relaxed about the idea of the UK losing its permanent seat on the Security Council. The veto power of the permanent members is a relic of colonialism, and should be scrapped as soon as possible - but won't be, for the obvious reason that a change in the rules would be vetoed by the permanent members. And there's the point - I'm sure Argentina and a whole host of other countries would be only too delighted to see the UK dislodged from the council, but they are powerless to make that happen. The only permanent member to have been previously cast out by a vote in the General Assembly was Taiwan - but that was done by the sleight of hand of redefining what was meant by "China", and replacing the Republic of China with the People's Republic of China. The automatic right of China itself to a permanent place on the council was never in question. I suppose Argentina could always try redefining what is meant by "the UK" (perhaps it means Scotland?) but I doubt if they'd gain much traction.
In other words : red herring. Alas.
"The UK’s criticism of regimes in countries like Iran and Syria would also be blunted, with their leaders likely to crow over Scotland deciding to separate."
Are we really supposed to believe that the Western Alliance is so feeble that it can't survive a tiny bit of "crowing"?
"Scotland would lose its representation on the Security Council or the G20 group of the world’s largest economies, the submission said."
Scotland doesn't have any representation to lose, Simon. Or perhaps you're talking about William Hague? Dear God...
"Its ability to influence the EU would also suffer under a new proportional voting system that favours larger nations being introduced in 2014."
Can an increase in voting power from zero to a proportionate share really be characterised as "suffering"?
"Scots abroad could also be put at greater risk of "child abduction, forced marriage or crime" through the loss of the UK's consular assistance."
Snigger. Will that happen before or after UK embassies cripple our economy by withdrawing their tireless promotional efforts for Scotch whisky?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
@Admin4TheYoonYoon Tweet-Watch : The Return
It's been far, far too long since we've taken a dip into the exotic waters of the Twitter account of Johann Lamont's former Shadow Minister for Conducting a Review Into the Uses of Modern Technology. It's been a momentous 48 hours in so many different ways - did Tom rise to the occasion? Judge for yourself...
"So it's settled: a single question on whether Scotland should split from the rest of the country and join the euro. I'll be voting No."
"Like the idea of having to change your money between euros and pounds at the border? Then vote Yes to separation!"
Correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, but I seem to recall that you were rather keen on securing the election of a certain Mr Tony Blair, who as Prime Minister wanted to join the euro, and who I understand still thinks Britain's destiny lies in that direction. Alex Salmond has mortally sinned by deviating from that Golden Blairite Path, and has instead committed himself to retaining sterling. You suspect, for some unspecified reason, that he is lying and fully intends to take heed of the Great Leader's wisdom. In what sense is that a bad thing?
This is an impressively nuanced belief system, and it would be intriguing to hear more about it.
"How depressing that the extent of many Nats' ambitions for an "independent" Scotland is for it to be "Tory-free"."
How depressing that the ambition of a "Labour MP" doesn't even extend as far as wanting Scotland not to be ruled by Tories. Indeed, Tom was so nauseated by the prospect of working with other parties to put together a non-Tory government that he actively campaigned in the days immediately following the 2010 election to put David Cameron in office. Always worth remembering any time you see Tom going through the motions of an anti-Cammo tweet, as he occasionally does - Dave was his own choice as PM.
"Maybe the debate should be about the Scottish people's advantage, rather than petty party advantage? Just a thought."
Luckily, we at least have one party - the Labour party - which has always set aside its vested interest in retaining a large bloc of Scottish seats at Westminster. That never even enters their heads.
Retweeet : "I don't get that so many Nats think they are voting for a political system for the next five years and not the next 300 years."
Well, we've now had Tory and Tory Lite rule for 33 unbroken years - I'm not sure it's entirely fanciful to suggest that the independence referendum is our best chance to avoid the next 30 or 60 years, if not the next 300, being more of the same. But of course, Tom, you could always prove us wrong by pushing for Labour to forget about triangulation and implement what it's actually supposed to believe in. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh, and for good measure, Tom chucked in a presumably approving retweet of Alex Massie lamenting the fact that Gary McKinnon has been spared the tender mercies of the US judicial system. Isn't it remarkable - a rare occasion when pandering to the sentiment of Daily Mail readers in the south of England wouldn't have put Tom out of step with mainstream Scottish values, and that's the one time he doesn't want to do it.
* * *
Just to let you know I had a guest post on Political Betting last night about polling trends on independence - you can read it HERE.
"So it's settled: a single question on whether Scotland should split from the rest of the country and join the euro. I'll be voting No."
"Like the idea of having to change your money between euros and pounds at the border? Then vote Yes to separation!"
Correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, but I seem to recall that you were rather keen on securing the election of a certain Mr Tony Blair, who as Prime Minister wanted to join the euro, and who I understand still thinks Britain's destiny lies in that direction. Alex Salmond has mortally sinned by deviating from that Golden Blairite Path, and has instead committed himself to retaining sterling. You suspect, for some unspecified reason, that he is lying and fully intends to take heed of the Great Leader's wisdom. In what sense is that a bad thing?
This is an impressively nuanced belief system, and it would be intriguing to hear more about it.
"How depressing that the extent of many Nats' ambitions for an "independent" Scotland is for it to be "Tory-free"."
How depressing that the ambition of a "Labour MP" doesn't even extend as far as wanting Scotland not to be ruled by Tories. Indeed, Tom was so nauseated by the prospect of working with other parties to put together a non-Tory government that he actively campaigned in the days immediately following the 2010 election to put David Cameron in office. Always worth remembering any time you see Tom going through the motions of an anti-Cammo tweet, as he occasionally does - Dave was his own choice as PM.
"Maybe the debate should be about the Scottish people's advantage, rather than petty party advantage? Just a thought."
Luckily, we at least have one party - the Labour party - which has always set aside its vested interest in retaining a large bloc of Scottish seats at Westminster. That never even enters their heads.
Retweeet : "I don't get that so many Nats think they are voting for a political system for the next five years and not the next 300 years."
Well, we've now had Tory and Tory Lite rule for 33 unbroken years - I'm not sure it's entirely fanciful to suggest that the independence referendum is our best chance to avoid the next 30 or 60 years, if not the next 300, being more of the same. But of course, Tom, you could always prove us wrong by pushing for Labour to forget about triangulation and implement what it's actually supposed to believe in. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh, and for good measure, Tom chucked in a presumably approving retweet of Alex Massie lamenting the fact that Gary McKinnon has been spared the tender mercies of the US judicial system. Isn't it remarkable - a rare occasion when pandering to the sentiment of Daily Mail readers in the south of England wouldn't have put Tom out of step with mainstream Scottish values, and that's the one time he doesn't want to do it.
* * *
Just to let you know I had a guest post on Political Betting last night about polling trends on independence - you can read it HERE.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Ten reasons why Scottish independence isn't "pointless", Mr. Warner
Except in fairly extreme circumstances, it's probably a bit silly to call for a boycott of anything. But from a personal point of view, I might find it necessary to give the Yahoo UK home page a wide berth in future if there's any repeat of what happened today. Basically they've taken a Telegraph opinion piece from a man who evidently holds the entire nation of Scotland in sneering contempt, and summarised his main argument ("there is a fatal financial contradiction in the Scottish National Party's plans for independence") on the home page as if they were reporting 'news' or 'fact'. Why Yahoo have even chosen to republish such a rambling and utterly unoriginal diatribe is rather baffling (can we look forward to an article putting forward the alternative view, and if not, why not?), but at a minimum we were entitled to expect a disclaimer that this was merely one man's opinion, not a truth being passed down from God.
Anyway, let's take a quick look at Jeremy Warner's article itself, starting with the title -
"Why would Scotland turn itself into Greece?"
I don't know. This, and a number of other questions equally unrelated to the subject of independence, are likely to remain an impenetrable mystery. Why, for example, would Cat Deeley want to turn herself into the Taj Mahal? Why would a mauve bison want to materialise on Jupiter and start singing the greatest hits of Girls Aloud? We quite simply DON'T KNOW.
"What Scotland will in fact be voting on is whether to give its devolved government a mandate to negotiate independence."
No, it won't, actually. That was the wording of the original proposed 'consultative' question that the Scottish government could have asked with or without the UK government's consent. The actual question will be much more direct.
"Now obviously, Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, has his wish list. It goes something like this. You keep all the national debt, we keep all the oil..."
Sigh. No, Jeremy. What Mr Salmond is actually proposing is as follows -
* Scotland 'keeps' only the oil in its own sovereign waters.
* England, meanwhile, keeps the oil in its sovereign waters.
* Scotland 'keeps' a share of the national debt in proportion to its share of the UK population.
Tell me, Jeremy, exactly what is so unreasonable or unrealistic about this 'wish-list'? You wouldn't be the first unionist who appears to think that London should have proprietorial rights over the natural resources of another sovereign state, but it would be no less entertaining to hear you attempt to justify such a startling proposition.
"Salmond is demanding a whopper of a divorce settlement, even though he is, as it were, the guilty party."
Yes, folks, you heard that right. If you want to exercise your right under international law to self-determination, you are 'wronging' someone else. You must consequently make financial reparations for your 'guilt'. There speaks the authentic voice of unionist journalism in London.
"To put it mildly, to vote for fiscal and political separation, but for the continuation of monetary union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is a contradiction in terms. If there is one thing we have learnt from Europe’s experiment in monetary union, it is that it won’t work unless accompanied by fiscal union and political federalism."
And if I've learned one thing in my life, it's that "2+2=22"-type assertions by the assistant editor of the Telegraph are not necessarily the same thing as hard fact. But in any case, what is actually meant by "federalism"? Is this an example of the Eurosceptic worldview that cannot distinguish between the actual meaning of the word "federal" (entrenched decentralisation of power) and the dystopian fantasy of a centralised "superstate"? In a genuinely federal UK, for example, Scotland could be expected to enjoy considerably more self-government than it currently does, and all the powers held by Holyrood would be far more entrenched. At present, the Scottish Parliament could theoretically be abolished at any time by Westminster, which also retains an unrestricted power to "legislate for Scotland".
"In Europe, the strategy has been to start with monetary union, and then, however implausibly, make everyone march in lockstep towards fiscal and political union....
Scotland would be doing the whole process in reverse. It starts with fiscal union, and then… well, who really knows? I’m damned if I can figure it out."
Then why allow yourself to be handsomely paid for wittering on about a subject you openly admit you don't understand? All the same, you seem to be implying that an independent Scotland that is fiscally constrained by being part of a sterling currency zone could end up enjoying even less autonomy than it currently does under devolution. Let me give you a small hint here - it wouldn't. Seriously. I suspect you know that, Jeremy, in spite of all this disarming self-deprecation about your lack of knowledge.
"The point is that monetary union doesn't work unless those involved are in pretty much perfect economic, fiscal, monetary and political alignment. We are therefore left with one over-riding question about Scottish separation: beyond bravado and grandstanding by a small cadre of senior politicians, what precisely is the point of it?"
Well, let's be ultra-generous and suppose for the sake of argument that Jeremy's assumption of a need for "perfect alignment" isn't the utter tripe we all know it is. What could an independent Scotland still do under the extreme type of economic constraint he implies? Well, how about this for starters -
1. It could get weapons of mass destruction off its soil.
2. It could opt out of London's illegal wars.
3. It could decide its own immigration policy.
4. It could tighten restrictions on the ownership of guns.
5. It could revitalise Scottish public service broadcasting.
6. It could decide its own law on abortion.
7. It could settle its own overseas aid budget.
8. It could reach its own extradition agreements, ending the outrage of the UK's unequal agreement with the United States.
9. It could properly control energy policy and the railways.
10. It could end the war on the poor and vulnerable by assuming control of its own welfare budget.
OK, we give in, Jeremy. Quite plainly the stuff of trivia, every last one.
Anyway, let's take a quick look at Jeremy Warner's article itself, starting with the title -
"Why would Scotland turn itself into Greece?"
I don't know. This, and a number of other questions equally unrelated to the subject of independence, are likely to remain an impenetrable mystery. Why, for example, would Cat Deeley want to turn herself into the Taj Mahal? Why would a mauve bison want to materialise on Jupiter and start singing the greatest hits of Girls Aloud? We quite simply DON'T KNOW.
"What Scotland will in fact be voting on is whether to give its devolved government a mandate to negotiate independence."
No, it won't, actually. That was the wording of the original proposed 'consultative' question that the Scottish government could have asked with or without the UK government's consent. The actual question will be much more direct.
"Now obviously, Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, has his wish list. It goes something like this. You keep all the national debt, we keep all the oil..."
Sigh. No, Jeremy. What Mr Salmond is actually proposing is as follows -
* Scotland 'keeps' only the oil in its own sovereign waters.
* England, meanwhile, keeps the oil in its sovereign waters.
* Scotland 'keeps' a share of the national debt in proportion to its share of the UK population.
Tell me, Jeremy, exactly what is so unreasonable or unrealistic about this 'wish-list'? You wouldn't be the first unionist who appears to think that London should have proprietorial rights over the natural resources of another sovereign state, but it would be no less entertaining to hear you attempt to justify such a startling proposition.
"Salmond is demanding a whopper of a divorce settlement, even though he is, as it were, the guilty party."
Yes, folks, you heard that right. If you want to exercise your right under international law to self-determination, you are 'wronging' someone else. You must consequently make financial reparations for your 'guilt'. There speaks the authentic voice of unionist journalism in London.
"To put it mildly, to vote for fiscal and political separation, but for the continuation of monetary union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is a contradiction in terms. If there is one thing we have learnt from Europe’s experiment in monetary union, it is that it won’t work unless accompanied by fiscal union and political federalism."
And if I've learned one thing in my life, it's that "2+2=22"-type assertions by the assistant editor of the Telegraph are not necessarily the same thing as hard fact. But in any case, what is actually meant by "federalism"? Is this an example of the Eurosceptic worldview that cannot distinguish between the actual meaning of the word "federal" (entrenched decentralisation of power) and the dystopian fantasy of a centralised "superstate"? In a genuinely federal UK, for example, Scotland could be expected to enjoy considerably more self-government than it currently does, and all the powers held by Holyrood would be far more entrenched. At present, the Scottish Parliament could theoretically be abolished at any time by Westminster, which also retains an unrestricted power to "legislate for Scotland".
"In Europe, the strategy has been to start with monetary union, and then, however implausibly, make everyone march in lockstep towards fiscal and political union....
Scotland would be doing the whole process in reverse. It starts with fiscal union, and then… well, who really knows? I’m damned if I can figure it out."
Then why allow yourself to be handsomely paid for wittering on about a subject you openly admit you don't understand? All the same, you seem to be implying that an independent Scotland that is fiscally constrained by being part of a sterling currency zone could end up enjoying even less autonomy than it currently does under devolution. Let me give you a small hint here - it wouldn't. Seriously. I suspect you know that, Jeremy, in spite of all this disarming self-deprecation about your lack of knowledge.
"The point is that monetary union doesn't work unless those involved are in pretty much perfect economic, fiscal, monetary and political alignment. We are therefore left with one over-riding question about Scottish separation: beyond bravado and grandstanding by a small cadre of senior politicians, what precisely is the point of it?"
Well, let's be ultra-generous and suppose for the sake of argument that Jeremy's assumption of a need for "perfect alignment" isn't the utter tripe we all know it is. What could an independent Scotland still do under the extreme type of economic constraint he implies? Well, how about this for starters -
1. It could get weapons of mass destruction off its soil.
2. It could opt out of London's illegal wars.
3. It could decide its own immigration policy.
4. It could tighten restrictions on the ownership of guns.
5. It could revitalise Scottish public service broadcasting.
6. It could decide its own law on abortion.
7. It could settle its own overseas aid budget.
8. It could reach its own extradition agreements, ending the outrage of the UK's unequal agreement with the United States.
9. It could properly control energy policy and the railways.
10. It could end the war on the poor and vulnerable by assuming control of its own welfare budget.
OK, we give in, Jeremy. Quite plainly the stuff of trivia, every last one.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Sing it out, every song is a cry for love
From the Telegraph's 'report' on the seemingly imminent resolution of the referendum stand-off -
"Mr Cameron told the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham that the Olympics highlighted the depth of feeling for the UK, adding: “Whether our athletes were English, Scottish, Welsh or from Northern Ireland, they draped themselves in one flag."
I know. It would have been even more touching if they'd all done it of their own free will.
"Now, there's one person who didn't like that, and he's called Alex Salmond."
Er...make that two, David. Don't suppose there's a third out there somewhere, by any chance?
"I'm going to see him on Monday to sort out that referendum on independence by the end of 2014."
Ah, you mean you're sheepishly going to make a string of concessions in order to secure the one and only thing you've been hellbent on achieving from the word go - ie. being clearly seen by all Scots as the person who has denied them the full range of choices on their own constitutional future. Masterfully done, as ever. Don't worry - I doubt if there's a single Devo Max supporter who will now feel driven to vote for independence as a result of your antics.
"Let's say it, we're better together and we'll rise together..."
You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains.
You RAI-AISE me up, to walk on stormy seas...
"Mr Cameron told the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham that the Olympics highlighted the depth of feeling for the UK, adding: “Whether our athletes were English, Scottish, Welsh or from Northern Ireland, they draped themselves in one flag."
I know. It would have been even more touching if they'd all done it of their own free will.
"Now, there's one person who didn't like that, and he's called Alex Salmond."
Er...make that two, David. Don't suppose there's a third out there somewhere, by any chance?
"I'm going to see him on Monday to sort out that referendum on independence by the end of 2014."
Ah, you mean you're sheepishly going to make a string of concessions in order to secure the one and only thing you've been hellbent on achieving from the word go - ie. being clearly seen by all Scots as the person who has denied them the full range of choices on their own constitutional future. Masterfully done, as ever. Don't worry - I doubt if there's a single Devo Max supporter who will now feel driven to vote for independence as a result of your antics.
"Let's say it, we're better together and we'll rise together..."
You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains.
You RAI-AISE me up, to walk on stormy seas...
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Mad World Part 2 : it's "anti-women" to agree with the views of millions of women
You might remember the tagline of Mr Eugenides' old blog was "holding back the rage". I sometimes used to think that could also apply to this blog when I find myself in full-on rant mode, but I now realise that I'd be hard-pressed to match Edinburgh Eye on that score, judging by the strength of her reaction to my last post -
"Alex Neil isn’t fit to be Health Secretary if he thinks he can express such anti-women, anti-healthcare views in public. He should either retract or resign, since if Alex Salmond continues to keep him as Health Secretary, it’s a clear indication that to Salmond, Alex Neil’s views aren’t objectionable...
Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.
Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion. Or that it didn’t matter that Alex Neil was only as bad as David Cameron because Jeremy Hunt was much worse. None of these are good defenses, because none of them deal with the real problem – the SNP has appointed a man who holds anti-choice views on abortion to be Health Secretary: instead they create a huge problem, which is that with every defence of Alex Neil, the SNP is building itself up to be the anti-choice party in Scotland, the party not to be trusted on human rights."
Well, of course I wasn't 'instructing' anyone to do or think anything. Quite the contrary, in fact - I was objecting to the idea that all women must dutifully hold the views on abortion and independence prescribed for them by the Labour party. So I decided to set the record straight, and it developed into the following exchange...
Me : “Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.”
Actually, I didn’t say that, and I suspect you know I didn’t say that. I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said.
“Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion.”
He doesn’t. It’s a fact. Abortion law is wholly reserved to Westminster, and if it was ever transferred to Holyrood it would continue to be decided by a free vote. This is the point you’re missing – the Scotland on Sunday article was indeed misleading, but not because Neil was misquoted. It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change.
In one very limited sense you’re right – Alex Neil’s personal view DOES matter, but only because he has one vote out of 129. That’s it.
Edinburgh Eye : "I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said."
Yes. And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick.
Thanks so much.
"It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change."
Yep. The SNP had the option of avoiding this implication by promptly sacking Alex Neil as Health Secretary. They opted not to.
Me : "And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick."
Nope. This slipperiness isn't doing your argument any favours. First of all I wasn't talking about women who reject independence for the reason you suggest ("its adherents are rallying round"), and neither was the activist I responded to. He was suggesting that women would reject independence simply because they didn't like Alex Neil's personal views, and yes, if he really believes that, he must think women are pretty stupid.
I certainly wouldn't describe someone as stupid or thick because they turn against independence on the grounds that they don't like the SNP's support for Alex Neil, but I do think such a reaction is demonstrably irrational. The SNP is not independence, and independence is not the SNP. There will be an election to decide which party or parties governs an independent Scotland. If you have an issue with the SNP, vote for another party in that election.
A second aspect to the reason why that activist must think women are stupid is that he evidently perceives them as herd-like, with entirely uniform views. He believes diversity of opinion and individuality of thought on the subject of abortion is a male preserve. That's what I was getting at (as made abundantly clear in point 1 of my blogpost), so it just doesn't make sense to claim that it's a 'follow-on' from what I said that any individual woman must be thick if she reacts in a certain way.
"Why didn’t it occur to the vast majority of the SNP supporters, even those who say they disagree with Alex Neil, to actually step up and say that Alex Neil should cease to be Health Secretary?"
Well, I can't speak for other SNP supporters, but I'll tell you why it didn't occur to me. I not only think that Alex Neil is a fit and proper person to be Health Secretary, I think it would be utterly outrageous if he was sacked for simply expressing a perfectly legitimate and mainstream view that is also held by a significant proportion of the public, and indeed is held by more women than men -
"Polls consistently show the opposite – that women are more likely than men to support a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did."
Is it really "anti-women" to express support for the political views of millions of women?
* * *
One other point is worth making. Margaret Thatcher supported the reintroduction of capital punishment during her entire eleven-and-a-half years as Prime Minister. For most of that period, her party had a Commons majority of over 100. This was also a time when, unlike now, membership of the Council of Europe and the European Community would not have precluded the return of the death penalty. Mrs Thatcher of course sometimes expressed her personal view in public, just as Alex Neil has now done on an equivalent matter of conscience, and it did not lead to a rebellion against her leadership. On Edinburgh Eye's logic that means there was an "implication" that the Thatcher government was collectively in favour of capital punishment. But that logic is wrong, as a succession of parliamentary votes in the 1980s handily demonstrates.
The views of individual political leaders really are neither here nor there on the matters of conscience that are traditionally decided by a free vote. If control over abortion law is transferred to Scotland, it will be exclusively a matter for parliament, not for the government, and certainly not for the Health Secretary acting on his own initiative.
* * *
UPDATE : And some more...
Edinburgh Eye : Alex Neil is anti-choice: he's been appointed Health Secretary: the SNP supporters are rallying round to defend having a Health Secretary with anti-choice views: this turns me off independence because I don’t want to live in a country run by people like that.
And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid. You're still not being convincing.
Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?
Me : "Alex Neil is anti-choice"
He isn't. That simply isn't true, and won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. He favours a small reduction in the time limit on abortion. If simply being in favour of ANY time limit on abortion is "anti-choice", then practically the entire population of this country is anti-choice.
"this turns me off independence because I don't want to live in a country run by people like that."
And thus you prefer to live in a country run by people like Jeremy Hunt who, er, wants to cut the time limit on abortion much further than Alex Neil does. Yup, that makes perfect sense.
"And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid."
The one and only thing I think is stupid is your determination to convince yourself that I've called you stupid, in spite of repeated explanations that I've done no such thing.
"Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?"
Probably because I think he's a principled man who has expressed an entirely appropriate personal view on a subject that is not covered by collective cabinet responsibility. I've "attacked his opposition" because they appear to be intolerant zealots who think there ought to be no place in public life for someone with the "wrong" views on a matter of conscience.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
"Alex Neil isn’t fit to be Health Secretary if he thinks he can express such anti-women, anti-healthcare views in public. He should either retract or resign, since if Alex Salmond continues to keep him as Health Secretary, it’s a clear indication that to Salmond, Alex Neil’s views aren’t objectionable...
Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.
Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion. Or that it didn’t matter that Alex Neil was only as bad as David Cameron because Jeremy Hunt was much worse. None of these are good defenses, because none of them deal with the real problem – the SNP has appointed a man who holds anti-choice views on abortion to be Health Secretary: instead they create a huge problem, which is that with every defence of Alex Neil, the SNP is building itself up to be the anti-choice party in Scotland, the party not to be trusted on human rights."
Well, of course I wasn't 'instructing' anyone to do or think anything. Quite the contrary, in fact - I was objecting to the idea that all women must dutifully hold the views on abortion and independence prescribed for them by the Labour party. So I decided to set the record straight, and it developed into the following exchange...
Me : “Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.”
Actually, I didn’t say that, and I suspect you know I didn’t say that. I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said.
“Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion.”
He doesn’t. It’s a fact. Abortion law is wholly reserved to Westminster, and if it was ever transferred to Holyrood it would continue to be decided by a free vote. This is the point you’re missing – the Scotland on Sunday article was indeed misleading, but not because Neil was misquoted. It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change.
In one very limited sense you’re right – Alex Neil’s personal view DOES matter, but only because he has one vote out of 129. That’s it.
Edinburgh Eye : "I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said."
Yes. And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick.
Thanks so much.
"It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change."
Yep. The SNP had the option of avoiding this implication by promptly sacking Alex Neil as Health Secretary. They opted not to.
Me : "And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick."
Nope. This slipperiness isn't doing your argument any favours. First of all I wasn't talking about women who reject independence for the reason you suggest ("its adherents are rallying round"), and neither was the activist I responded to. He was suggesting that women would reject independence simply because they didn't like Alex Neil's personal views, and yes, if he really believes that, he must think women are pretty stupid.
I certainly wouldn't describe someone as stupid or thick because they turn against independence on the grounds that they don't like the SNP's support for Alex Neil, but I do think such a reaction is demonstrably irrational. The SNP is not independence, and independence is not the SNP. There will be an election to decide which party or parties governs an independent Scotland. If you have an issue with the SNP, vote for another party in that election.
A second aspect to the reason why that activist must think women are stupid is that he evidently perceives them as herd-like, with entirely uniform views. He believes diversity of opinion and individuality of thought on the subject of abortion is a male preserve. That's what I was getting at (as made abundantly clear in point 1 of my blogpost), so it just doesn't make sense to claim that it's a 'follow-on' from what I said that any individual woman must be thick if she reacts in a certain way.
"Why didn’t it occur to the vast majority of the SNP supporters, even those who say they disagree with Alex Neil, to actually step up and say that Alex Neil should cease to be Health Secretary?"
Well, I can't speak for other SNP supporters, but I'll tell you why it didn't occur to me. I not only think that Alex Neil is a fit and proper person to be Health Secretary, I think it would be utterly outrageous if he was sacked for simply expressing a perfectly legitimate and mainstream view that is also held by a significant proportion of the public, and indeed is held by more women than men -
"Polls consistently show the opposite – that women are more likely than men to support a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did."
Is it really "anti-women" to express support for the political views of millions of women?
* * *
One other point is worth making. Margaret Thatcher supported the reintroduction of capital punishment during her entire eleven-and-a-half years as Prime Minister. For most of that period, her party had a Commons majority of over 100. This was also a time when, unlike now, membership of the Council of Europe and the European Community would not have precluded the return of the death penalty. Mrs Thatcher of course sometimes expressed her personal view in public, just as Alex Neil has now done on an equivalent matter of conscience, and it did not lead to a rebellion against her leadership. On Edinburgh Eye's logic that means there was an "implication" that the Thatcher government was collectively in favour of capital punishment. But that logic is wrong, as a succession of parliamentary votes in the 1980s handily demonstrates.
The views of individual political leaders really are neither here nor there on the matters of conscience that are traditionally decided by a free vote. If control over abortion law is transferred to Scotland, it will be exclusively a matter for parliament, not for the government, and certainly not for the Health Secretary acting on his own initiative.
* * *
UPDATE : And some more...
Edinburgh Eye : Alex Neil is anti-choice: he's been appointed Health Secretary: the SNP supporters are rallying round to defend having a Health Secretary with anti-choice views: this turns me off independence because I don’t want to live in a country run by people like that.
And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid. You're still not being convincing.
Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?
Me : "Alex Neil is anti-choice"
He isn't. That simply isn't true, and won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. He favours a small reduction in the time limit on abortion. If simply being in favour of ANY time limit on abortion is "anti-choice", then practically the entire population of this country is anti-choice.
"this turns me off independence because I don't want to live in a country run by people like that."
And thus you prefer to live in a country run by people like Jeremy Hunt who, er, wants to cut the time limit on abortion much further than Alex Neil does. Yup, that makes perfect sense.
"And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid."
The one and only thing I think is stupid is your determination to convince yourself that I've called you stupid, in spite of repeated explanations that I've done no such thing.
"Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?"
Probably because I think he's a principled man who has expressed an entirely appropriate personal view on a subject that is not covered by collective cabinet responsibility. I've "attacked his opposition" because they appear to be intolerant zealots who think there ought to be no place in public life for someone with the "wrong" views on a matter of conscience.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
It's official : Labour think women are thick
Or at least that's the impression you'll have got if you've been viewing Labour activists' tweets over the last few hours. Here are two particular gems -
"If any thinking person wants another reason not to vote for Scottish independence, Alex Neil has just provided it."
"Just wondering if @womenforindy will be shortest lived indy support group ever?"
It seems what we're supposed to infer from the latter comment is the following -
1) Every single woman in Scotland has an identical view on abortion. The apparent diversity of views on the subject is an aberration caused entirely by the existence of the male gender.
2) Women who are both pro-choice and pro-independence are too feeble-minded to believe they can actually win the debate on abortion in a democratic independent Scotland. Alex Neil has pronounced, therefore the only option left for females of the species is to look to strong London men for protection. Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Talking of whom...
3) The fact that the Scottish Government's Health Secretary doesn't want to cut the time limit on abortion by anything like as much as the UK Government's Health Secretary is all a bit too complicated for pro-choice women to grasp. They're bound to get it entirely the wrong way round, and conclude that they'd much rather put their faith in Jeremy Hunt and co to make the best decision.
4) Women are not capable of understanding the concept of a free vote in parliament - or else they're under the impression that the idea works fine in Westminster, but for some reason not in Holyrood. Up here all free votes go the way Alex Neil wants.
Of course in spite of Scotland on Sunday's creative attempts to sensationalise it, this is a story about abortion, not about independence. Yes, Mr. Neil was talking about his views on what should happen if abortion law is transferred to Holyrood, but that eventuality is not contingent on independence - Northern Ireland already decides abortion law for itself. David Steel, the proposer of the liberalising 1967 legislation, attempted to have control over abortion law transferred to Holyrood in the late 1990s. It was pointed out at the time that Scotland is not Ireland, and that there was absolutely no way of guessing whether the Scottish Parliament would be more or less likely than Westminster to tighten the law. That remains as true now as it was then. Regardless of whether the decision is taken in London or Edinburgh, there will be a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life unionists voting on it, along with a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life nationalists.
But heaven forbid that anyone should actually engage with the substance of Alex Neil's personal view, rather than inviting women to shut down all thought and chant "INDEPENDENCE IS UN-FEMALE" to themselves every night before they go to bed.
"If any thinking person wants another reason not to vote for Scottish independence, Alex Neil has just provided it."
"Just wondering if @womenforindy will be shortest lived indy support group ever?"
It seems what we're supposed to infer from the latter comment is the following -
1) Every single woman in Scotland has an identical view on abortion. The apparent diversity of views on the subject is an aberration caused entirely by the existence of the male gender.
2) Women who are both pro-choice and pro-independence are too feeble-minded to believe they can actually win the debate on abortion in a democratic independent Scotland. Alex Neil has pronounced, therefore the only option left for females of the species is to look to strong London men for protection. Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Talking of whom...
3) The fact that the Scottish Government's Health Secretary doesn't want to cut the time limit on abortion by anything like as much as the UK Government's Health Secretary is all a bit too complicated for pro-choice women to grasp. They're bound to get it entirely the wrong way round, and conclude that they'd much rather put their faith in Jeremy Hunt and co to make the best decision.
4) Women are not capable of understanding the concept of a free vote in parliament - or else they're under the impression that the idea works fine in Westminster, but for some reason not in Holyrood. Up here all free votes go the way Alex Neil wants.
Of course in spite of Scotland on Sunday's creative attempts to sensationalise it, this is a story about abortion, not about independence. Yes, Mr. Neil was talking about his views on what should happen if abortion law is transferred to Holyrood, but that eventuality is not contingent on independence - Northern Ireland already decides abortion law for itself. David Steel, the proposer of the liberalising 1967 legislation, attempted to have control over abortion law transferred to Holyrood in the late 1990s. It was pointed out at the time that Scotland is not Ireland, and that there was absolutely no way of guessing whether the Scottish Parliament would be more or less likely than Westminster to tighten the law. That remains as true now as it was then. Regardless of whether the decision is taken in London or Edinburgh, there will be a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life unionists voting on it, along with a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life nationalists.
But heaven forbid that anyone should actually engage with the substance of Alex Neil's personal view, rather than inviting women to shut down all thought and chant "INDEPENDENCE IS UN-FEMALE" to themselves every night before they go to bed.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Saint Savile abuses with impunity for decades, while ordinary citizen is sent to jail for hitting the wrong button
I used to watch Jim'll Fix It when I was a young child, and although I liked the basic idea of the show, I was never a big fan of Jimmy Savile himself - not because I had any intuition about his dark secret, but because I didn't like his occasional displays of impatience towards the children who came on. Heaven only knows what it must be like to switch on the TV at tea-time on Saturday, and see a children's show being presented by a man who raped you a quarter of a century ago and got away with it, and who you know in all probability raped other underage girls and got away with it.
The most impressive thing about last night's documentary is that it contained very little sensationalism - the facts were simply painstakingly documented, and as such they spoke for themselves all the more powerfully. There was only one unfortunate moment when the presenter couldn't resist dabbling in a little tabloid-style psychology, and suggested that Savile's views on the treatment of Gary Glitter revealed a sick attitude to sex. That may be fair comment, but it still detracted from an otherwise clear-sighted and objective approach to getting at the truth. I sometimes wonder if the slightly hysterical tendency to view all child abusers as inhuman monsters actually contributes to the ability of the likes of Savile to get away with sexually assaulting young girls on an industrial scale for so long. If you hear a piece of information that threatens to instantly turn a person you hold in high esteem into a depraved animal, it becomes all too easy to want to bury that information and the person who gave it to you.
By contrast, if you don't have any prior emotional investment, the absolutism of the need to be disgusted by even the slightest whiff of child abuse can lead to someone entirely innocent being branded a monster. Witness this utterly unbelievable story from a few days ago about a man who spent three months in jail because he accidentally sent a sexually explicit text to everyone in his address book (including two young girls), instead of just to his girlfriend as intended. I'm quite sure there are otherwise sensible people out there who would defend to the death Craig Evans' jail sentence on some kind of 'zero tolerance' principle, even though the facts of the case leave no real room for doubt that he simply made an innocent mistake that a great many men and women could potentially have made.
So one man rapes and abuses with impunity and enjoys a lifetime of being lionised as a saint for his troubles, another man hits the wrong button on his mobile phone and ends up in jail. This is a mad, mad world we live in.
The most impressive thing about last night's documentary is that it contained very little sensationalism - the facts were simply painstakingly documented, and as such they spoke for themselves all the more powerfully. There was only one unfortunate moment when the presenter couldn't resist dabbling in a little tabloid-style psychology, and suggested that Savile's views on the treatment of Gary Glitter revealed a sick attitude to sex. That may be fair comment, but it still detracted from an otherwise clear-sighted and objective approach to getting at the truth. I sometimes wonder if the slightly hysterical tendency to view all child abusers as inhuman monsters actually contributes to the ability of the likes of Savile to get away with sexually assaulting young girls on an industrial scale for so long. If you hear a piece of information that threatens to instantly turn a person you hold in high esteem into a depraved animal, it becomes all too easy to want to bury that information and the person who gave it to you.
By contrast, if you don't have any prior emotional investment, the absolutism of the need to be disgusted by even the slightest whiff of child abuse can lead to someone entirely innocent being branded a monster. Witness this utterly unbelievable story from a few days ago about a man who spent three months in jail because he accidentally sent a sexually explicit text to everyone in his address book (including two young girls), instead of just to his girlfriend as intended. I'm quite sure there are otherwise sensible people out there who would defend to the death Craig Evans' jail sentence on some kind of 'zero tolerance' principle, even though the facts of the case leave no real room for doubt that he simply made an innocent mistake that a great many men and women could potentially have made.
So one man rapes and abuses with impunity and enjoys a lifetime of being lionised as a saint for his troubles, another man hits the wrong button on his mobile phone and ends up in jail. This is a mad, mad world we live in.
Monday, October 1, 2012
European Ryder Cup team puts Team GB to shame : this is how a multi-national team should conduct itself
What a joy the last three days have been. Unfortunately I only managed to catch the occasional bit of Andy Murray's charge towards the US Open title when I was in Portugal, and as much as I enjoyed the Olympics, the spectacle was somewhat tarnished by the politicised zealotry over flags and anthems surrounding Team GB. In contrast, the European Ryder Cup team has shown exactly how a multi-national team should operate - in triumph all the players were proudly draped in their own national flags as well as the European flag. There was no Little Hitler from the equivalent of the BOA telling them they couldn't do that, because this was an inclusive team genuinely representing all of the nations of Europe, not a Greater England team on a political mission to snuff out every other rival identity. As a result, I had no difficulty losing myself completely in the contest as a European supporter. And how rewarding it was to do so, as one of the all-time greatest stories in sport unfolded.
It's the first time in ages that I've watched a golf event on Sky, and I must admit that I was very pleasantly surprised by the coverage. I would have imagined that Colin Montgomerie might be too intense for the commentary box, but in fact he took to it like a duck to water. The only thing that made me wince slightly was that he was a bit too partisan at times, something which stuck out all the more because the only American commentator (Butch Harmon) seemed to be genuinely thrilled for the Europeans whenever they produced a good shot.
Another thing that I didn't entirely agree with the commentators about was their fulsome praise for the spectators. The idiots may have been in the proverbial small minority, but I still sincerely hope that minority will be a hundred times smaller at Gleneagles in two years' time. Shouts of "hit it in the water!" or "hit it in the trees!" were clearly audible time and time again when the Europeans played. And the European spectators can't be entirely absolved of blame either - there was a small amount of moronic booing when Alex Salmond's name was announced during the closing ceremony. Given the composition of the European contingent of supporters, it seems fairly likely that the boo-boys were for the most part English Daily Mail-reading types who were trying to make some sort of tedious point about "keeping their beloved country together". Newsflash, chaps : the team you've been supporting is called "Europe", and Alex Salmond is considerably keener on being part of Europe than you are. It's OK, and probably even quite healthy, to occasionally take your own politicians down a peg or two by booing them at a big event on home soil, but to boo another country's First Minister on foreign soil just makes you look boorish and ill-mannered. Fortunately, Mr Salmond quickly silenced the idiots, and earned warm applause during a short but well-judged speech which hit all the right buttons.
One thing that always slightly confuses me about Ryder Cups is the ambivalence among the players towards the distinction between actually winning the match outright, and retaining the trophy by means of drawing the match. The legend of Jack Nicklaus' sportsmanship in 1969 suggests that the distinction does matter, and yet tonight it was as if nobody really cared. I may be wrong, but Tiger Woods' casual concession of a putt on the 18th that was only slightly shorter than the one he had just missed looked more like an expression of disgust and impatience than of sportsmanship.
Last but not least, congratulations to Paul Lawrie. When he won his point I had a horrible feeling it was going to be in vain, just as it had been as he racked up the points in his only previous Ryder Cup appearance in 1999. Instead it turned into the perfect day. Let's hope that at least one Scot (Martin Laird?) can follow in Lawrie's footsteps, and somehow squeeze into the team for Gleneagles.
It's the first time in ages that I've watched a golf event on Sky, and I must admit that I was very pleasantly surprised by the coverage. I would have imagined that Colin Montgomerie might be too intense for the commentary box, but in fact he took to it like a duck to water. The only thing that made me wince slightly was that he was a bit too partisan at times, something which stuck out all the more because the only American commentator (Butch Harmon) seemed to be genuinely thrilled for the Europeans whenever they produced a good shot.
Another thing that I didn't entirely agree with the commentators about was their fulsome praise for the spectators. The idiots may have been in the proverbial small minority, but I still sincerely hope that minority will be a hundred times smaller at Gleneagles in two years' time. Shouts of "hit it in the water!" or "hit it in the trees!" were clearly audible time and time again when the Europeans played. And the European spectators can't be entirely absolved of blame either - there was a small amount of moronic booing when Alex Salmond's name was announced during the closing ceremony. Given the composition of the European contingent of supporters, it seems fairly likely that the boo-boys were for the most part English Daily Mail-reading types who were trying to make some sort of tedious point about "keeping their beloved country together". Newsflash, chaps : the team you've been supporting is called "Europe", and Alex Salmond is considerably keener on being part of Europe than you are. It's OK, and probably even quite healthy, to occasionally take your own politicians down a peg or two by booing them at a big event on home soil, but to boo another country's First Minister on foreign soil just makes you look boorish and ill-mannered. Fortunately, Mr Salmond quickly silenced the idiots, and earned warm applause during a short but well-judged speech which hit all the right buttons.
One thing that always slightly confuses me about Ryder Cups is the ambivalence among the players towards the distinction between actually winning the match outright, and retaining the trophy by means of drawing the match. The legend of Jack Nicklaus' sportsmanship in 1969 suggests that the distinction does matter, and yet tonight it was as if nobody really cared. I may be wrong, but Tiger Woods' casual concession of a putt on the 18th that was only slightly shorter than the one he had just missed looked more like an expression of disgust and impatience than of sportsmanship.
Last but not least, congratulations to Paul Lawrie. When he won his point I had a horrible feeling it was going to be in vain, just as it had been as he racked up the points in his only previous Ryder Cup appearance in 1999. Instead it turned into the perfect day. Let's hope that at least one Scot (Martin Laird?) can follow in Lawrie's footsteps, and somehow squeeze into the team for Gleneagles.
Friday, September 28, 2012
US Presidential election : help required!
Just wondering if Scot Goes Pop readers would be interested in helping me with a small dilemma. As some of you know, I'm a dual UK/US national, and I'm in the middle of trying to work out who to vote for in the US election. The problem is as follows -
Opposition to the death penalty is pretty much my most fundamental political belief. I've therefore always followed the principle of voting for an anti-death penalty candidate, unless there wasn't one on the ballot paper. I do this even if it's a fringe candidate.
There is no real cost to doing this, because I vote in a strongly Democratic state in which Republicans (or at least Republican presidential candidates) have no chance whatsoever.
However, the only left-of-centre, anti-death penalty presidential candidate in "my" state this time round is Peta Lindsay, who represents an out-and-out revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party, and who regards Cuba as the template for the rest of the world to follow. Now, I'm all for acknowledging the good side of the Cuban system as well as the bad, but such views are a bit strong for even my taste.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that Barack Obama favours the death penalty in principle. Although he would perhaps be keen to significantly reduce its application, he has spoken approvingly about the idea of putting terrorists to death. I find it very hard to vote for someone with that position when there is a clear, cost-free alternative. Lindsay also has an exemplary stance in opposition to Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, something which can hardly be said of Obama.
So what do you think I should do - vote for Obama in spite of my beliefs, or vote for the Bolshevik? I've put a poll at the top of the sidebar, but you don't have long to vote, because I want to make a decision today!
* * *
UPDATE : Here are the final results of the poll -
Barack Obama 30%
Peta Lindsay 70%
Many thanks for all the votes and comments. I think using my 'ask the audience' lifeline has proved sufficient on this occasion, and I won't need to resort to going 50/50 or phoning a friend. But, alas, I still don't think I'm about to win any "life-changing money".
Opposition to the death penalty is pretty much my most fundamental political belief. I've therefore always followed the principle of voting for an anti-death penalty candidate, unless there wasn't one on the ballot paper. I do this even if it's a fringe candidate.
There is no real cost to doing this, because I vote in a strongly Democratic state in which Republicans (or at least Republican presidential candidates) have no chance whatsoever.
However, the only left-of-centre, anti-death penalty presidential candidate in "my" state this time round is Peta Lindsay, who represents an out-and-out revolutionary Marxist-Leninist party, and who regards Cuba as the template for the rest of the world to follow. Now, I'm all for acknowledging the good side of the Cuban system as well as the bad, but such views are a bit strong for even my taste.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that Barack Obama favours the death penalty in principle. Although he would perhaps be keen to significantly reduce its application, he has spoken approvingly about the idea of putting terrorists to death. I find it very hard to vote for someone with that position when there is a clear, cost-free alternative. Lindsay also has an exemplary stance in opposition to Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, something which can hardly be said of Obama.
So what do you think I should do - vote for Obama in spite of my beliefs, or vote for the Bolshevik? I've put a poll at the top of the sidebar, but you don't have long to vote, because I want to make a decision today!
* * *
UPDATE : Here are the final results of the poll -
Barack Obama 30%
Peta Lindsay 70%
Many thanks for all the votes and comments. I think using my 'ask the audience' lifeline has proved sufficient on this occasion, and I won't need to resort to going 50/50 or phoning a friend. But, alas, I still don't think I'm about to win any "life-changing money".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)