Dulce et decorum est pro patria jactura
Or so they tell the soldier they send
into their “theatre of operation”,
Or to the police officer they equip
with riot shields and guns
Or to working man whose job
falls to austerity
Or to the disabled child whose support
dwindles as the bills rise
Or to the homeless woman whose shelter
is closed because of other priorities
Or to the broken family that grieve
after a case of mistaken identity
Sacrifice is necessary, they preach to the poor
the disposessed
the weak
the sick
the hungry
Dulce et decorum est pro patria jactura
As they have never said to the banker
who gambled away millions
Or to the politician who fiddled the books
to claim their ‘fair’ share of expenses
Or to the businessman who juggled his accounts
to avoid their ‘fair’ share of taxes
Or to the journalist who scooped
an exclusive from a murdered child’s phone
Or to Cabinet Minister who with the stroke of a pen
let the blood of his compatriots
Or to the General who with a word sent
the flower of our youth to their deaths
Sacrifice is never made by the elites
the ruling classes
the rich
the powerful
the deserving
So my friend, don’t believe them when they repeat the old lie:
Dulce et decorum est pro patria jactura
(It is sweet and honourable to sacrifice for one’s country)
Written with a large nod to the work of Wilfred Owen. The lies of the powerful cost the lives of the populace, as true now as it ever was.
Monday, 1 October 2012
Friday, 20 July 2012
Equal and Free
Written with my partner Iain Davidson
Toxic Tories tenure
Bi-polar buddies
Intae workfare no welfare
Social Scotland Supports
Welfare and wellbeing
Common sense and common weal
Scottish votes for Scottish dwelling folks
English votes for English dwelling folks
Fair is fair
And less is mair
Free to be nuclear free
Wi' social justice for you n me
England is a fine place
But we dinnae need tae live by her grace
As we will nae longer be
"Scrounging Scots" ye see
But countries equal
And countries free
Toxic Tories tenure
Bi-polar buddies
Intae workfare no welfare
Social Scotland Supports
Welfare and wellbeing
Common sense and common weal
Scottish votes for Scottish dwelling folks
English votes for English dwelling folks
Fair is fair
And less is mair
Free to be nuclear free
Wi' social justice for you n me
England is a fine place
But we dinnae need tae live by her grace
As we will nae longer be
"Scrounging Scots" ye see
But countries equal
And countries free
Thursday, 28 June 2012
This is certainly a bit presumptious....
This has been growing in my thoughts for a while, and I've posted lots of similar sentiments over on Facebook, but I'm going to put it all together now. What follows is an open letter to the Yes Campaign, one that I am asking people to consider putting their support to. If that strikes you as cheeky, apologies in advance!
Dear Yes Scotland,
We are greatly encouraged to see that you have appointed Denis Canavan and Blair Jenkins to head up your campaign, but We would like to urge you to go a step further than this in ensuring the relative neutrality of the campaign. We believe in an Independent Scotland passionately, but we have great reservations about the political balance of the campaign. It is currently accepted that the SNP government will be responsible for post Yes vote negotiations and for the creation of the constitution, but we do not think that this is truly the democratic way forward. We would like for the Yes Scotland campaign to commit to holding an election to create a separate, elected, body of people from all walks of Scottish Society to negotiate the settlement with the rUK and to write a new constitution in consultation with the people of Scotland. In this way, Scotland can truly live up to the "beacon of progressiveness" that Alex Salmond has called for. We only need to look as far as Iceland for an example of such a process in action.
Much has changed in the world over the last ten years - much and at a great deal faster pace than in previous decades. To keep up with this fast changing world we must use all the tools it offers and build with flexibility and equality in mind. We believe this can only be achieved with as inclusive an approach to re-building our country as possible.
Finally, as was declared in Scotland's most enduring constitutional document, we the people of Scotland are sovereign and it is our right to seize upon the possibilities of modern life to exercise this sovereignty in a truly meaningful and enduring manner.
Signed
Angela Kerry Miller
To add your own signature please follow the link to the petition
Dear Yes Scotland,
We are greatly encouraged to see that you have appointed Denis Canavan and Blair Jenkins to head up your campaign, but We would like to urge you to go a step further than this in ensuring the relative neutrality of the campaign. We believe in an Independent Scotland passionately, but we have great reservations about the political balance of the campaign. It is currently accepted that the SNP government will be responsible for post Yes vote negotiations and for the creation of the constitution, but we do not think that this is truly the democratic way forward. We would like for the Yes Scotland campaign to commit to holding an election to create a separate, elected, body of people from all walks of Scottish Society to negotiate the settlement with the rUK and to write a new constitution in consultation with the people of Scotland. In this way, Scotland can truly live up to the "beacon of progressiveness" that Alex Salmond has called for. We only need to look as far as Iceland for an example of such a process in action.
Much has changed in the world over the last ten years - much and at a great deal faster pace than in previous decades. To keep up with this fast changing world we must use all the tools it offers and build with flexibility and equality in mind. We believe this can only be achieved with as inclusive an approach to re-building our country as possible.
Finally, as was declared in Scotland's most enduring constitutional document, we the people of Scotland are sovereign and it is our right to seize upon the possibilities of modern life to exercise this sovereignty in a truly meaningful and enduring manner.
Signed
Angela Kerry Miller
To add your own signature please follow the link to the petition
Wednesday, 20 June 2012
Let the people seize the agenda.
So we're well off the starting blocks and on our way, the campaign has started and it's a mere two years until the referendum. With the No campaign (or however they are choosing to style it) launch this coming Friday, all of Scotland's political parties are ramping up for the fight of their lives and the rhetoric is already feisty as they compete for our attention and our opinions. The line has been drawn in the sand between the sides, and all oblivious to the rolling of eyes and heavy sighs of the electorate they are trying to charm, because I think that everyone can see, that in spite of the fact this Referendum is unprecedented in UK history, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the political parties have only one mode of campaigning. They have to persuade us, they have to gain our vote, they have to do as they have always done and "get their message across". What they don't realise is that we are in completely new territory altogether and this is not going to be they way to win the Referendum from either side.
The Referendum may be about politics, but it most certainly is not about political parties. The SNP can't win the Yes vote, only the people of Scotland can, because an Independent Scotland is our prize, not theirs. While the Unionist parties continue to attack Alex Salmond and try to conflate the idea of an Independent Scotland with some kind of notion of perpetual SNP government in Holyrood they are showing quite blatantly their inability to slip out of the game of party politics (which is like the Game of Thrones but a little less bloody and a lot less sexy). It's almost sickening to listen to them as they play the man and not the ball continually and has me wishing for a red card in my pocket so I can send all of them off the field. Apologies now for all the mixing of metaphors!
The SNP, in their desperation to be seen as positive and whiter than white in the campaign are walking into their own trap too. The slickness of presentation is amazing, but it lacks humanity. The careful massaging of their message is understandable, but comes across as borderline control freakery. The recent fracas over the alleged threat of the Greens to walk out of the Yes Scotland campaign, while it was greatly exaggerated by the media and not the whole truth by a long stretch, illustrates an underlying problem with the campaign as it stands. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to learn to let go of their cherished ideological baby and let it grow up for itself?
Illusions by Richard Bach opens with a parable about creatures clinging to the rocks in a river. They are safe, comfortable but inexperienced with the larger world. One of the creatures decides it's going to try and let go as it wants to experience what lies down river. The other creatures plead with it not to, but it goes it;s own way none the less. It gets battered and bruised on it's journey, it learns and experiences much, and comes out of the process a much wiser creature than it began.
The Referendum campaign needs to be freed from the clinging insecurities of all the political parties, and it needs to be allowed to run free among the people so that new ideas and ways of looking at things can be absorbed into the debate, both Independence and the Union. It will quickly become stale, if it isn't already, while both "sides" of the debate rehash and reiterate the same old tired notions and arguments. Do you think that a radical proposal that might actually save the Union will come from any involved political party? Of course not, they are already all far too well trained to step outside the boxes drawn for them by their political masters. Will truly radical ideas about how an Independent Scotland will work come from politicians? Not while Alex Salmonds softly, softly strategy remains in place.
Efforts are being made by the Yes Scotland campaign to be inclusive and non-party political, but this is a false premise really, as it is still ultimately run by political parties. The website is very swish, designed with social networking in mind and struggling very hard to be inclusive, but facebook is already doing it better without trying because through facebook people are self-organising. The No campaign website suffered some leakage recently, as did the Tory campaign Friends of the Union prior to it's launch. It all smacks of them giving us the chance to talk about it while still trying to keep hold of the agenda for themselves, in truth, and that is a terrible shame really.
It's not necessary any more, from either side, to be so rigid and controlled in this debate. This is not a General Election where the parties are selling themselves to the people. It's not like any of them are going to lose seats come the morning after the vote this time, it's not like any party will gain new power or authority the next morning either. This is not about them, it's about Scotland and where her people decide to take her.
So what can we do to seize control of the agenda then? How can we reign in our politicians and prevent them from putting the rest of us off the debate entirely? It's not really that hard. As I already said, groups are already self-organising on facebook, some of them with specific agendas and some of them as general discussion and news groups. Being that we are mostly geographically close enough, it isn't much of a leap for these groups to start working together offline too. Of course, it's not all about facebook - that's just what I am personally best at. The blogoshpere has long been host to a nation of Cybernats and can also be a source of alternative debate on the referendum. We are slowly learning how to bypass the mainstream media that is often so closed minded and restrictive about the referendum, and we can learn to bypass the politicians too by organising our own events, media and discussions that will allow a truly diverse range of voices to be heard
We no longer need the politicians to talk to us, we can start talking to each other and take control of the debate for ourselves. We don't need to be given different options by either side of the debate, we don't even need them to listen to us, so long as we are listening to each other, because the political parties need us - they need all of us - to make this decision for them. We can turn around and dictate to them what terms it will take for us to vote either yes or no. If we want, for example, control over the process of writing a new constitution, we have the power now to come together online and in our towns and villages and tell them this is what we want and this is what it will take for us to vote yes in the Referendum. We can force these issues because in post-referendum Scotland all of the political parties will be scrabbling to re-align themselves with the new landscape of Scottish Politics. For the political parties of Scotland there will be a whole load of new powers suddenly available to them, but they must ask us to grant those powers to them. That's where the true power in Scotland lies, now and in 2014.
The Referendum may be about politics, but it most certainly is not about political parties. The SNP can't win the Yes vote, only the people of Scotland can, because an Independent Scotland is our prize, not theirs. While the Unionist parties continue to attack Alex Salmond and try to conflate the idea of an Independent Scotland with some kind of notion of perpetual SNP government in Holyrood they are showing quite blatantly their inability to slip out of the game of party politics (which is like the Game of Thrones but a little less bloody and a lot less sexy). It's almost sickening to listen to them as they play the man and not the ball continually and has me wishing for a red card in my pocket so I can send all of them off the field. Apologies now for all the mixing of metaphors!
The SNP, in their desperation to be seen as positive and whiter than white in the campaign are walking into their own trap too. The slickness of presentation is amazing, but it lacks humanity. The careful massaging of their message is understandable, but comes across as borderline control freakery. The recent fracas over the alleged threat of the Greens to walk out of the Yes Scotland campaign, while it was greatly exaggerated by the media and not the whole truth by a long stretch, illustrates an underlying problem with the campaign as it stands. Perhaps it is time for the SNP to learn to let go of their cherished ideological baby and let it grow up for itself?
Illusions by Richard Bach opens with a parable about creatures clinging to the rocks in a river. They are safe, comfortable but inexperienced with the larger world. One of the creatures decides it's going to try and let go as it wants to experience what lies down river. The other creatures plead with it not to, but it goes it;s own way none the less. It gets battered and bruised on it's journey, it learns and experiences much, and comes out of the process a much wiser creature than it began.
The Referendum campaign needs to be freed from the clinging insecurities of all the political parties, and it needs to be allowed to run free among the people so that new ideas and ways of looking at things can be absorbed into the debate, both Independence and the Union. It will quickly become stale, if it isn't already, while both "sides" of the debate rehash and reiterate the same old tired notions and arguments. Do you think that a radical proposal that might actually save the Union will come from any involved political party? Of course not, they are already all far too well trained to step outside the boxes drawn for them by their political masters. Will truly radical ideas about how an Independent Scotland will work come from politicians? Not while Alex Salmonds softly, softly strategy remains in place.
Efforts are being made by the Yes Scotland campaign to be inclusive and non-party political, but this is a false premise really, as it is still ultimately run by political parties. The website is very swish, designed with social networking in mind and struggling very hard to be inclusive, but facebook is already doing it better without trying because through facebook people are self-organising. The No campaign website suffered some leakage recently, as did the Tory campaign Friends of the Union prior to it's launch. It all smacks of them giving us the chance to talk about it while still trying to keep hold of the agenda for themselves, in truth, and that is a terrible shame really.
It's not necessary any more, from either side, to be so rigid and controlled in this debate. This is not a General Election where the parties are selling themselves to the people. It's not like any of them are going to lose seats come the morning after the vote this time, it's not like any party will gain new power or authority the next morning either. This is not about them, it's about Scotland and where her people decide to take her.
So what can we do to seize control of the agenda then? How can we reign in our politicians and prevent them from putting the rest of us off the debate entirely? It's not really that hard. As I already said, groups are already self-organising on facebook, some of them with specific agendas and some of them as general discussion and news groups. Being that we are mostly geographically close enough, it isn't much of a leap for these groups to start working together offline too. Of course, it's not all about facebook - that's just what I am personally best at. The blogoshpere has long been host to a nation of Cybernats and can also be a source of alternative debate on the referendum. We are slowly learning how to bypass the mainstream media that is often so closed minded and restrictive about the referendum, and we can learn to bypass the politicians too by organising our own events, media and discussions that will allow a truly diverse range of voices to be heard
We no longer need the politicians to talk to us, we can start talking to each other and take control of the debate for ourselves. We don't need to be given different options by either side of the debate, we don't even need them to listen to us, so long as we are listening to each other, because the political parties need us - they need all of us - to make this decision for them. We can turn around and dictate to them what terms it will take for us to vote either yes or no. If we want, for example, control over the process of writing a new constitution, we have the power now to come together online and in our towns and villages and tell them this is what we want and this is what it will take for us to vote yes in the Referendum. We can force these issues because in post-referendum Scotland all of the political parties will be scrabbling to re-align themselves with the new landscape of Scottish Politics. For the political parties of Scotland there will be a whole load of new powers suddenly available to them, but they must ask us to grant those powers to them. That's where the true power in Scotland lies, now and in 2014.
Sunday, 3 June 2012
Our best shot at reform by the people.
A yes vote will be a major chance to put in place important reforms needed in our politics that have been repeatedly fudged rather than addressed by Westminster. Four main issues, House of Lords reform, MP's expenses, issues of surrounding the lobbying of politicians by corporations, and Political Party funding reform. These are all fundamentally important to the health of our modern British Democracy.
When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, rules were put in place to make a greater effort at Governmental transparency. Rules on MSP's expenses were much stricter than at Westminster. Lobbying rules were tighter and funding rules were tighter. We were not given a second chamber - devolution doesn't require it, so the problem of political appointee-ism that the House of Lords currently represents (notwithstanding the inclusion of the CofE Archbishops in the Lords) doesn't apply, yet.
Has anyone really forgotten the expenses scandal now that it's been pushed back from the parapet by other, more up-to-date events? Of course we haven't, it's filed at the back of our minds as yet another reason not to trust politicians. Are we aware that it's supposed to be fixed? Of course we are, but the real question is do we trust the fix? No, we are all well aware of the idiom about Turkey's not voting for Christmas.
Tied up with the fix was Political Party funding reform, but that has become a problem unto itself. It urgently needs fixing, but still our Political Parties are having trouble agreeing with each other the niggling details of how they propose to do it. Again it is reminiscent of Turkey's voting for Christmas. How can Political Parties be left to decide how Political Parties should be funded? Why were only representatives of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour parties attending these talks? Are we to be expected that they will abide by the standards of 'Fair Play' taught to them in their public schools?
Then when they finally manage to come to some sort of consensus, it will be dragged before the meritocratic House of Lords. How is a Lord made these days? By following the party line no matter what, judging by some of the newly elevated modellers of the old ermine robes. Jack McConnel? Michael Forsyth? George Foulkes? Failed politicians rewarded for losing their places in democratically elected Parliaments with a lifelong seat at the table of the Lords. Good luck getting Lords Reform past these people - those cushioned benches seem to be pretty comfortable and the ermine robes are very warm in winter!
The lobbying of Government by "interested parties" is an issue that really deserves more coverage. Earlier this year the Government published it's proposal for a register of lobbyists. The proposed register will cover just 5% of lobbyists, being only those who lobby on behalf of a third party rather than those who lobby for their companies directly. This is hardly radical reform.
And here we sit, in the midst of ongoing financial turmoil caused by piratical corporatism (or corporate piraticalism) being governed by a party that gets more than 50% of it's funding from the City of London. What chance of much needed reform from Westminster? I'll tell you what chance, fat chance, frankly.
So, we all know we can't trust our political parties to deliver reform in Westminster, but what about in Edinburgh?
My biggest fear about Independence isn't that Scotland will become Skintland, or that Alex Salmond will become our perpetual Dear Leader, but that Holyrood doesn't stick itself to a constitution reigning in it's power to make decisions without the consent of the people of Scotland. I fear, as I have said before, Westminster-lite sat in Edinburgh.
In Iceland, the recent constitutional reforms have taken on a new and radical direction. The recently re-elected President of Iceland went into a good bit of detail about it in an interview he gave earlier this year which is well worth a read, but the gist of it is this, taken from the article Why Iceland should be in the news but is not. 1
The beauty of the internet is that if we have an issue with one form of communication like this, we can simply plug in something in another format to fix it. If you want to have more static debates, you can go and build yourself a forum from any number of free sites, put together one that meets your needs and then link that to the discussions in your facebook group.
Of course, I'm not in any way advocating our constitution gets written via facebook and free forums, but these could provide a template for a site dedicated to the writing of the constitution. I am fully aware that the SNP already have a written constitution, but surely things have changed a great deal since it was written and it would be far more appropriate to write a new constitution for today's Scotland, and to do it in such a way as any Scot can have an input. There should be a constitution roadshow too, to bring the process to the people who cannot either access it online or make their way to the Parliament to take part.
This is what it takes to build a true democracy, this is what it will take to build Alex Salmond's "progressive beacon" and this is what it will take to reform our democracy so that it cannot be taken advantage of by wealth and privilege. Since the people were not consulted in 1707, then in truth they must be consulted in 2014, and not just in the ballot box.
1 I am aware of the mistakes in the cited article but feel the model provided is still an excellent representation of a model for the creation of the Scottish Constitution.
When the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, rules were put in place to make a greater effort at Governmental transparency. Rules on MSP's expenses were much stricter than at Westminster. Lobbying rules were tighter and funding rules were tighter. We were not given a second chamber - devolution doesn't require it, so the problem of political appointee-ism that the House of Lords currently represents (notwithstanding the inclusion of the CofE Archbishops in the Lords) doesn't apply, yet.
Has anyone really forgotten the expenses scandal now that it's been pushed back from the parapet by other, more up-to-date events? Of course we haven't, it's filed at the back of our minds as yet another reason not to trust politicians. Are we aware that it's supposed to be fixed? Of course we are, but the real question is do we trust the fix? No, we are all well aware of the idiom about Turkey's not voting for Christmas.
Tied up with the fix was Political Party funding reform, but that has become a problem unto itself. It urgently needs fixing, but still our Political Parties are having trouble agreeing with each other the niggling details of how they propose to do it. Again it is reminiscent of Turkey's voting for Christmas. How can Political Parties be left to decide how Political Parties should be funded? Why were only representatives of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour parties attending these talks? Are we to be expected that they will abide by the standards of 'Fair Play' taught to them in their public schools?
Then when they finally manage to come to some sort of consensus, it will be dragged before the meritocratic House of Lords. How is a Lord made these days? By following the party line no matter what, judging by some of the newly elevated modellers of the old ermine robes. Jack McConnel? Michael Forsyth? George Foulkes? Failed politicians rewarded for losing their places in democratically elected Parliaments with a lifelong seat at the table of the Lords. Good luck getting Lords Reform past these people - those cushioned benches seem to be pretty comfortable and the ermine robes are very warm in winter!
The lobbying of Government by "interested parties" is an issue that really deserves more coverage. Earlier this year the Government published it's proposal for a register of lobbyists. The proposed register will cover just 5% of lobbyists, being only those who lobby on behalf of a third party rather than those who lobby for their companies directly. This is hardly radical reform.
And here we sit, in the midst of ongoing financial turmoil caused by piratical corporatism (or corporate piraticalism) being governed by a party that gets more than 50% of it's funding from the City of London. What chance of much needed reform from Westminster? I'll tell you what chance, fat chance, frankly.
So, we all know we can't trust our political parties to deliver reform in Westminster, but what about in Edinburgh?
My biggest fear about Independence isn't that Scotland will become Skintland, or that Alex Salmond will become our perpetual Dear Leader, but that Holyrood doesn't stick itself to a constitution reigning in it's power to make decisions without the consent of the people of Scotland. I fear, as I have said before, Westminster-lite sat in Edinburgh.
In Iceland, the recent constitutional reforms have taken on a new and radical direction. The recently re-elected President of Iceland went into a good bit of detail about it in an interview he gave earlier this year which is well worth a read, but the gist of it is this, taken from the article Why Iceland should be in the news but is not. 1
To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.Internet technology actually allows for participatory democracy to become a reality. Look at the basic structure of a facebook group. Anyone can be allowed to post questions or points of argument, anyone can be allowed to post polls or respond to them. The polls have a useful tie-in between a user account and a vote on a poll, accurately preventing the problem of multiple votes which dogs most online snap polling. Admittedly, for something that requires a secret ballot this is not helpful, but for voting on issues in an open forum, it's ideal. The documents section allows for documents to be edited by a group of people together, and allows for a discussion on the contents of the document. Put all of these things together and you can have quite an effective forum for political debate and action. It's not perfect though, and good debates can get quickly lost as other posts displace them.
The beauty of the internet is that if we have an issue with one form of communication like this, we can simply plug in something in another format to fix it. If you want to have more static debates, you can go and build yourself a forum from any number of free sites, put together one that meets your needs and then link that to the discussions in your facebook group.
Of course, I'm not in any way advocating our constitution gets written via facebook and free forums, but these could provide a template for a site dedicated to the writing of the constitution. I am fully aware that the SNP already have a written constitution, but surely things have changed a great deal since it was written and it would be far more appropriate to write a new constitution for today's Scotland, and to do it in such a way as any Scot can have an input. There should be a constitution roadshow too, to bring the process to the people who cannot either access it online or make their way to the Parliament to take part.
This is what it takes to build a true democracy, this is what it will take to build Alex Salmond's "progressive beacon" and this is what it will take to reform our democracy so that it cannot be taken advantage of by wealth and privilege. Since the people were not consulted in 1707, then in truth they must be consulted in 2014, and not just in the ballot box.
1 I am aware of the mistakes in the cited article but feel the model provided is still an excellent representation of a model for the creation of the Scottish Constitution.
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
Women for Scottish Independence.... controversial?
I got up this mornin', and I made myself a page. Yeah, I got up this mornin, and I made myself a page. Didn't see the trollin' comin', comin' straight for me....
Er... ahem. Anyway..
Today I founded the Women for Scottish Independence page on Facebook, then I spent a little while plugging it to a handful of groups and pages. Immediately the likes started rolling in, which is very gratifying, but I also started to see something I'd not really been expecting, and that was a fair amount of vitriol at the very idea of there being such a page.
The first accusation I came across was that it was sexist. Sexist? Really? The point of the page is to encourage discussion about an issue which deeply affects the Referendum campaign, and that is the lack of specifically female support. There are more women than men in Scotland folks, we really do need to look at this issue, I'm afraid, and we need to engage women in it both in discovering what the problem is and in finding the solution. Are Fathers 4 Justice sexist by the same token?
The second accusation was a bit of a stunner. There is shouldn't be such a group, apparently, it's segregationist. Currently facebook hasn't put a 'ban by gender' option on the plate so even though the vast majority of likes the page received today were from women, a few men did have the tenacity to sneak through under my nose. The cheek of it... they'll be hearing us talk about our secret women's issues and Mark Zuckerberg wont let me stop them! Of course, the whole premise of the accusation is a total nonsense, our page is hardly segregated from the rest of the world and isn't about to become segregated. What it does do is provide a forum for people to discuss the issues of Independence that affect women and it aims to do so without any party-political bias so that it can be as open as it needs to be. There are some issues, even now in the 21st century I'm afraid, that affect women more deeply than men, so women are going to be in the majority of people active on the page.
Er... ahem. Anyway..
Today I founded the Women for Scottish Independence page on Facebook, then I spent a little while plugging it to a handful of groups and pages. Immediately the likes started rolling in, which is very gratifying, but I also started to see something I'd not really been expecting, and that was a fair amount of vitriol at the very idea of there being such a page.
The first accusation I came across was that it was sexist. Sexist? Really? The point of the page is to encourage discussion about an issue which deeply affects the Referendum campaign, and that is the lack of specifically female support. There are more women than men in Scotland folks, we really do need to look at this issue, I'm afraid, and we need to engage women in it both in discovering what the problem is and in finding the solution. Are Fathers 4 Justice sexist by the same token?
The second accusation was a bit of a stunner. There is shouldn't be such a group, apparently, it's segregationist. Currently facebook hasn't put a 'ban by gender' option on the plate so even though the vast majority of likes the page received today were from women, a few men did have the tenacity to sneak through under my nose. The cheek of it... they'll be hearing us talk about our secret women's issues and Mark Zuckerberg wont let me stop them! Of course, the whole premise of the accusation is a total nonsense, our page is hardly segregated from the rest of the world and isn't about to become segregated. What it does do is provide a forum for people to discuss the issues of Independence that affect women and it aims to do so without any party-political bias so that it can be as open as it needs to be. There are some issues, even now in the 21st century I'm afraid, that affect women more deeply than men, so women are going to be in the majority of people active on the page.
The third accusation was pretty bizarre. Apparently we don't need such a page at all, and we shouldn't be bothering. Honestly? When women form 7% more of the population than men and still only 45 of our 129 MSP's are women, women make up only 24% of our local councillors and get only a third of public appointments, we don't need to bother with a page aimed at increasing female participation in Scottish politics? Is this what we call equality? Are we wrong to try and figure out how to change this? When I tried to question this gently, I was told rather summarily that women don't need help to participate, they should simply speak up for themselves and if they won't that is their own fault. I guess that also means we don't need to address the alarming decline in voter turnout either? It's fine to let the ruling classes get on with alienating people from politics with the kind of behaviour we've seen from the Coalition government in Westminster and to never try to reach out to all of those disaffected voters who just won't speak up is it? It's got nothing to do with the prevailing feeling of not being listened to that so many people report has it?
OK, so the last one really got me a bit upset. Of course that's not the way forward. We need to look at the issues that women don't feel are being addressed, and we need to do it out of the glare of the mainstream political forum of party politics so that they don't feel intimidated. I'm not inferring that women are timid here, just in case you wondered, I just think that it is a huge disincentive to speak out for most people regardless of gender, and this is the best approach to take.
One last little point, the majority of hostility the page received today was from women and not men. The vast majority of feedback we have had has been hearteningly positive, and I want to thank everyone for their support. For the Yes vote to carry the day in Autumn 2014, we need to work to bring all of the disaffected on board with us, we need to build consensus politics with the strength of voice and diversity that will trump the playground politics that currently undermines our democracy. With the page we're reaching out to the biggest disaffected group in Scotland, and I am not going to apologise for doing that.
PS. Maybe some people will be a little upset with the tone of this article, I will apologise for that as I am not out to make people angry. I simply needed to address the above issues for the sake of my own sanity before bed tonight, otherwise that blues song is going to keep going round and round and round in my head to the wee small hours of the morning!
Wednesday, 2 May 2012
Over the line
Is it just me, or has a line been crossed in what is considered acceptable practice in a democratic country? I just looked up at facebook to see that the UK Government is banning ticket holders to Olympic events from taking photographs. Now, to be honest with you, I really don't care much for the Olympics, in fact, I think I can quite safely say I've been against the idea since before the bid was won. This has no bearing on the increasing alarm I feel at such restrictions being placed by a supposedly democratic Government.
Now this 'line' I'm talking about hasn't just recently been breached. To my mind, the first attempt at crossing the line was made with the Criminal Justice bill 1988, but it probably wasn't until after 9/11 that it was truly breached. What is the line I'm referring to? It's the line over which Ministers no longer even consider what the electorate thinks of their rights being curbed. It's the line when they stop saying to themselves "The voters won't like that," not the line where they stop taking it into account. If you think I'm being a little dramatic here, or if you think that we are doing much better now than say, 2 centuries ago perhaps, then consider this rather scary notion about whether or not Robert Burns would have been jailed under modern laws for his work.
Look at the increasingly invasive and restricting laws trotting their way through the Parliament in Westminster right now. Our government thinks nothing of demanding the right to snoop in our emails and social networking, they think nothing of preventing us from having free access to the Internet, they give tax breaks to the rich and are making poor people pay for the mess of management, legislation and piratical capitalism with 'austerity measures' that look increasingly like a massive privatisation drive. Meanwhile, back at the Olympics, they are stuffing the rooftops with Surface-to-air missiles and the skies with aircraft in the name of security. Wonder what it would look like to the rest of the world if a riot broke out and the rioters took hold of one of those SAM sites?
Look at the UK as it stands. CCTV is more prevalent here than in the rest of the world, we are no longer allowed to gather before Parliament to protest, the police, although not routinely armed, use delightful tactics such as 'kettling' on peaceful protests and have used the powers given them under the Terrorism Act (2000) in such a way that the European Court had to intervene in 2010. What about last summers riots in England? The young, poorly educated and disaffected may have gone on a criminal rampage and caused large amounts of damage, but they are poorly educated and disaffected, they have been failed by the system that was supposed to help them. The response in handing out horribly harsh sentences to those who were caught did not even try to address the causes. Do you think the increasing bite of Austerity is going make things any better for people from these deprived parts of these islands? I don't think so. It looks to me like we are heading into a downward spiral of state intervention that will leave our human rights scattered behind it like ash on the breeze.
There is so much blatant disregard for Human Rights in the UK that they have become more associated with things that prisoners shouldn't be allowed than what the rest of us should! Perhaps, with our 'British' sense of 'entitlement' we don't think we need our human rights safeguarded? That seems somewhat typical of the short-term thinking rife in Westminster politics currently, which is driven by populism and the desire to woo swing voters in the South-East of England. Nobody ever seems to imagine that this kind of infringement of our human rights might ever be turned on us.
Yet, that's exactly what is happening. Banning people from taking personal photographs and posting them on social networking sites might not seem like an infringement of human rights, but it's definitely an infringement of privacy, and we do have a basic right to privacy in the UK!. Passing laws to snoop on email and other internet correspondence of private British Subjects is also a huge infringement of privacy, and therefore an infringement of our human rights!
Public outcry is treated with contempt too, though. Look at how little has been done in practical terms to deal with the perpetrators of the banking crisis, or at the tokenism of the MP's sacrificed in the expenses scandal. While party leaders are still tripping over themselves to ingratiate their party with The Sun, we are treated to the spectacle of the Leveson Inquiry. There is so much mock outrage from the Political Parties over phone hacking, while they are concurrently trying to pass laws that let them do exactly the same thing to anyone in the country. Who believes Leveson will end with anything other than a fudge and a string of legal action from the celebrities that can afford such a thing?
We the electorate are here merely to be consulted once every 5 years on who gets to exercise the Royal Prerogative. Election promises are made and ditched practically on one breath and there is very little effort to stem the tumbling turnout numbers for elections (with the exception of the 2010 UK GE). Look what happened to the AV referendum. Cobbled together as a sop for the Lib-Dems to get them on board for the coalition, it was undermined and undersold deliberately so that there could be no drastic change to the electoral system, even though there was genuine concern about the result of the 2010 UK GE. We were also promised the right to recall MP's who were not living up to their obligations, but the bill that has been drafted has been branded 'deeply flawed' as the ultimate power in it really lies with the Government, not the electorate. There is a lot of hot air about the "West Lothian Question" but not a whole load of action being taken - Scottish MP's from Labour and the Lib-Dems (oh, and David Mundell) still vote on English issues and it's now been 13 years since the Scottish Parliament opened and 35 years since Tam Dalyell proposed it. The political will for reform of the political system that benefits the political parties so much is minimal. And, of course, there is Lords reform, which has been such a long, painful process and is yet to lead to a single vote being cast by the people for a member of the so-called 'Upper House'.
Which takes us in a very round about way back to my original point. Our government in Westminster actually cares nothing at all for what the electorate think of their actions. We are not even in their thoughts, except as a statistic to work around. Time and time again, they attack our rights and freedoms, and we do very little except grow increasingly apathetic. The line has been crossed, voters are merely operating in a consultative fashion and politicians even treat that level of contemplation with contempt. Democracy in the UK is entirely dysfunctional, and this is leading to a dangerous erosion of our rights. What's to be done about it?
Now this 'line' I'm talking about hasn't just recently been breached. To my mind, the first attempt at crossing the line was made with the Criminal Justice bill 1988, but it probably wasn't until after 9/11 that it was truly breached. What is the line I'm referring to? It's the line over which Ministers no longer even consider what the electorate thinks of their rights being curbed. It's the line when they stop saying to themselves "The voters won't like that," not the line where they stop taking it into account. If you think I'm being a little dramatic here, or if you think that we are doing much better now than say, 2 centuries ago perhaps, then consider this rather scary notion about whether or not Robert Burns would have been jailed under modern laws for his work.
Look at the increasingly invasive and restricting laws trotting their way through the Parliament in Westminster right now. Our government thinks nothing of demanding the right to snoop in our emails and social networking, they think nothing of preventing us from having free access to the Internet, they give tax breaks to the rich and are making poor people pay for the mess of management, legislation and piratical capitalism with 'austerity measures' that look increasingly like a massive privatisation drive. Meanwhile, back at the Olympics, they are stuffing the rooftops with Surface-to-air missiles and the skies with aircraft in the name of security. Wonder what it would look like to the rest of the world if a riot broke out and the rioters took hold of one of those SAM sites?
Look at the UK as it stands. CCTV is more prevalent here than in the rest of the world, we are no longer allowed to gather before Parliament to protest, the police, although not routinely armed, use delightful tactics such as 'kettling' on peaceful protests and have used the powers given them under the Terrorism Act (2000) in such a way that the European Court had to intervene in 2010. What about last summers riots in England? The young, poorly educated and disaffected may have gone on a criminal rampage and caused large amounts of damage, but they are poorly educated and disaffected, they have been failed by the system that was supposed to help them. The response in handing out horribly harsh sentences to those who were caught did not even try to address the causes. Do you think the increasing bite of Austerity is going make things any better for people from these deprived parts of these islands? I don't think so. It looks to me like we are heading into a downward spiral of state intervention that will leave our human rights scattered behind it like ash on the breeze.
There is so much blatant disregard for Human Rights in the UK that they have become more associated with things that prisoners shouldn't be allowed than what the rest of us should! Perhaps, with our 'British' sense of 'entitlement' we don't think we need our human rights safeguarded? That seems somewhat typical of the short-term thinking rife in Westminster politics currently, which is driven by populism and the desire to woo swing voters in the South-East of England. Nobody ever seems to imagine that this kind of infringement of our human rights might ever be turned on us.
Yet, that's exactly what is happening. Banning people from taking personal photographs and posting them on social networking sites might not seem like an infringement of human rights, but it's definitely an infringement of privacy, and we do have a basic right to privacy in the UK!. Passing laws to snoop on email and other internet correspondence of private British Subjects is also a huge infringement of privacy, and therefore an infringement of our human rights!
Public outcry is treated with contempt too, though. Look at how little has been done in practical terms to deal with the perpetrators of the banking crisis, or at the tokenism of the MP's sacrificed in the expenses scandal. While party leaders are still tripping over themselves to ingratiate their party with The Sun, we are treated to the spectacle of the Leveson Inquiry. There is so much mock outrage from the Political Parties over phone hacking, while they are concurrently trying to pass laws that let them do exactly the same thing to anyone in the country. Who believes Leveson will end with anything other than a fudge and a string of legal action from the celebrities that can afford such a thing?
We the electorate are here merely to be consulted once every 5 years on who gets to exercise the Royal Prerogative. Election promises are made and ditched practically on one breath and there is very little effort to stem the tumbling turnout numbers for elections (with the exception of the 2010 UK GE). Look what happened to the AV referendum. Cobbled together as a sop for the Lib-Dems to get them on board for the coalition, it was undermined and undersold deliberately so that there could be no drastic change to the electoral system, even though there was genuine concern about the result of the 2010 UK GE. We were also promised the right to recall MP's who were not living up to their obligations, but the bill that has been drafted has been branded 'deeply flawed' as the ultimate power in it really lies with the Government, not the electorate. There is a lot of hot air about the "West Lothian Question" but not a whole load of action being taken - Scottish MP's from Labour and the Lib-Dems (oh, and David Mundell) still vote on English issues and it's now been 13 years since the Scottish Parliament opened and 35 years since Tam Dalyell proposed it. The political will for reform of the political system that benefits the political parties so much is minimal. And, of course, there is Lords reform, which has been such a long, painful process and is yet to lead to a single vote being cast by the people for a member of the so-called 'Upper House'.
Which takes us in a very round about way back to my original point. Our government in Westminster actually cares nothing at all for what the electorate think of their actions. We are not even in their thoughts, except as a statistic to work around. Time and time again, they attack our rights and freedoms, and we do very little except grow increasingly apathetic. The line has been crossed, voters are merely operating in a consultative fashion and politicians even treat that level of contemplation with contempt. Democracy in the UK is entirely dysfunctional, and this is leading to a dangerous erosion of our rights. What's to be done about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)