Monday 26 August 2013

That was the festival, that was......



Bank Holiday Monday, 26th August 2013:

That was the Festival, that was…….

And depending on your choice….you pays your money & you makes your choice, or you read the previews and reviews….. Whichever, I hope it was a good one for you.  
Hold hard, I hear you call, it ain’t over yet, ‘cos the International Festival continues beyond today, Bank Holiday Monday, The Mela is looming, http://www.edinburgh-mela.co.uk/ and the biggeee concert complete with fireworks is still due! http://www.eif.co.uk/
Whew, how could I forget all that?  Possibly because I’m still mulling over all the stimulating events I did manage to get to, and worry about all I missed, or worse, good acts that the critics missed. Like Tumi Morake at the Assembly (on the Mound) as part of the South African Season, a very funny woman, so let’s hope she comes back. http://www.tumimorake.co.za/

But the stimulating, had to include Andrew Marr, and James Naughtie, & best left to Gerry Hussan http://www.gerryhassan.com/  and The Power of the London Scots.

But Henry McLeish managed to put the cat among the pigeons with his challenge to the Labour party:  Unionists sunk by a perfect storm.  http://www.scotsman.com/  last Monday, Monday 26th August. 

Finally, debate seems to be taking off…..but again it seems to be…you pays your money and you makes your choice with regards to what you go to, listen to, or read.

So in the written sphere, & if you follow McLeish’s line of thought: would Scotland vote yes because we’re frightened of hung parliaments & future Tory-Lib Dem coalitions? 

Has Scotland & Scottish voters lost faith in one person one vote delivering a Labour government in power in Westminster? Do we feel the demographics weigh against that, i.e. majority one party/Labour/ in power, before even considering the proliferation of right wing sentiments in England and its voters? But do we know that those voters (Ukip/BNP now seeming to be more evident) would they transfer to the Tory party at the time of a general election in an effort either to i/keep the opposition out and-or  ii/ influence the Tory policies?

In the broadcasting sphere, and at the weekend, and The Festival of Politics at the Parliament, Edinburgh http://www.festivalofpolitics.org.uk/ I heard Brian Wilson, Former MP and former Minister for Energy and Founding Editor and publisher of the West Highland Free Press pronounce during the Culture & Broadcasting event that yes, the BBC is’ unbalanced’, but that the BBC is unbalanced’ is a programming issue and not a constitutional issue’.

But was it not always thus? When, within the BBC, still a London-Salford-centric institution, was editorial control ceded to a region or a country in a manner that was approved of by that region or country? Can we assume that there is editorial independence in the BBC in relation to Scotland, especially now? Can we assume that no matter how well intentioned, there is no media bias coming from the BBC in the forthcoming months? That there there will be range in output?


Brian Wilson noted that  as Scots we  ‘were not inhibited by the Union,’ as ‘the evidence base shows’. His theory being that pre and post devolution…’we know what we have, we see what we have’ and that in Scotland as part of the Union, ‘we can do it better.’ 


There was no time to explore how we can do it better if power resides in Westminster either in relation to broadcasting or further afield. I did like Ruth Wishart’s point @ruth_wishart that national-ism can link to international-ism without being inward, petty and jingoistic. 

Identity, pride, in self and nation is surely not the preserve of the far right wing, is it? 

Exploring nationalism doesn’t make on sad, bad, mad or a traitor to one’s party, does it? 



I’d worry more if people didn’t discuss and debate, didn’t question. I’ll personally try to circumvent the wide eyed ones who want to convert me to their way of thinking, without giving space to my doubts by merely dismissing them. Or by assuming that when I do question I have a bias one way or the other. So, for those reasons alone, I’m on the look-out for more events, debates, over the coming months. 

Who knows, I might even get to :

Borders, Immigration & Citizenship, 6.00pm, Wednesday 25th September at the Royal Society Edinburgh 22-26 George St.

To be chaired by Prof John Curtice, University of Strathclyde,  as part of the RSE and British Academy’s series on Scotland’s constitutional future. www.royalsoced.org.uk




Sunday 18 August 2013

Another year, Another Edinburgh Festivals....




Another Year: Another Year of Edinburgh Festivals…..

And it’s been a good one, so far.  The usual:  too much to see, to do, to listen to and so little time! It’s been a few years since I could start in the morning, grab a sanni, and go through till late at night.
Ah, those heady days! Taking time off work, and no weans to worry about. No play-schemes, no pick up times, no back-to-school-&-run-round- the- shops- and- buy -the –shoes-shirts-trainers. Stock the fridge and then make your own tea boys when you get home! 

Now? I worry about the last bus home since I’m too knackered to walk, and that’s just with one late night show! 
Now? I spend more and more time at the Book Festival. I’m not knocking The Book Fest  in the least. Don’t just take my word for it: http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2013/aug/10/edinburgh-literary-city-books-festival

After all, the value for money there is fantastic. If it doesn’t rain and the sun shines, you’ve cracked it. You can wander in: there’s no entry fee. Pick up a book and read it, pretending you’re having a try before you buy. There’s even free events under the many tent tops. You might end up in one of their photo montages sitting on a Guardian sponsored deck chair. Or if does rain, you might still end in a montage, albeit, lookin’drookit  

But I seem to be the two ends of the audience spectrum, with never a free deck chair. I stand in queues with other doting gran’mas (and yes, the odd grand-dad) for the likes of The Royal Nappies or Hide & Seek, and the odd free chocolate, whilst listening to exultations such as: ‘Arabella, don’t do that…it’s so un-lady like’. Hey gran’ma, even Arabellas need to pick their nose or scratch their bum every now at then, But the pushing to get to the front in the kids’ tents? Wow! Have you ever seen a determined granny when she’s very determined to get Fraser or Campbell (surely a future BBC d. g. in the making!) a front row cushion?  Stay back! Be warned!

So if I’m not in that queue, I soak up the Alasdair Grays,www.alasdairgray.blogspot.co.uk/‎ and the  Alistair Moffat's   et al. And in the main, it’s still the same age range, but hands free in the bigger tents, no weans to grab or be grabbed by. I used to get battered by the occasional walking stick as the tents opened, with that dignified, mad dash for prime seats. Only Edinburgh can do that : walking stick-hobble-mad dash-with –dignity-&-purpose. But woe - betide you if you try to get in before them!

So this year, with a partner with mobility issues, we booked those ‘special tickets’. First day, he took one look at the separate, seated queue, decided he wasn’t nearly as infirm as ‘they are’, and insisted on queuing. After the event, Roy Hattersely in top form as ever, my partner gave a good impression of enjoyment through gritted teeth and pain! So, 2nd day, we turned up just before starting time, as instructed, got shown to our reserved seats, (complete with big, named stickers) as part of the process……and found them occupied. The occupants moved reluctantly, we sat down, and she still managed to get her dig in, literally….with her stick that is, as she moved it about. My ankles took hours to recover. So cost and value seem to equate, but what’s with the age range thing? Is there still some gap in the market there that’s just not attracting that middle range, age range? But as the Festivals skip on through to the next glorious week, if that age range gap were the only problem, we’d be laughing. 

But no.

We have had the spectacle of division that came via Jonathon Mills's decision to omit the independence referendum in shape, form and content in next year's Edinburgh International Festival (EIF).http://www.eif.co.uk/ 


'Liz Lochhead, playwright, poet and Scots Makar: It doesn't surprise me that the Edinburgh International Festival under Jonathan Mills is not interested in commissioning or showing work around the theme of independence. He has never been very interested in work that is Scottish, let alone about independence. It is disappointing but predictable to me.'


Depending on your thinking, or made- my-mind -up –already- stance, you probably fall into one of two camps: ‘Well, for one, I’m glad’, or ‘What is this, censorship? Bias?’

Arguments have been put forward in the political context (sorry JM) that for Scotland, it’s a once in a life time opportunity, that will impact on future generations, and one that needs an airing on a stage as prominent as the EIF. 
The notion of the impact of a possible yes vote in 2014 was not lost on  Andrew Marr at his Book Fest event, but broadened by him into the context of the future of the (depleted) UK as a whole, should Scotland vote ‘yes’.

Another other point being pursued in relation to Mill’s decision is the remit of the EIF:  its role to promote, to commission (new) work reflecting Scottish culture. But have no fear, the Book Fest and National Theatre of Scotland have welcomed the ‘r’ topic with open arms, and I have heard, with commissions, too!

So if there is scope for the political and the artistic to combine (both the Book Fest and NTS can’t be wrong surely, before we even think of the Fringe!), what did influence the EIF’s decision to be politically neutral next year. But remembering that for the year in question, 2014, EIF will pursue a programme that focusses on the 2014 Commonwealth games…a left over from Empire & colonies, and World War One, centenary.


Perchance then it was a political decision, i.e the EIF’s view of its role & responsibility in juxtaposition to Scotland & Edinburgh…namely, we are but a venue. And if we are but a venue then we are back to the continuing conundrum of  funding of the  ‘arts’. 
Which plays to commission? 
Which ‘artist’ is of sufficient merit? 
Who judges ‘art’?   
Who decides on ‘excellence?’.

I was in the audience this week when Alasdair Gray was questioned  https://edbookfest.co.uk/  about his essay last year and his protestations about the number of non Scots in top Scottish arts slots. This lead to Gary’s specific responses before broadening out  into diverse areas including his refusing a knighthood from the last (Brown) administration, because he came to the conclusion that there wasn’t any money in it. In fact, just the opposite, since he’d be expected to give big tips!

Yes, I found his article worrying last year: words like settler and colonists are provocative and reminders of the past. But isn’t it inevitable that as a nation, with ever a flux of peoples, coming and going, then our  quality & world renowned events will attract ‘other people ‘ who  want to work here, get top jobs, and have that Scottish context noted on their cv? 

Should Scottish arts, and Scottish culture be exclusively left to the Scots?


O-Oh…now that is a bit political, since not least: what’s art, what’s culture and what’s Scottish?

Give Gray his due, when asked what was ‘Scottish’ and with a view to the sub texts swirling around, he did say ‘anyone is Scotland with the right to vote’. It was on the tip of my tongue to try and get the question in then if he believed that expats should ‘come home’, live, register, experience Scotland now, get the right to vote, and actually vote, but alas no time.

Today’s Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com does have a rebuttal from Sir JM, including the assertion that notions of nationalism &  independence will  be seen in the programming  of the Commonwealth Games and WW.

But I still ask…if nationhood, the dying, the sacrificing associated with WW1 and the joys of winning for one’s nation can  earn a place  by being included  in EIF programming, why not Scotland and our referendum?

Perhaps we are just a venue after all, and it is just ‘our’ referendum. But if Edinburgh is just a venue, perhaps we should remind ourselves ...to see our selves as others see us.


“A CITY THAT POSSESSES A BOLDNESS
AND GRANDEUR OF SITUATION BEYOND
ANY THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN.”
THOMAS PENNANT:  A TOUR IN SCOTLAND MDCCLXIX, 1769


Would the EIF decision have been the same if there had been a UK wide referendum on the future of the UK?   
Perhaps that topic is being held in reserve for year (if ever)  that there is a vote on EU membership.

But when you take out the spats of the good, the great, and the arts fraternity, I think Andrew Marr was wrong this week in his assertion that nobody was talking about  …what kind of Scotland we want after independence. 

We are…the common folk are…it’s just not hitting the headlines. The media don’t talk to the likes of us, or listen to what we’re talking about, the pros, the cons, the doubts, the unanswered questions.

We don’t have a world renowned stage of our own: some of us just happen to live here.
The majority of us don’t see our future on some other world stage, or winning a gold medal….but an awful lot of us will have a vote next year on our future.

I do hope we use it

Roy Hattersley:
http://www.edinburgh-festivals.com/blog/2013/08/13/interview-roy-hattersley-on-his-writing-career/




Sunday 11 August 2013

And bongos to you, too, Mr Bloom.




11th August 2013

And bongos to you, too, Mr Bloom.

I mean, I had to take that  personally.  Namely.  the most recent outpouring from Godfrey Bloom http://www.ukip.org/ Ukip  MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber and that remark of his.  I took it personally. & I found it  offensive.  

After all, it’s Edinburgh, Festival, Fringe, and you can imagine how many varieties of drums we have here at the moment, even before you consider our Bongo Club. http://www.thebongoclub.co.uk/  .

Bloom is part of the ‘official’ face and therefore part of the character, beliefs, and ethos of the Ukip party, the funders & followers. I omitted the word ‘policy’ since I’m not too sure what they are. 
The Ukip web site throws out the politics of rhetoric, and possibly the odd pub of an evening.  To state that (and from their web site)

‘scrapping most (i.e foreign aid) thanks to colossal waste’…
isn’t really a policy. 
I mean I rant every now and then, just occasionally, over things like…trams.
Rants are not policies.


But who are Ukip followers, fellow travellers?
May’s council elections exposed some basic flaws in the Ukip’s selection process and the fact that when some of the candidates were investigated (by others, external to Ukip) they were exposed as activists & members (of parties-groups) associated with the far right.

I’m neither suggesting nor claiming that all Ukip members/voters/followers are racists…check out the web site and their ‘’claims’, and statements.   
But the currency of their language in public is the currency of racism, bigotry and xenophobics. And when the public isn’t there? Well, I hate to think.

With the latest information out about the rise in birth rates, should we be surprised that the same web site has a lot, an awful lot, to say about that? I think not. It’s more of the rant that I’ve come to expect.

So are the politics of Ukip the politics of fear: fear of the other, fear of that which is different, all wrapped up as a warning and a blanket, pseudo-defence of the UK and that should the UK ignore their warnings, we would do so at our peril? 
Bloom’s comments on record state that they are the views ‘of the common man’, held not in the pub, but in ‘the cricket club’. I don’t recognise this ‘common man’, nor ‘the cricket club’, before we even step off this green and pleasant land and consider Ukip’s views of what lies out there. 
Their views are too pre-war, pre 1940’s and  more reminiscent of the early-mid 20th century, when Britain had an Empire, but when words got swept up in the streets, found arms, ammunition, & fuelled actions.

Channel 4 presenter Cathy Newman https://twitter.com/cathynewman has written an article in The Daily Telegraph that quotes a YouGov poll in March with a range of fascinating stats. And believe me, it’s not often you’ll find me promoting stats. 
But these appear to show some interesting facts about Ukip voters, including the fact that Ukip draws in more men than women, but there are more over-50 voters (voting for Ukip) compared to other parties. Well worth a read.

And Cathy Newman ends with a hunch,    


'.......but as generational attitudes towards women shift, and as younger women take advantage of better educational opportunities, surely political parties of any stripe will find it far harder to defend the kind of sexist views some Ukip-pers appear to wear as a badge of pride – as crucially some of this next generation of women will vote and they won't vote for Ukip in its current state.'


Only sexist? 
But if any Ukip followers now and in the future, were to jump ship, where would they go?  Which party would offer actual policies that would chime with their beliefs be they real, imaginary or aspirational? 
Would they find a home within the Tory party? Perhaps. 
Figures indicate that actual party membership is declining in the 3 major parties, but excluding  Ukip, and their claim of an increase. 
Would the Tory party welcome them?
Is the Tory party still the ‘nasty party’? Did they ever stop being ‘the nasty party’? 

Or, just dozy perhaps since a steeped – in – the –Tory – mould Rees-Mogg claims he didn’t know that the Traditional Britain Group http://www.traditionalbritain.org/   continues to see the repatriation of  black minority ethnic Britains as required.  Rees-Mogg didn’t know, or he didn’t care, so much so, that he was happy to speak at a dinner organised by them. http://www.theguardian.

And Rees-Mogg is part of the ‘official’ face and therefore part of the character, beliefs, and ethos of the Tory party, the funders & followers. By the way, that’s a straight lift from my thoughts about Godfrey Bloom: I just changed the party name….I was never deemed to be subtle.

The Traditional Britain Group are the ones, and yes, possibly there are others, but they decried the appointment of Doreen Lawrence to the House of Lords, and, called for her to leave the country. This is after they /Traditional Britain Group/ claimed that …’she is without merit’…and in line with their beliefs…’should be returned to their homeland’. ….’be returned’….is even one step further than those vans in London!

‘Without merit’? Taking on a racist institution the size of the Met?Without merit? not only tackling the met, but bravery, determination and staying-power. I don’t think so.

If membership figures across the board are declining, in the 3 major parties,  what future for party membership (any party)? 
Will the Labour party’s move to re-align its relationship with unions and the potential for union members to ‘opt in’ boost Labour party membership?

Can parties get the volunteers out to stuff envelopes, make phone calls, deliver leaflets, knock on doors without a recognised and contactable membership? I doubt it, so in that sense alone, membership matters.

But have we now reached that internet, social networking stage that saw Obama elected, and re-elected? We were told we had here in the UK at the time of the run up to the last general election.  In reality though, the only input was those television debates, and truly that internet factor didn’t happe.

Are we at the stage now that the request for a dollar, two dollars, whatever you can afford to bring about change in the USA will connect here with those who previously felt disenfranchised, excluded, unconnected, and translate into £’s followed by a vote?

Will we see the common man and the cricket club members putting in the odd pound now and then and to whom?  How much will that form of donation matter? 
It’s pretty anonymous and many might consider it ‘safe’: support without recognition. 
In the great scheme of the millions (of £s overall) that seem to be around at the moment, perhaps very little. 
But it’s the ‘personal touch’ that’s beguiling. 
The honey trap that says you matter. 
That constant drip drip of connectivity that just might translate into a vote without having to actually join a party.

And we know who’s joined the Tory team to augment the Australian strategist, Lynton Crosby. http://www.crosbytextor.com/ 

None other than Jim Messina, Obama’s (ex) campaign manager, quoted as saying


I have long admired Prime Minister Cameron. While I will not be moving to London, nor will I be managing any type of day to day political operations, I will be offering strategic campaign advice leading up to 2015”. Jim Messina. 


 Interesting to note that The Washington Post tells us that The White House says.....


that Messina’s decision to work for Cameron does not represent “any kind of a signal from the president” regarding Britain’s future election.


Mmmmmmm….A sign of things to come perhaps. at least in relation to strategies and tactics.

I wonder then, will there be a response from the Labour party, with the appointment of a team, especially now that Tom Watson’s gone. 
I do hope so, since the electioneering for 2015 has well and truly started, and since we're not all in this together, we don't need more of the same.

But I doubt if we will see anything before the (Labour)  party conference in September. 

I wonder tho’, will it come with all the razzmatazz of the Dr Who unveiling?  Doubt it. 

Dammit, I’ve just realised…Tucker’s all booked up for the foreseeable future. 

Sunday 4 August 2013

It's my secret...I'll spill it if I want to....




I’ve got a secret, just a little one, and that’s such a warm, happy feeling that I’m hugging close to my chest. 
Nope, sorry: wild horses won’t drag it from me.
But since I know you don’t have wild horses, o.k. I will: I’ll share it with you.
And what if I do…who cares? 
Not with my kind of secrets.

But what should we care for the secrets spilled by the likes of Private Bradley Manning & Edward Snowden and the very people who undertake such actions?

(it's my blog and I admire Amnesty International, so there! and yes, The Guardian, too


With Manning, the polarisation in the debate seemed clear cut right from the beginning, and repeated in his court martial in July: a traitor, not  a whistle blower. 
Or the opposite, depending on your stance.

And by fast forwarding to the outcomes of the court martial, Manning was cleared of the gravest charge….that he aided the enemy, but he was guilty under the (USA’s) Espionage Act of various other charges brought against him. 
Thus he avoided the death penalty, but is now facing a lifetime of incarceration.

Traitor? Whistle blower?
Of course Manning took an oath & swore loyalty. 
But is there never an occasion when someone has to forsake that oath? 
Does the occasion never arise when an individual is required to  assess the expectations demanded of that loyalty? 
Is the state the ultimate authority that you must obey?
Is it too simplistic to quote  M K Gandhi ….http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/


’many people especially ignorant people want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you’

The court martial decisions appear to acknowledge that the massive quantity of ‘leaks’ and the wide scope of content meant that some of the charges were ‘lesser’ and even ‘transitory’ 
Steven Aftergood, an expert on government secrecy at the non-partial Federation of American Scientists, agreed. http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/author/saftergood/

"The official damage assessments concerning Manning and Wikileaks have not been publicly released, but my sense is that the bulk of the damage is subtle rather than catastrophic," he said.


Much has been made  by the whistle blower faction of the fact that there was embarrassment caused to the USA. This was predicated on the fact that the amount and scope of the leaking exposed a very simple truth:  that there is no (future) guarantee coming from the USA. 
Namely that they could ensure confidentially to their allies.
Thus the actions of a whistle blower, not a traitor.

But the counter argument was that embarrassment was at one end of the spectrum and then went all the way up to the other. You had the  actions of a traitor that threatened state security intelligence, military ops, and diplomacy in general.

I think I’m back to Gandi and others, but really this guy.........

 “I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche


So if Manning’s crime was to tell us what has taken place (those video clips, memos, emails) and he is being punished for the act of telling, who will be punished for the act of doing, for issuing the orders?

Will anyone be punished for undertaking those specific actions? 
The Nuremberg trials were surely built on the basis of it was not acceptable to say…I was following orders.

And will anyone be punished for  condoning, aiding and abetting the  actions taken by others: the dictators, the  oppressors, in places such as Tunisia and the Middle East? 
After all, my enemies enemy is my friend, or, so what, let them get on it with? 
What do we care! What’s a bit of water boarding now and then?

And then there’s Edward Snowden. 
He’s left the building for sure. But for how long? The duration of the first ‘visa’, Then an extension? And another and another?

During the stand-off at the OK Corral Airport,  the USA said it wouldn’t ground a plane over a ‘hacker’. 
The implications being the USA valued its allies too highly to cause such a potential diplomatic incident. 
Or conversely, it didn’t rate the hacker highly enough.

Obviously it couldn’t be the latter, and they didn’t want the former, so the action of grounding the Bolivian President’s plane was action enough. 
It said, oh yes, we will.  
Thus Snowden was effectively trapped in Russia and Russia was forced to act.

But now we’ve come to the point that the USA and others want us to focus on. 
The plight of the individuals. 
Their futures, or lack of.What will happen? Will there be appeals? Will the petition to award Manning the Nobel peace prize gain moment? 
Will Snowden mysteriously disappear only to reappear somewhere else, South America perhaps?

They have become the story. Not what they have exposed; not what they have told us, and what to many, they have confirmed. The people are now the story

Do we need people who tell the truth? 

Who share their secrets? 

Who are prepared to take risks that impact on their futures, their very lives and that of their families?

Do we need the press, the media, wikileaks even, to be there to hear, see, read and share the previously hidden, secret information? 

I think we do, though I must admit, my guilty secret is:  

I doubt I would have the moral courage to do what they have done if I ever had such secrets on my conscience.