yonmei

04:53 pm: Why We Need Government
From Log of Smallship One - Passionate and Confused, via lexin:

We need some sort of central organisation whose job is to spend the money we pay to it on the things that we need. Not to make money, not to be profitable, not to be competitive in the fucking free market. We need a fucking government. And it needs to be responsible for the post office, and the maintenance of the water supply, and the same for gas, and electricity, and the fucking railways and the fucking roads and the provision of houses for people to fucking well live in. All the rest we can work out for ourselves. I'll even let them off the telephones, since that seems to be working all right at the moment, but for the things I have listed we need a body that will provide them because it has NO FUCKING CHOICE but to provide them. Because that is what it's FOR.

Yes.

I don't want an independent Scotland, as I said here, because basically I like being part of the union - but I am glad we have the Scottish Parliament to be a devolutionary bulwark against some of the madder floods of the bloody Thatcherite philosophy that's been bleeding acid over UK government since 1979.

Tags: evil british politics, powerful speech vs. powerless silence, scottish politics

07:54 am: New Scottish Parliament: 10 years old
I was working for Company of Bankrupt Evil between 1995 and 1999: when the first Labour government was elected after 18 years of Tory misrule, the day after 1st May 1997, I had a meeting to discuss something work-related, and I remember how three of us stepped outside after the meeting and admitted to each other we'd stayed up or when we'd gone to sleep, to see the Conservatives fall. Four months later, as promised, we got a referendum on the Scottish Parliament: I voted yes to the Parliament and yes to tax-raising powers.

Between May and September we had had a Pride festival in Edinburgh in the rain, and the logo of that Pride became the logo of the organisation for which I now work: the organisation itself came into being that year, a part of the new resurgence in Scottish politics. I knew one of the founders (as one does: we had both been involved in the anti-Clause 28 campaigning back in the 1980s).

Things went very wrong for me at work - for reasons there is no point going into here: almost all those concerned in it have since lost their jobs when the Company of Bankrupt Evil went bankrupt. I voted in the election for the new Scottish Parliament, of course, but in May 1999, when the first meeting of the Scottish Parliament was being held, I was off with my old job and on with my new - I had moved to Thames Valley and was working for Enormous Software Company.

In July, I was on a training course in London when the new Parliament opened: Friday was the day there were pics in all the papers. I said to a lot of people who asked what I thought of devolution that we should wait 10 years to judge.

Being in England that year I missed the worst of the campaign to "Keep Section 28", where a Scottish millionaire teamed up with a tabloid paper and a Catholic cardinal to campaign against the abolition of the law prohibiting "the promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities. There were billboards all over Scotland for a while letting all the LGBT people in Scotland know just what Brian Souter thought of us.(When the millionare briefly published a Freepost address, I sent him a very heavy box of telephone directories and junk with his Freepost address on it: he had to pay double for the postage of anything sent to him by Freepost, you see.)

Since then: things have changed. I think Scotland's become more left-wing/more liberal than England has: the Tories remain the least popular mainstream party in Scotland for tribal reasons, but they're meek enough that they even have an active gay branch which shows up at Pride. The First Minister sends messages apologising for his absence at Pride. (It's just up the road from where the Scottish Parliament stands, but it was raining quite hard.) Politically Scotland changed, and mostly in good ways. I still don't especially want an independent Scotland - wouldn't vote for one, at least. But I like having "parliament-men o' our ain" as Mrs Howden says in Heart of Midlothian (1818 - it's on the Canongate wall) "we could aye peeble them wi' stanes when they werena gude bairns - But naebody's nails can reach the length o' Lunnon". And that has proved remarkably true: not that MSPs do not vote according to party and whip, because they do, but because the voting system in Scotland is such that it is (though it broke down quite seriously at the last election) quite responsive to small groups of voters. It works - which is the main thing you can ask for in a government. (And Section 28 was repealed years earlier in Scotland than in England/Wales, despite Brian Souter.)

MSPs are required to take an oath of allegience to the Queen: from 1999 onwards, an increasing number of MSPs have rather preferred to take their oath "to the Scottish people" (the principle derived from the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 - I have to say rather loosely, given the original text, which includes promises to the Pope that the Scots lords will go on Crusade if only King Edward will leave them alone - but vested with over six hundred years of tradition). In 2003, Rosie Kane, a young Scottish Socialist MSP from 2003-2007, raised her hand to take the oath of allegience and had written on her palm "My oath is to the people" (BBC) but most MSPs choose the less-dramatic route of letting the senior MSP of their party say they're taking the oath to the monarch but affirming that "the people of Scotland are sovereign in this land" or some such, and then taking the oath with a "What s/he said".

As Doctor Winnie Ewing said on 12th May 1999, at the first meeting of the Scottish Parliament, which - in the absence then of any Speaker or First Minister or any other official bodies, she was asked to chair in accordance with UK Parliamentary tradition as the oldest person present: "I have the opportunity to make a short speech and I want to begin with the words that I have always wanted either to say or to hear someone else say: the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened."

On 1st July 1999, the Parliament took up its full powers.



Sheena Wellington sang "A Man's A Man For A'That" at the opening ceremony: and, spontaneously, as she sang, most of her audience of MSPs joined in. (Reportedly, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Queen, both of whom were accustomed to far more sedate State Openings of Parliament, looked absolutely grimly horrified.)

A man's a man for a' that
The verse where the MSPs joined in:

Then let us pray that come it may
(As come it will for a' that)
That Sense and Worth o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree an' a' that,
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's comin yet for a' that,
That man to man the world oe'r
Shall brithers be for a' that.

Tags: music videos, pride, scottish politics

09:34 am: MPs expenses
I just looked up the expenses claims for my MP, for 2004-2008, and pretty much (a) I don't think he has anything to worry about (b) Whatever my feelings about the expenses claims system*, the claims he turned in look like he was operating within the rules: he claimed for his second home in London, including the TV licence, the utilities, a cleaner, and various undetailed claims for repairs and decoration (that I think add up to less than £2K over a 4 year period, but no single item looks outright unreasonable: plus there's a "legal fees" expense claim which he already paid back part of), he claimed for a laptop computer (paying the going rate for a decent model), he buys all the local magazines/newspapers and has an account with a Stockbridge newsagent that looks like all the national newspapers - and he routinely claimed between £10 and £40 a month for food**. (Which suggests to me that he claimed for tea/coffee when meeting with constituents - which if so, seems absolutely reasonable.)

Certainly what he claimed could all readily be justified under the incredibly vague rule of "I confirm that I incurred these costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily to enable me to stay overnight away from my only or main home for the purpose of performing my duties as a Member of Parliament". The problem here is the vagueness of it - most companies, when you claim for travel expenses, have very detailed and pretty stringent rules about what you can claim and what you can't.

When staying in a hotel on Compaq expenses, I found - looking up the rules - that Compaq regarded it as reasonable that I should have wine (or beer/cider) with my evening meal, plus an aperitif if I wanted one, but had a given limit - expressed as a percentage of the total cost of the meal - on the cost of the wine/aperitif. I remember as well that they were clear about travel expenses: if Compaq were paying for a transatlantic flight, they'd pay for their employee to travel business class: if employee wanted spouse to go with (same-sex partners not mentioned, but this was 1999) then they could switch their tickets to tourist class and both travel tourist on Compaq, if that cost the same as a business-class ticket: if it cost more, the couple paid the extra, unless the trip was going to last more than x weeks, in which case see spouse travelling allowance. I read through the rules the first time I stayed in France on expenses: I looked things up whenever I had a query: and discovered, when I was staying with a couple of friends in London to attend a course Compaq were paying for, that because I was saving Compaq the expense of a daily ticket to London at peak time, I could take my hosts out for a meal and charge it to expenses, limit being up to the amount I was saving Compaq. I never had any trouble working out what I could claim for and what I couldn't: the chief trouble with the expenses was always getting the receipts back to admin in time to have them paid before the credit card bill came due, because while you could claim for interest due on unpaid expenses as an additional expense, it was (we all agreed) just adding an extra layer of complication.

*Complicated. It's certainly been used as a salary top-up. And it's not as if MPs are underpaid: a backbench MP gets £64,766. I feel that if taxpayers are paying all the damn expenses of a second home in London, when it's sold the money should go back to the state, or the flat should fall into the possession of Parliament (and could then be rented out to future MPs) but: he was claiming, from the expenses sheets, for the basic running costs.

**Alex Salmond, First Minister for Scotland and extremely-part time MP for Banff and Buchan, claims his food expenses each month are frequently as much as £400 - up to £400, MPs don't have to show receipts or justify it in any way, just write £400 on the form and get the cheque. Meh.




Tags: evil american politics, evil british politics, london, scottish politics

12:02 pm: Did you vote yesterday?
Apparently England did better than Scotland because England had the local elections happening the same day, but it looks like Scotland did appallingly - down to 25%.

( A very European poll )



Tags: eurovision, evil european politics, imagine better, polls, scottish politics

12:01 am: European Election Day
The parties that make me want to vomit when I think about people voting for them:
1. British National Party
2. Christian Party "Proclaiming Christ's Lordship" (For my Christian friends who may wonder why: Because this party's manifesto promises that, if elected, they want to: Reinstate Section 28, to ban "promotion of homosexuality" in schools; Work against acceptance of LGBT people in Scotland; Allow religious organisations and churches to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation/gender identity; Teach children that homosexuality is a "health hazard"; Ban abortion; Ban provision of contraception to minors without their parents consent; Promote the idea that parents are entitled to "reasonably chastise" their child in order to maintain good family discipline; Keep children in need of parents in care rather than allow them to be adopted or fostered by LGBT people; Require a couple who want a divorce to have to lay blame on one or the other and justify their wish to divorce to a court; End civil partnership as a direct equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples; deny transgendered people the right to a changed birth certificate/gender recognition; and require all children being educated in state schools, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, to listen to the Bible being read to them every day. They have a bunch of eco-friendly policies as well, but no better than the Scottish Greens: in effect, they are the Green party for bigots who hate women, hate non-Christians, and hate LGBT people.)

The parties that appear to have been made up by a bunch of blokey Scots who thought they'd be rather good in the pub one night:
1. Jury Team
2. No2EU:Yes to Democracy
3. UK Independence Party

The parties that were made up by a bunch of blokes who thought they'd be rather good, only that night was quite some time ago:
1. Conservative Party
2. Labour Party
3. Scottish National Party

The party that came about because of some really bizarre political infighting in the 1980s, that pushes more political bumf through my door than all the others put together:
1. Liberal Democrats

The parties that I could just about squint and consider voting for, if I had to:
1. Scottish Socialist Party
2. Socialist Labour Party

The party I'm probably going to voted for:
1. Scottish Green Party.

The lone Scottish bloke who wandered in and thought he'd have a go: Duncan Robertson.

Tags: scottish politics

08:26 pm: Om Shanti Om: definitely not for pseudos
On Saturday night I went to Om Shanti Om, which I could have gone to see in 2007 except that, well, it was 156 minutes long and it wasn't on in the cinema that's only 10 minutes walk away from me (and this has become a worryingly reliable measure of whether I'll get around to going to see a film while it's still in the cinema). But, last Saturday it was on in the Filmhouse, starting at 5pm, which meant it could take nearly 3 hours and yet I'd be out by 8pm and it would still be broad daylight. Which is what I love about this time of year.

Om Shanti Om is one of those movies where Shahrukh Khan is involved in a romantic relationship with four people. There is the film star with whom he is passionately in love and whom he has long one-sided conversations with standing on a bridge in front of a poster of her latest movie. There is his brother, who is adorable and constantly assuring him that he will be a star someday. There is his mother, who is very sweet about the film star and who sometimes lovingly hits him. (Which is easily the best thing in the world, by the way.) And there is his other father, who is quite lovely and kisses him in an affectionate kind of way and wants him to be happy. (There may be five, if I count the arch-nemesis, who I think may be in love with him in a different kind of way, but only in the second half of the movie, whereas the first four love him in both halves.)

The title of the post comes from the review in OneIndia. It has a completely insane plot, but if you sit back and let the insanity roll over you (like accepting warpdrive and wormholes) it's perfectly simple to understand. There is a red thread bracelet which is blessed by a sage and which actually works, at least sort of. There is leaping into fire and Shahrukh Khan being dorky and speechless and lovable. There is lots of manly kissing and hugging. There is wonderful unison dancing. There is also a bizarre song called Dard-E-Disco, the pain of disco. ( cut for video )

Because I went to the film, I missed joining a demo outside the General Assembly to keep Scott Rennie as minister of the church to which the congregation have called him (the debate started at 7pm, the demo was due to start at 6:30) but the homophobes were outnumbered and the Assembly voted to support the presbytery and against the bigots, so it wasn't like I was needed. (Update: If you have no notion what I am talking about: Ekklesia, The Herald and a fetching little piece in The Times should clarify it for you.)

And tomorrow I am off to Ross-shire. I may have Internet while I'm there, because I have a T-Mobile dongle, but it's just as likely not to work.

Also: it's the Glorious 25th of May. "How do they rise up, rise up, rise up..."





Tags: films, scottish politics

09:36 am: "My job as an artist is to make you squirm"
Via dragovianknight, E. Bear writes:

My job as an artist is to tell you what I see, not what I wish I saw. My job is to tell as much of the truth about the world as my tiny flawed inadequate little brain and art can encompass. And the truth--even the tiny, fragmentary, self-contradictory truths that are all I have to offer--the truth will make you squirm.

From Elizabeth Bear, Chapter 3, Blood and Iron:

( cut for length )

This is enough to make me squirm, but not because it's "the truth": it makes me squirm because it's embarrassingly untrue. If it's what Elizabeth Bear "sees", she was at the movies or watching TV when she "saw" it - the romantic depiction of "the young Master returning home to be greeted by the middle-aged female servant". (It also makes me sure, and sad, that Bear has never been a P. G. Wodehouse fan: even Bertie Wooster understood that the phrase "young Master" can be employed only for comic or teasing effect.)

Later in this essay asserting what kind of Artist she is, Bear says:

If you want somebody to tell you what you want to hear, to hew to a party line, or to spread some kind of gospel, you probably want some other kind of artist. If you want somebody to proselytize an ideology, you definitely want some other kind of artist.

I am not here to comfort you.

Well, Blood and Iron is certainly not comforting - it's irritating and discomfiting to realise that there are still people in the world who think that it's appropriate to pull out "Stout grey-haired McCliche" when they think need arises, complete with obsequious dialogue. (Unless, later in the novel, we discover part of being a werewolf is keeping the local village in terrified submission, and the reason for Morag's obsequiousness was that she knew if she failed to address Keith as "young Master" or if he complained about her service, villagers would die. That doesn't quite make sense either with the way she behaves, but maybe she's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.)

But Bear's notion that in promoting this kind of character, depicting this kind of relationship, she is not "hewing to a party line", just tells me: she's never tried to think politically about what she writes. About how, for example, a pack of incoming werewolves who buy and restore a Scottish 16th-century manor house near a village, and set about raising cattle and sheep, would fit in with the community. (Are they Catholic werewolves or Protestant werewolves? If Protestants, are they Presbyterian or Episcopalian? If Presbyterian, which branch of the church have they followed?) How would the locals react to the new family at the big house? (And they could be "the new family" for fifty years or more...) If Bear thinks that they could simply move in and be princes of the fiefdom without any backtalk from the locals, she is proselytising an ideology - a very conservative, very comforting kind of ideology to a certain kind of person - the sort of person who believes absolutely in the rightness of the class system, in everyone "knowing their place", and the lower orders showing proper respect to the landowner.

That isn't the kind of artist I want. But it is the kind of artist who would write Morag that way and never notice that she had her own thoughts about Eoghan and Keith MacNeill.

(See also: What is a writer's job? at feministsf.)



Tags: books are what i read, evil american politics, racefail 09, scottish politics, venting

11:11 am: Things that I would like to consider about British politics, should I get around to writing them
( 10 things to think about and in the darkness bind them )

Tags: evil british politics, i am a feminist, lists, scottish politics

05:39 pm: Friday, er Thursday five: what's your culture?
afrai describes this as sort of like IBARW for the indolent. Cool.

( List 5 things which are basic common knowledge in your culture, which people outside are unfamiliar with. This is not about obscurity, but something everyday to you, that others go bzuh? at. )

( What was the last book you read that was written by a person who is a different race than you? Do you seek out books written by people of other races? Why? Why not? )

( What did you eat at dinner last night? Would you call it ethnic food? Why? )

( Has your gender presentation changed over the last 5 years? Has this change/lack of change been a deliberate choice on your part? )

( Do you discuss race and racism in your insanejournal/blog or in person? Why have you made that choice? )

( Bonus question. Were you aware of International Blog Against Racism Week? Did you choose to participate in it? Why or why not? )

Tags: edinburgh, friday five, let's all be outcasts together, meme, scottish politics

11:28 am: Overheard in the Forest Cafe: and thoughts about the hierarchy of equality
Man, furiously: "And now a court says I can't see my kids!"
Other man, sympathetically: "Mumble mumble, rough, mumble, man, mumble rhubarb rhubarb."
Man, furiously explaining: "There's an exclusion order! If I go near them I could get arrested! My own kids!"
Other man, still sympathetically: "Mumble mumble rhubarb rhubarb."
Man, even more furiously: "And I've still got to pay! Why the hell do I have to pay if I can't see my kids!"
Other man, still sympathetically though his mumbles were getting shorter and shorter: "Mumble rhubarb."
Me, cravenly: *silence*

I was standing at the computer, and the two men were sitting at the table behind me (or possibly, going through the Free Shop stuff, I didn't turn to see).

What is an exclusion order? (from Shelter):

An exclusion order is a court order that suspends the right of a married person, civil partner or cohabitee to live in the family home. You can apply for an exclusion order if your spouse or partner has done or is threatening to do something that has harmed or would harm you or your children either physically or mentally. This will probably need to be more than one isolated incident that was out of character. It can be difficult to get an exclusion order and it will depend on your individual circumstances.

I don't want to say anything like "The courts don't make mistakes!" etc, but the fact is: there is a strong principle in the UK, in European law in general, that a parent has not just the right but the obligation to get to spend time with his kids. (I say "his" advisedly: mothers, having usually been the primary caretakers from birth, and in general remaining so even after a relationship splits, won't usually have the same difficulties in exercising this obligation.)

Courts don't serve an exclusion order lightly. If the man had been served with an exclusion order it was probably because he had, more than once, turned up at the family home since he and his partner split, and terrified the hell out of her and the children - terrified at least, and possibly struck his ex-partner or their children. The police had probably been called, at least once, to get him to leave. Or it could be worse. And given the way this man was behaving in the Forest, yelling and scaring his ex and his children seemed certain, and the rage in his voice made it more certain.

I wouldn't ordinarily even have considered joining in a conversation that I was not included in, but the Forest is one of those places where you can. But as the only things I would have had to say would have been on the lines of "Yes, you still have to support your children because their legal right to your support isn't tied to or affected by your legal right to see them, which it sounds like you've voided by your own fault" the main reason I didn't say any of that was because I was chickenshit.

There are seven equality strands (six recognised, but seven ought to be): race/ethnicity, religion/belief, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and poverty.

( And while there are individual differences, individual circumstances, it is surprising how consistent we are in Western culture about what order it's acceptable to be openly prejudiced: poverty, age, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, gender, religion, race. )

Having sorted all this out in my head - and I will accept agreement, disagreement, re-ordering, shuffling, in comments - looking at my list, which is based on "what I feel the situation to be in Scotland at this time", I notice that it's very strongly based on legislation and law enforcement. It's been illegal since 1975 to incite hatred on the grounds of race; anti-sectarianism has been strongly enforced in Scotland, both socially and legally, precisely because Protestant and Catholic have been (and are) big issues for so long. (Edinburgh and Glasgow, and other cities in Scotland, have a city football team for the Protestants, a city football team for the Catholics, and if the city's big enough, a third team for - as a Catholic fan of Partick Thistle told me - the ones who don't like getting beaten up.)

There is no legislation banning incitement of hatred against people for their gender or their sexual orientation or their disability. (There might be in England and Wales soon, for sexual orientation at least, but there isn't in Scotland, nor likely to be.) There is a kind of fumbling recognition that it's not a good thing, expressed in some local authority guidelines and government language, but no legislation.

Not only is there no legislation about it, it's actually considered a positively good thing for children to be harassed/bullied about their gender identity, because of course children need to learn to conform.

No one talks about the problem of inciting hatred against people because of their income level at all. Contempt for people on a low income is considered, perhaps not positively good, but perfectly normal.

Which is worth thinking about, when considering if legislation will "make a difference". Eventually it will, though expecting instant results is not something that happens. A generation or two who grow up under the new legislation grow up at least knowing that it's unacceptable to express such hatred. Which is a step in itself, as I think anyone would agree who has ever been made uncomfortable by open expression of prejudice by someone who sees nothing wrong with it...

Tags: evil british politics, i am a feminist, outcasts should stick together, powerful speech vs. powerless silence, scottish politics, working at the forest

11:31 pm: Posted using <a href
"A monumental morass! Clearly some terrifying Scottish geological formation."
Um, yes. See them all over the place, you do.
Wot's an Ent MP say?

( What DOES an Ent MP say? )

Tags: scottish politics

12:11 pm: Who makes me angriest, right now?
From this BBC story it seems that the wording that so annoyed me this morning was from BBC Scotland's political editor, Brian Taylor - a man who damned well ought to know that it's not a question of "those who say Scots Law is different".

But on the whole, I think I'm angriest at Jack McConnell, who has proved himself to be a political coward and a fool. With a side-order of rage at Mike Rumbles, who says that allowing same-sex couples equal rights with mixed-sex couples is "gesture politics".

We will fight this. Not merely because the Westminster proposal is homophobic, heterophobic, and transphobic: but because Jack McConnell should learn that he has responsibilities towards LGBT people in Scotland too, that he cannot duck out of by gesturing helplessly at Westminster and whimpering about how the Catholic Church isnae gonnae like this. (He's really afraid of the Daily Record, too.) And because, whatever Brian Taylor may think, Scots marriage law is substantially different from English marriage law, and no matter what, the legislation affecting Scotland is going to have to be written in Scotland. It would be ludicrous to then have to ship it down to Westminster to have it bolted on to the England/Wales act.

Tags: being queer, scottish politics

08:29 am: Bloody BBC
Just overheard the BBC newsreader announcing that Westminster is going to move on the registration of partnership for same-sex couples in England and Wales (backed by a nice shot of two happy smiling couples coming up the stairs) and then she added that: (paraphrased) "Westminster may also be asked to rule on this for the whole of the UK, but expect a fight [shot of the Scottish Parliament] from those who say that Scottish law on property and marriage is different, and deserves different treatment."

Excuse me?

Scottish law is different. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. There are a lot of issues around Westminster passing registration-of-partnership law for Scotland as well as for England and Wales, but "those who say that Scottish law on property and marriage is different" will be found on both sides of the fight.

Bah. Stupid BBC.

Tags: being queer, scottish politics

06:13 pm: Heh
I may be a very sad person, but having dutifully voted-by-post last week (my individual MSP vote went to Malcolm Chisholm, my list-MSP vote went to the Scottish Greens, and my local councillor vote went to one of the two women on the list of candidates, the Scottish Socialist Party representative) I`m dead chuffed at the results of the election I missed.

It rained all morning. I had breakfast with last night`s companion in Cora Dejeuner, where I had a buckwheat crepe with apple and cheddar, yum, and then we went up to the Insectarium and wandered about going awk! and ack! at lots of enormous insects. I saw eight-inch millipedes that were at least half an inch across, and no, they do not really have a thousand legs, and yes, the moment I realised that they were ALIVE in that tank, I jumped back. You can buy lollipops with edible insects entombed inside, but I didn`t. The Chinese Garden in the Jardine Botanique is very nice, if a little weird after China: it strives so hard to be authentically Chinese. On the other hand, I wandered down the rows of bonsai donated by an elderly Chinese millionaire to the City of Montreal wondering why I don`t have the patience to create something like this: some of the tiny trees were over 70 years old, and there was a Japanese Maple that was gorgeous.

Tags: montreal, scottish politics