Will there ever be another Labour government in the UK?

Since I'm a Scottish Green and in favour of independence, I find it hard to understand why anyone anywhere in the UK would vote either Tory or Labour. 

I've reached the point of wondering just what else the Tories can do to show themselves up as incompetent, self-seeking and, given that they all seem to be multi-millionaires, out of touch with the rest of the population - and how far can they go before people stop voting for them? In the past few weeks, we've been able to see for ourselves that Theresa May betrayed the Windrush generation, deported 7,000 students 'by accident' and, when caught out, put the blame on her buddy Amber Rudd. And still the good people of England go on voting Tory. More than that, according to one man who sent a text to Jeremy Vine on radio 2 today, some voters are very concerned at how liberal (I don't think he meant Liberal) the Tories have become. Presumably, these voters want the Tories to head to the right of UKIP. Where will that take them? Back to the 1930s? or even the 1800s? 

I have to admit the Tories have done a great hatchet job on Labour in recent months. In about 25 years of membership of the Labour party, I never came across racism of any kind at local or party level. Not a single suggestion of anti-semitism. In fact, quite a lot of Jewish people in the area where I live are Labour members - or were till recently...And to this day, I've never seen a single piece of written evidence of anti-semitism in the Labour party. Just allegations in the Tory press and from the Tory benches in Westminster. 

But I think Labour in the UK have two big problems, and neither of them is the Conservative party. Allow me to quote Hugh Kerr, an experienced politician on Facebook today: 

'Woke up to hear Chuka Um(u)nna one of the Blairites working against Corbyn saying the elections were terrible for Labour and they needed to change (ie their leader!). I then checked the results and it said Labour won 2063 seats to the Tories 1293! This on a low turnout which favours the Tories. Some defeat!'

Labour's first big problem is Labour. The party doesn't present a united front. Hasn't done since Gordon Brown and co lost the election of 2010. I look at Jeremy Corbyn and think: yep, good constituency MP and a man of principle but he hasn't got a leadership bone in his body. And I suspect that's what's needed right now: somebody to tell the Blairites' constituency parties to prove they have local support by holding re-selection meetings. That same person should also send the Blairites off to re-read the party manifesto (if they ever read it to begin with) and come up with some ideas of how to tackle the Tories in Westminster - preferably without either abstaining or voting with them. The Blairites' time has come and gone. Labour needs to move on - not back.

Labour's second big problem is the media. The press and TV are almost entirely against them. They seize on comments like Umunna's. Labour is routinely misrepresented by the BBC, ITV and Sky news. Only Channel 4 news can be relied on to tell the Labour side of things. All but 2 newspapers are anti-Labour - and one of them (the Guardian) is a bit suspect. The media have also gone after what they see as easy targets: John McDonnell (not helped by him chucking a Little Red Book across to his Tory opponent) and Diane Abbott (not helped by her being unprepared for interviews). And, heaven help us, the media are getting away with this misrepresentation - just as they were in Scotland before social media gave us an outlet and Holyrood got a bit more savvy at rebuffing the nonsense the Tories were coming up with. If you want a laugh, look at the responses on twitter and Facebook to the Tories' and the press's attempts to make out baby boxes are dangerous. 

So what happens next? As far as I can see, the UK goes on - and on and on - having Conservative governments. The 'gig' economy takes over, so the population gets poorer and poorer. The UK leaves the EU and becomes another state of the USA. Any last guarantees of security at work are taken from us. Wages keep on falling. We hand worse and worse living and working conditions on to our children. We lose the right to vote, since the Tories now want us to prove we're entitled to vote by producing photo ID - we saw a wee bit of that in the elections yesterday.

If you live in Scotland, you at least have an option: you can become what our unionist pals call a 'separatist.' I'm happy to declare myself a member of that group. 

I think I know what we're heading for in Scotland: once we have independence, we can have any parties we like. If you want a Labour party or a Conservative party, you can set one up. I think I'll still be a Green but there's a good chance the SNP will morph into some sort of centrist party. I'm not sure where the LibDems will fit in but then I never did. It will be up to every party to sell itself to the voters. And we won't vote through the medium of the press and TV. 

If you think I'm wrong, please get in touch. 

Amber Rudd

Now, Amber, be honest. Have you been telling porkies? I know you're a Tory but you can fess up if you try. I suspect you have and I think you should stop because you're not very good at it.

So far you've told us you didn't know the Windrush people were being deported illegally. Let's just understand something: when a new boss (say, a Home Secretary) is appointed to the job, s/he moves into a department that's pretty well staffed with civil servants chosen for their high educational standards. Part of their job is to write briefing papers for the new boss and discuss them with him/her. Are you saying your people didn't do that? If that's true, it's time your office had a good 'redd oot,' as we say in Scotland. Because if the rest of us out here have known for about 4 months now that the Windrush people were being screwed by your party, why didn't you?

Or maybe you just didn't pay attention to what your 'people' were telling you. A bit surprising that, since we've been led to understand that Cabinet ministers get appointed on merit, although looking at Boris, that's getting to be hard to believe.

Maybe it was the immigration policy you didn't grasp. You know the policy I mean. The obsession with getting immigration down to the tens of thousands (where is has never, ever been for good reasons that I'll come to shortly). Keep British jobs for British workers. Can we sell you a wee red anti-immigration mug? Here's a van warning you to go home if you're in the UK illegally. And if you're an EU citizen, you may have lived, worked and paid taxes here for 30 years but your right to remain is over. Us out here - you know, the ones that are going to have to pay to fix the shambles the Tories have made of Windrush and are making of Brexit - we knew that was the policy. We even knew the Tories and Labour were following the same policy. What bit of this did you not get, Amber?

And there's also the wee problem of a shortage of workers. We're now desperately short of nurses and doctors and we can't bring them in because Home Office immigration officials are routinely refusing to give them work visas, despite the fact that these people have been recruited by another branch of your government. So we're paying in the length of time we have to wait to see doctors too.

Then there are the people who pick our food in the fields and greenhouses who have decided the racist insults they now routinely encounter here are not acceptable and there are plenty of places they can work in the other 27 EU countries. Nobody's too sure what that's going to mean in terms of our food supply but we'll find out come summer.

And some of us may also get a shock when we discover that our kids' teachers and childcare workers have decided living here is not worth the aggro and have gone 'home' before the start of the new school year.

The other thing us out here have sussed, Amber, is that none of this had anything at all to do with what's best for 'the country.' What happened was that both your party and Labour went mad when it came to fending off the threat from UKIP at the last two elections. Not only did politicians of your two parties not try to counter the nonsense about immigration spouted by UKIP - and their pals in the press - but you tried to outdo them in your xenophobia. It's about politics, not the national interest.

So here's a question I would really like the answer to: how are you going to fix this mess?

And if you can't answer that question, you really need to resign. And take your boss with you.

And now that Amber Rudd has resigned, here's my comment:



Dear Amber,

How awful that your career has come to a juddering halt because you ‘inadvertently misled Parliament’ over Windrush.  At least, that was what you claim happened. It only turns out Windrush people, who always had rights of citizenship under English law, have been deported illegally. In addition, your civil servants, a well-educated bunch of people chosen for their high educational standards, have been miscalled for giving you false information, while us out here (voters to you) knew perfectly well what was going on.

It turned out you lied.

Worse than that – much worse – it seems you were stupid enough to put in writing to your boss that you had plans in place to step up the deportation of immigrants.

Meanwhile, the situation you leave behind is worse than it was when you took over the Home Office. There’s still the obsession with getting immigration down to the tens of thousands (where is has never, ever been for good reasons that I'll come to shortly). We still need to keep British jobs for British workers. The Labour Party has a wee surplus of red anti-immigration mug if you need one.  And somewhere there’s a van warning people to go home if they’re in the UK illegally.

And if you're an EU citizen, you may have lived, worked and paid taxes here for 30 years but your right to remain is over. Us out here - you know, the ones that are going to have to pay to fix the shambles the Tories have made of Windrush and are making of Brexit - we knew that was the policy. We even knew the Tories and Labour were following the same policy. What bit of this did you not get, Amber?

And there's also the wee problem of a shortage of workers. We're now desperately short of nurses and doctors and we can't bring them in because Home Office immigration officials are routinely refusing to give them work visas, despite the fact that these people have been recruited by another branch of the Tory government. So we're paying in the length of time we have to wait to see doctors too.

Then there are the people who pick our food in the fields and greenhouses who have decided the racist insults they now routinely encounter here are not acceptable and there are plenty of places they can work in the other 27 EU countries. Nobody's too sure what that's going to mean in terms of our food supply but we'll find out come summer.

And some of us may also get a shock when we discover that our kids' teachers and childcare workers have decided living here is not worth the aggro and have gone 'home' before the start of the new school year.

And Theresa May lives on. Amber, you are an utter fool.

The other thing us out here have sussed, Amber, is that none of this had anything at all to do with what's best for 'the country.' What happened was that both your party and Labour went mad when it came to fending off the threat from UKIP at the last two elections. Not only did politicians of your two parties not try to counter the nonsense about immigration spouted by UKIP - and their pals in the right-wing press - but you tried to outdo them in your xenophobia. This was about politics, not the national interest.

It's a shame those of us who live in parts of the UK that need people to come and work here and also don't share the Tory and Labour fear of foreigners are getting dragged into this nonsense. 

I won’t lie and claim I’m sad to see you go. I’m just sorry you didn’t take your boss with you to the back benches – where you will, of course, continue to pull in a decent wage – and no doubt get compensation for losing your Cabinet post. All us out here can look forward to is a Home Office run by Michael Gove.

I admit I’m just hoping there are enough sensible people in Scotland who will look at this kerfuffle and decide it’s time to say goodbye to the idiocy that calls itself the Union.

Being young

Fifty years ago, young people left school and went either to university (gey few at that time) or into work (a lot). Anyone over the age of 50 has no idea how tough life was for young people in the 80s and 90s when youth unemployment reached 40%. Nowadays, we don't talk about youth unemployment. We talk about the 'gig economy': the casual, underpaid method of working that capitalism seems to demand in the  modern UK. No holiday pay, no sick leave, and in some companies no toilet breaks during your shift. And, above all, no union membership to protect your rights. You have no rights as far as I can see.

Tonight I was in a local pizzeria. Privately owned, not part of a chain. Things were quiet, although by the time I left 25 minutes later the phones were busy. As if people had looked at the clock and thought: 'Struth! Is that the time? Better order something to eat'.

The biggest issue for the staff seemed to be that they had run out of prosciutto. That just left 3 sorts of sausage for the pizzas they were serving. There was some discussion over whether they should offer customers a pound off if they asked for the prosciutto they didn't have. I was more taken with the fact that they were selling rocket as a pizza filling. Rocket. It grows like a weed in most parts of Europe, but if you want it in a pizzeria in the UK, you have to pay extra.

Two young employees were discussing jobs with a customer of their own age as they worked. I was pretending not to listen in. All of them seemed to think nothing of travelling across the city for work. They knew which fast food outlets were hiring, and they knew which ones to avoid. One had moved out of a flat back to live with his parents in hopes of raising enough for a down payment on a mortgage but as he said: 'That's well spent now.'

I so wanted to ask if any of them had thought of doing a course at a further education college or looking for an apprenticeship. Or applying for funding from the Prince's Trust or the Lottery or Google Charity Grants to set up their own business?

I also wanted to ask: Where will you be in 20 years time? Still making and delivering pizzas? It's worth asking. Every fast food joint and every supermarket employs young people, who stick around for a few years and then move on. Where do they go? To better jobs? Or, as a taxi driver told me last week his daughter (the one with the Masters) now was, selling smart meters on the phone for British Gas? Or 'online bundles' for BT?

And where will they be in 40 years time? Still working - that's for sure. Will they have pensions? Will they ever earn enough to put money into a pension? Can they ever retire? Will they be able to spend their old age with their grandchildren? Can they afford to marry? Or have children, never mind grandchildren?

We've handed our young people and their futures over to capitalism. That's not their problem. It's ours. If Scotland ever gains independence, this is my number one priority: to create a decent future for our young people, with a job and a home of their own. A bit of security. Or is that against the aims of capitalism?

Spending Public Money?

I've lived in Glasgow on and off all my life, although I only worked there for a short time. I don't know what happens inside the council but I noticed on Sunday that the Sunday Herald apparently does. And it's not happy.

Their journalists did a Freedom of Information request about foreign visits by councillors and council officers from Glasgow City. The trouble with FOI requests is that the body providing the information has no control over how the newspaper that requests it deals with it in print. The usual way for Scottish newspapers to deal with FOI requests to councils is to shout from the roof-tops that public money is being wasted on trips abroad. And that was the Sunday Herald's message this time.

There was a time when Glasgow was widely seen as a slum city. If it was famous for anything, it was  the deep-fried Mars bar. And boy, are we not all fed up hearing about that? Not many people would have considered coming here on holiday. Now Glasgow has well over 2 million holiday visitors every year. It's recognised as a hub of great museums, good food, great music and fine shops.

How did the city get from there to here? Investment. The city invested in its museums and its public buildings. It encouraged the redevelopment of the Merchant City. It encouraged builders to invest in new hotels and entertainment venues on the Clyde. And it took part enthusiastically in the successful bid to host the Commonwealth Games. Part of the investment involved sending councillors and council officers abroad to make contacts in other cities. That doesn't mean using council-tax-payers' money. Here in Scotland, we've got very good at tapping into cash from agencies like the Scottish Government, the British Council, the Lottery and the EU.

When I worked in a local council promoting international links for schools, I was forever being asked in FOI requests how much council money I'd spent sending teachers and students abroad. My answer was always: none. I never had to use council cash. There was plenty of cash available from elsewhere.

The advantages of international links are huge. Sending people abroad meant that they went as our ambassadors. We picked our ambassadors carefully, of course, and most of all we tried to make sure young people got opportunities to take part in foreign visits: that involved exchanges to France, Germany, China, Sweden (on a sailing ship) and the USA. Teachers also made great ambassadors: they are keen travellers and appreciative of the opportunity. Ours went to China, Canada, the USA, France, Spain, Germany, Poland, New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Denmark. After these visits, we were more likely to have visitors come to our area, either to work or on holiday. We hosted groups from Spain, Germany, Poland, Singapore and France.

They paid to come.

It's time journalists moved on from FOI requests to local councils or, at the very least, tried to analyse what the answers mean when they make an FOI request. Maybe talk to people in the councils. Get beyond the idea that council employees are sitting around drinking coffee but are in fact trying to keep several balls in the air at once. And, above all, that they have the interests of the area they serve in mind when they're working.

A Chat with the Cat

Missy has now lived here for almost 6 months. If she could talk, I imagine this is the kind of conversation we would be having:

Me: Missy, I hope you're settling in well. 

Missy: Yes, so far it's not bad. The food is okay. I have a couple of high placesto sleep. Your  bed is very comfortable to sleep on. You need to change the cat litter in my tray more often though. 

Me: Okay, I'm not used to having an indoor cat so I'll bear that in mind. Anything else bothering you? 

Missy: The door buzzer. Can you tone it down a bit?

Me: Sorry, I know it's loud, but it's controlled from a place in Edinburgh and we can't change it. It's also meant for old people, so it has to be loud enough for them to hear. 

Missy: I suppose that's why the fire alarm is so loud as well? 

Me: Yep, I'm afraid so. Is everything else okay?

Missy: You keep leaving. I wasn't expecting that. My last human was at home all the 

time. 

Me: Yes, I'm told he was ill for a long time. I try to go out every day - most people do. Not for long - just to meet friends, do the shopping, get some air...

Missy: As long as you come back.

Me: I'm not planning on leaving you for very long. But while we're on the subject of going out, I wonder if you'll feel up to going to see the vetsoon. You really need a check-up. 

Missy: Vet? Does that mean going in the carrier? I notice you've left it beside the settee and put a wee blanket in it, with some toys and some catnip. I'm not fooled. The carrier is bad news. 

Me: Okay. I'm not going to insist. 

Missy: Insist all you like. I'm a cat. I can resist a lot harder than you can insist. 

Racist UK

I'm now wondering how far the UK can stoop when it comes to racism.

I include anti-semitism in the word racism. On today's news from the Westminster parliament, we had the pleasure of hearing Theresa May deny there was a racist agenda in the Home Office against the 'Windrush' generation of people from the West Indies, while at the same time chucking the insult at Jeremy Corbyn that his party is anti-semitic.

It seems to me that the whole of the UK is now being tarred with this brush: it looks as if we're all racist. Since Brexit, every loony in the UK thinks it's okay to demand that 'other' people - the ones they say are not 'British': black people, Jews, EU citizens, asylum seekers - should be deported. People I've lived and worked with from all over the world face being treated as 'foreign', even though they've lived here for decades, worked all their days, paid their taxes, brought up their kids here, invested in the country.

I see reports in the news of racist attacks on people quietly going about their own business by morons probably not intellectually fit to tie their shoe laces but possessed of white faces and a claim to be British. And let's not forget, some racists have black faces too, since racism can be found in every group. Racism is also alive and well in Scotland, so there's no reason for us to be smug north of the border.

I even see posts on Facebook from people who are demanding independence for Scotland in which they rattle on about the financial power of people like Theresa May's man but manage to include among the 'enemy' the Rothschild bankers on the grounds that they are Jews and thus 'alien' or at least 'other' and so a fair target.

Racism isn't unique to the UK, of course. It's happening all over the world: Trump tells people the Mexicans are taking over the USA, that they are all 'illegals' and criminals. He wants a wall to keep them out and wants the Mexicans to build it. Australia has taken to exiling would-be refugees on far islands. Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands and France have political parties devoted to 'othering' foreigners. Spain's right wing government is now 'othering' the Catalans and the Basques. It's a fashion - a trend - call it what you want: it's payback for the years when Socialism, Social Democracy and occasionally Communism ruled the waves in some parts of the world. The pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. This seems normal but what can we do against this tide of right wing agitation - assuming we want to do something?

Resist.

I've been blocked on Facebook and twitter by quite a few people I've called out for their racist views. I've also been trolled for calling out racists. Interestingly, they are always anonymous. Fine by me. I don't come on to Facebook to attack other people's views, but I will if I have to. I think we all have to, if we want to hand on a decent world to our kids and grandkids.

Ee-aw-ee-aw

This is Rod Liddle, who writes for a London-based newspaper, being disrespectful about someone else's language. 

Dismissing other people's languages is not unique to England, of course. There was a long period when citizens of the USA thought it was funny to laugh at how Polish people, Jews and Italians spoke English. And I'm sure we all remember Manuel in Faulty Towers, who was the constant butt of John Cleese's ire for the way he failed to speak English.

But Rod isn't having a go at a foreign language. He's talking about one of the UK's native languages, Welsh. He's mocking how it's spoken in backward valleys, how daft it looks when it's written down,  how only weirdos like the 'Plaid Cymru' woman on Question Time actually speak it and how the bridge in question is only important because it helps people to get out of Wales.

I've been seeing these comments about Welsh in English newspapers for a generation now: about 20 years ago, one poor soul in Cornwall, not realising Cornish came from the same linguistic roots as Welsh, got himself in a real fankle in the Guardian demanding that Welsh be allowed to die. I've always wondered what happened to this man to make him so - well - angry about somebody else's language.

I've seen similar whinges about Gaelic in Scotland. Let it die is the common theme.

The terrible thing is that these demands to let languages die reveal something very important about the 'big' languages of this world: English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Punjabi and the rest do actually have the power to kill off lesser-used languages. It's happening all the time. There are quite a few languages where the total number of speakers is down to less than 600. By that standard, Welsh and Gaelic are in quite a healthy position.

So why 'preserve' lesser-used languages? If they die, it's not the words we lose, you see. We can preserve a record of the words in books, on CDs and in TV programmes. It's the way of life that will go: for example, how Native Americans lived, what their religions were, how they sounded when they sang together, what nursery rhymes they taught their children, what their folklore was. All of this adds up to a picture of how they lived and is an invaluable part of our picture of human life.

Imagine if we had a record of some sort of how our ancestors lived in Southern Africa or Orkney or in the caves of Patagonia 40,000 years ago. We would know who they were, not just vague impressions of their lives. So when we saw a handprint on a cave wall in the Dordogne or in Northern Spain, we wouldn't be surprised: we would know why our ancient ancestor felt it necessary to leave his (or her) mark.

If nothing else, having a load of languages adds to the gaiety of nations - general cheerfulness or amusement. That's the phrase Samuel Johnson wrote about the death of the great actor David Garrick, remarking that his death eclipsed the gaiety of nations and impoverished the public stock of harmless pleasure. Dr Johnson was in many ways a pig of a man but he got that right. And what was Garrick's weapon in his work? Language.

Let's savour it all.

Crisps

Okay, this is a serious matter. A very serious matter. It has to do with lifestyle.

For decades now, Scottish people have been buying packets, bags and multi-packs of crisps. And for decades the contents have got worse and worse.

And yet, we are told we have a bigger and better range of crisps.

'Handmade' crisps are terrible. I've got a mouth full of cosmetic dental work so I'm fussy what I eat. I never buy these handmade doodahs, because they are - what can I call them - chunky? over-cooked? Whatever they are, they're nothing like the crisps I ate when I was young.

Even the cat won't touch them. And she'll eat anything.

Then there's Golden Wonder. And Smith's. I suspect both manufacturers have been bought over by Walker's because they taste just like Walker's - and I've never liked Walker's crisps.

The closest you'll get to a decent crisp in the UK is the pack the Morrison's cafe sell at lunchtime - good value, by the way:a decent coffee + a multi pack of sandwiches and a wee bag of crisps - for £3.75.

The Morrison's crisps are not too salty. And they are very light. And there are just enough of them to let you enjoy the experience. Just like French crisps...But no, I can't go down that road....

Happy April Fools' Day!

Which of the following stories do you not believe?

Yulia Skripal, said to be at death's door after being poisoned in Salisbury by the Russians with a nerve agent at the start of last week, has recovered consciousness and looks likely to make a good recovery. The police officer involved in the 'attack' has already left hospital but there's no news of her father's condition.

Jeremy Corbyn, one of the rebel old boys of the Labour Party, is revealed to be an anti-semite, despite never having expressed any anti-semitic views over the last - oh, I dunno - 40 years. And a few of his allies are having to resign from jobs as a result.

Theresa May and co are doing a grand job of steering the UK through Brexit. Business people don't agree but hey, what do they know?

Meghan Markle is a useful addition to the Royal Family and won't cost the tax payer a penny.

Ant and Dec are great entertainers. Poor Ant (or is it Dec) is to be pitied, given how ill he is.

A few comments:
1 Bread and circuses to keep the plebs happy: that would be the Meghan Markle and Ant and Dec stories. Harry and Meghan's security bill for the tax payers comes to about 30million quid so far.
2 Distraction: there are local elections coming up in England, so a Corbyn story that puts him in a bad light is excellent. He can't be electable on this basis, even if it's all a lie.
3 Brexit is a disaster, so let's get something else going. That allows the media to run the Skripal story for days and days and days...and lets Theresa May get EU, US and Commonwealth governments to pile in, thus showing the power and influence of the UK.

So which story do I not believe? Well, I don't believe any of them. Especially after listening to a Sky News Review on Saturday night which described 2,000 people defending Corbyn and concluded with 'And there's an anti-semitic trope right there.'

Calanais

One of our library clients has a son in law from Harris and my library buddy Alex quick as a flash dobbed me in as someone who knows the islands. I always find this a bit tricky. A lot of Scottish people are totally ignorant about anywhere outside Glasgow and Edinburgh (and maybe Dundee and Aberdeen but definitely not Inverness or anywhere north or west of there).

Still, I'm happy to admit to knowing a bit about the islands. I've visited quite a few bits of Lewis and Harris but it is a vast island - at least compared to places I know in Argyll and Bute. Heavenssake, Stornoway has traffic lights! An island with traffic lights - how amazing is that!...Islay once had traffic lights when there were roadworks. We all went out and took photos.

But that's really all it took: a wee bit of a chat and I was off on a journey back in time. I used to go to meetings in places like Aberdeen, Inverness and Stornoway. I got fed up with people telling me how far away these places were (only if you live in the Central Belt), how difficult they were to get to (what, 45 minutes on a plane from Glasgow or Edinburgh?). It was like people imagined the earth was flat and you'd drop off the edge if you crossed the Minch.

The big word was 'remote.' I've grown to hate that word. When families of Syrian refugees went to live on Bute, UK media were beside themselves: It's so remote! Aye: 30 minutes on the boat and 30 minutes on the train and you're in Glasgow. How remote is that!

But Lewis and Harris, that's different. All the time I was flying up and down attending meetings, I knew I wasn't seeing much outside Stornoway and South Lochs - although I love them both and could easily see myself living in either place. So one time I booked myself a few days leave, hired a car and after my meetings were over I set off first to see the stones at Calanais.

I have to say I've seen lots of sites of historical interest: the priory at Oronsay (though I would spell it Oransay), the Kildalton Cross, Cladville at Portnahaven on Islay, Kilnaughton Chapel, Kilmartin Glen. I could go on.

But Calanais blew me away. There's a visitor centre, with a gift shop full of paintings and craft work and a cafe. Just as you would expect these days. But nothing prepares you for the Calanais Stones. It's like you've walked into someone's back garden and a prehistoric monument has been set up there for your enjoyment. It is magnificent. Partly it's the setting: there are houses all around, so it seems as if the Stones are just part of the village. But there's also the quiet, the views of water and hills and the absolute peace. All of it makes you wonder why the Stones are here. What purpose did they serve in their time? Do they still fulfill a purpose?

I would like everyone to enjoy a few hours at Calanais or at a similar site. And ask: Where did these people come from? What did they want to tell us? Because every group wants to tell the coming generations something.

But above all, just accept what a wonderful country Scotland is. Who knows how old? Just look and enjoy - and respect.

If you're not into DIY

And I'm not. I'm a mechanical, electrical, practical idiot. As my mother would have put it: Plenty brains, jist nae common sense...

So here are my current household nightmares:

I found this in the plastic rim of my washing machine. The machine is about 2 years old. Yes, it's still working fine. No funny burning smell. No odd noises. Should I ignore it and assume this 'nut' (if that's what it is) came from somewhere else and somehow found its way into the washing machine? Where from, I wonder?

Then there's this:

I found it underneath my chair. It's a very old revolving office chair. Maybe dating from the 1920s. I've had it renovated but sadly it no longer revolves. I've looked at the mechanism that holds it together but I can't see where this wee screw could have come from. The chair seems quite solid still. No squeaking. No tilting. I'm sitting on it right now. Can I safely ignore the screw? 

Are these mystery objects breeding in my wee flat? What will I find next? Is this some kind of torture? If it is, it's not going to work.  

It's amazing the things I can ignore if I have to. I once bought a phone that was meant to be attached to the kitchen wall. I followed the instructions and then discovered, no matter what I did, the phone fell off its wall mount. I stood it on the kitchen counter where it stayed for about 8 years until I changed my phone system, and then I threw it out, having never worked out why it didn't stay on the wall. 

I suppose being a practical eejit, I have to disagree with the saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. My motto would be: If it's broke but you can live with it, ignore it. This approach bothers other people more than me: after my birthday party, my retired joiner friend brought stuff up from the lounge for me. Instantly, he was bothered by the hasp (is that the word?) on my front door. It's a bit loose which can make it hard to turn the key. But I've found if I lean on it, the door locks no bother. He offered to come out of retirement to fix it. 

Looking at all this, I come up with two other words to describe my approach to life: laziness and procrastination. In fact, the Scottish expression Ah canny be ersed comes to mind. Works for me. 

Boris Johnson - again

My sleep pattern is shot to hell since the clocks went forward, so since I'm awake I might as well post something.

What is Boris Johnson's role in the current Westminster Tory government?

Yeah, I know he's the Foreign Secretary (I would say allegedly) but he's obviously out of his depth in that role. Just have a look at his performance dealing with Emily Thornberry (Shadow Foreign Secretary) in Westminster, when he addresses her by her husband's name as 'Baroness someone', and has to be called to order by the Speaker.

Johnson's been around politics and Westminster long enough to know which way is up, so this was definitely intended as a put-down. That would be because Emily Thornberry has had a good run for the last few months, making Johnson look like what he is: an idiot. Now he looks like a patronising, sexist idiot.

He's not employed for his skill as a diplomat as far as I can see, although I heard last night he managed to phone a few people around the world in Theresa May's search for backing in the Salisbury Affair and avoided making a complete arse of himself. Major triumph for Johnson.

But I repeat: what is his role? In my opinion, he started off as that awfully popular chap off Have I Got News For You, the former mayor of London who didn't mind making a fool of himself on zip-wires and in river clean-ups. Despite his campaign to build a new airport on the Thames and a bridge with a garden along its length, and despite being sacked in his early days for dishonesty by a Fleet Street newspaper (now there's a novelty), he was capable of making a run for the job of prime minister. Good Ole Boris. What a laugh.

But he's not so popular now. And yet, he's still there.

He is now, I think, in a very special category: he's Theresa May's clown.  He probably still thinks he's in the running to be prime minister, but I suspect Theresa and her 'people' have long since got the measure of him and are happy to hang him out to dry. Theresa May, who is a 'better' (that is, a craftier) politician than many of us give her credit for will trot out Johnson to explain what's happening with the Russians, just as David Davies is trotted out to explain what's happening with the EU. Neither is convincing and for the same reason: neither of them is able to think on their feet.

But that won't matter because the longer plan is to make sure the Tories stay in power, getting the UK out of the EU, enforcing austerity, etc.

And if you think the current anti-semitism charge against Jeremy Corbyn is suspect, you're right. And it isn't a coincidence that the charge is aimed only at Jeremy Corbyn - to prove he's unfit for government - or that it emerged right now, as the Salisbury Affair is dying down.

So what is Boris Johnson? A dupe of Conservative Central Office, like many others before him.

Facebook

The first news I saw about the arrest of Carles Puigdemont under a European Arrest Warrant was on Facebook. The first pictures I saw of demonstrations in Spain against the arrest of Puigdemont were also on Facebook. Sky News Review had a little video footage of a demo on its 10.30pm edition. Its news website, like the BBC news website, did not carry any news of this. Clara Ponsati's decision to hand herself in was on the BBC Scotland website at teatime. The Sky News at 11pm had a short interview with her lawyer, Aamer Anwar. I don't watch BBC news any more so it may be they also featured these events.

I'm sure twitter was alight with comments but I don't use that.

The newspapers will catch up - at least partly - in the morning.

But the entire weekend, I've been reading about Facebook - mainly the evils of Facebook: how they set out to dupe us, how they work in cahoots with companies like Cambridge Analytica, how irresponsible they are, how they need to be curbed, etc. (I even read that Facebook needs to be controlled in the same way the BBC is controlled and my first thought was: Yes, that's working well, isn't it?)

I think I'd like to put the record straight: if you want a true assessment of what and how Facebook and other media forums are doing, you won't get it from newspapers or TV stations. Facebook etc are the principal enemies of MSM (mainstream media). MSM hate these Johnny-come-latelies. These online chappies, with their instant responses and up to the minute news, are responsible for newspapers closing, journalists losing their jobs and - above all else - a lot of the public asking awkward questions, like: Why did the BBC's Newsnight programme put up a picture of Jeremy Corbyn wearing a Russian hat against a Soviet backdrop? What message were we all supposed to take from that?

The way people in MSM talk about online entities like Facebook and twitter sounds to me exactly like how newspaper people used to talk about TV when it first got started in the UK. You may not remember - but I do - TV was blamed for everything: kids not working hard at school, not playing outside, having no respect for their elders, aping every fad and fashion from the USA (and later from Australia). Interestingly, my hairdresser (aged 30) liked the TV programme Gogglebox but had never heard the word and thought we were all talking about Googlebox. When I think that the gogglebox was what my elderly relations called the TV in an attempt to stop us watching it. (Didn't work, of course).

The anti-TV stuff died down when video games appeared. Now these 'violent' games get the blame for lawlessness or at the very least bad behaviour.

The fact is, the kids don't care about this MSM stuff any more now than they did 40 years ago. They still don't read newspapers. They never watch TV news. They may catch on to something on twitter that's 'trending' but there's a good chance they're not even interested in that. It's their phones they're into. Texts especially. Their mates, girlfriends and boyfriends. Facebook is mainly for the middle-aged and elderly.

It's worth remembering that the internet only went live in 1991. Facebook only started in 2004. Twitter in 2006. Facebook and twitter are, in human terms, adolescents and you know what that means: they've got a lot of growing up still to do, with a bit of sulking (as Zuckerberg showed this week) and the odd tantrum, but they're bright kids - they'll come through in the end.

They both need direction from wiser heads: get the trolling under control, not to mention the anti-semitism, the fascism and the jihadi publicity. Invest some of the money you're coining in making your bit of the internet safer for users. Because if you don't, you'll lose your audience.

Not me. I'm staying on Facebook. I use it to keep up with friends all over the world. I'm aware that there's no such thing as a free lunch and I keep an eye out for traps. I'm not interested in signing up for personality tests that allow a data grab to take place. I don't worry about my privacy. Seriously, as I already said to someone this week: if you're worried about your privacy, don't go on Facebook.

Boris

I was going to write a bit about the problem with the Tories who are in power right now and why they hate the EU. My own theory is that none of them have ever lived anywhere else but England - in fact, most of them have never lived outside the south-east of England and that little bubble of middle class life that the wealth of that region can offer.

For most Tory politicians in Westminster, the idea that there are places in the UK that are closer to Norway or to Ireland than they are to London, or that there are quite a few languages spoken in these islands that are not English but are still definitely 'native' languages probably comes as a shock. Witness the confusion of MPs in Westminster faced with the constituency of Na h-Eilanan an Iar in a recent debate on refugees. A bit like the amazement some Tories experience when they find out real people live in the Highlands - as against tourists and land owners.

But then I googled Boris Johnson and lighted on his wikipedia page. On paper, Boris had a wonderful international early life: born in New York, attended a range of exclusive schools like the European School of Brussels and Eton College. Parents very well off. Ancestry Circassian-Turkish, German, French and English. His name is in fact Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. He chose to be called Boris when he went to Eton.

But honestly, he's a poor soul.

With a father who was an aspiring academic (for a long time) and a mother with mental health problems, he and his siblings were mostly brought up by au pairs or in boarding school. They moved constantly between England and the USA, till they settled 'in the family farm' near Cheltenham and then in London and then Brussels. Boris also had health issues. When he went to Eton on a scholarship, reports complained about his idleness, complacency, and lateness. Given his background, I'm surprised he could function at all. In fact, if his family wasn't so posh, the Social Workers would have been in.

He went to Oxford and studied Classics. I wonder if that included any part of Roman or Greek history or philosophy that could equip him for his current job as Foreign Secretary. Doesn't look like it.

So in answer to my original question to myself that started this post off: would travel have broadened the minds of the Tories currently in power? The answer has to be:  you can only get out of the bubble if you leave the bubble behind you. Poor Boris and family obviously never did.

These pesky Russkis part 2

I'm avoiding the TV news. The BBC 6 o'clock news and the ITV and STV news at 10 are full of lies and half-truths. C4 news is usually okay but this week they've gone all hysterical over Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. So tonight I was reduced to watching Sky News Review as it happened. A lot of the 10.30 programme was about Putin, Russia and events at Salisbury.

Yasmin Alibhai Brown was on with someone called Brendan O'Neill (?) from Spiked (an online newspaper of the far right sort) but in all honesty neither got to say much because the presenter was  in there from the start of the programme. I've googled her and she's called Anna Botting. And she was there to give the Sky view of events. Ms Botting conflated quite a few stories: the Skripals, the  poisoning of Alekzander Litvinyenko, the invasion of Crimea, the shooting down of a passenger plane, bombing in Syria, interference in elections all over the world.

Now I have to say Valodya, as his mammy probably called him, is not my cup of tea. But the accusations Ms Botting made against him - apart from the invasion of Crimea - should all be bracketed by the word 'alleged.' There's no evidence Sky can produce to prove he was behind any of the other events.

Ms Alibhai Brown gave a good account of herself, although she had both Ms Botting and Mr O'Neill to contend with. When the talk turned to Boris Johnson's insensitive comments about similarities between the World Cup in Russia and the 1936 Olympics, I was so pleased to hear Ms Alibhai Brown holding her own with Ms Botting. It went something like this:

- Alibhai Brown: Boris Johnson must know that 20 million Russians died in the Second World War-
- Botting: 25 million.
- Alibhai Brown: No. 20 million - I know my history.

By the way, the USSR boycotted the 1936 Olympics, while the UK team went and gave Nazi salutes on the field of play.

What Yasmin Alibhai Brown was getting at was this - if she'd been allowed to finish a sentence: the Soviet Union entered World War 2 as an act of self-defence. The Nazis regarded the Slavs as Untermenschen - sub humans - and planned to invade the USSR and wipe out or enslave the population. The Russians don't even call the events of 1940-45 by the name we use. They call it the Great Patriotic War. They defended their country street by street, village by village. This had happened to them before and they knew how to handle it. Try reading Antony Beevor's Stalingrad if you want to see how bad things were. If you live in a country that hasn't been invaded since 1066, the sacrifices Russian people made may be hard to take in.

For Boris Johnson to use Russia and the Nazis in the same sentence was bound to be offensive to the Russians. I'm quite sure civil servants in the Foreign Office pointed out to him the need to avoid inflaming the situation. But Boris is to diplomacy what Theresa May is to negotiating.

Meanwhile, we're being told the UK government know the Russians are responsible for the attack in Salisbury. They have evidence - they just can't share it with us. Aye, right. And Sky - and no doubt other right-wing media - go on stirring up hatred that will surely lead to a second Cold War.

Welcome to the UK, 2018-style. Led by Tories who haven't a clue what they're doing or what's happening and are reduced to begging for help from the EU - which they want to leave.

Virtual Reality - math tha

I'm starting to think virtual reality is where I live. 

East Renfrewshire Council is going to to give out Virtual Reality headsets to all its schools: 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-43451583

This will cost £250,000.

Isn't that wonderful? This is clearly a local authority with its eye on the future. It has no doubt done a deal with a manufacturer of VR headsets. Let's just hope the council and the company have worked out what they plan to do with the headsets. Otherwise, in the time-honoured fashion of Scottish local authorities, they'll be wasting their time - and our money.

And that would be a shame, because there are other things East Ren could be spending the taxpayers' money on. For example, recently a group of East Ren parents got together to ask for Gaelic Medium Education to be set up in the authority's schools. GME, as it's called in the trade, already exists in 19 out of 32 local authorities in Scotland, so it's not that weird a request to make. Scottish Government funding is available to get things going. We know that half the Gaelic speakers in Scotland live in the Central Belt, and that the nearest Gaelic schools to East Ren - in Glasgow - are full up - so what could be the problem with East Ren setting up its own provision? 

Simples. East Ren doesn't want it. 

When parents made their 'bid' for GME in East Ren, they were told to look for 50 - yep, 50 - possible enrolments. Frankly, I can't imagine an area anywhere in Scotland that could produce 50 children to enroll in Gaelic Medium Education. Most new starts involve as few as 6 children, since most councils expect the kids coming in to be only in P1 and P2 and that kinda limits the recruitment. Of course, the parents and Comann nam Parant (the national parents' group for Gaelic) did their best - as they always do - but it was clear that their bid to get Gaelic in East Ren wasn't going to succeed. 

So let me lay it out for East Ren officials: parents who want their kids educated through the medium of Gaelic are taxpayers and council taxpayers, same as the rest of us, and all they want is equality of opportunity for their children. The money has to be spent on their kids'  education anyway. Is that so hard for council education staff to understand? 

I believe parents were told that the Gaelic Medium provision would be in Barrhead. Not in leafy Giffnock or Newton Mearns. I can't see it being a problem to get kids there since transport costs are provided by the Scottish Government. Or wait - could it be that East Ren thought some parents wouldn't want their weans going to secondary schools in Barrhead rather than secondary schools like St Ninian's or Williamwood and were counting on that being a deterrent? Surely not! 

It disgusts me to hear of local authorities that still behave like this. The views of Gaelic-speaking parents are quite clear and surely no one believes the propaganda put out by the Tories (and their friends in the press) that Gaelic education is some sort of plot by the SNP to - as I read recently - 'teuchterise us all.' 

I hate the thought of children and their parents getting caught up in all this...

These pesky Russkis

Let's get this right:

The Russians are accused of interfering with voting in the USA elections. The president denies any link with Russia, although his family is implicated.

The UK is desperate to do a trade deal with the USA once it leaves the EU but the USA is not keen.

The president of the USA signs a deal to protect US steel and aluminium industries, cutting out UK industries.

The UK allows Russian oligarchs to buy up property in the UK and the ruling party admits to receiving £800,000 in funding from Russian oligarchs.

A Russian double agent is in hospital along with his daughter and a UK police officer after being attacked with a 'nerve agent' only produced in Russia. In broad daylight. In public view.

The UK government accuses the Russian government of being behind the attack. The Russians deny it. The USA supports the UK government's accusation, as do the EU and the UN.

The UK minister of defence who has been agitating for more money to spend on the armed forces gets more positive publicity than his department have ever had.

The UK media go wild: what a great story! Every single newspaper and every TV channel support the strong stance the Prime Minister is taking against the Russians.

Brexit is off the front page.

The leader of the opposition demands proof that the Russians are behind the attack and is pilloried by the media.

The Prime Minister, who has been pretty well absent from the public eye, is suddenly out there, walking the walk. But not talking the talk, because she's useless at that. 

Just watch for a new UK-USA trade deal any day now. After all, as Trump said tonight on the UK news: the UK is the USA's closest ally.

What to do about Mark McDonald

The SNP is not my party and Mark McDonald is not my MSP. I'm also not a constituent of any of the three Westminster MPs accused of abusive behaviour against women they work with. I find the accusations of bullying and harassment of his staff by the Speaker at Westminster, John Bercow, pretty shocking.

I read an interview with Mark McDonald in the National on Saturday and I wasn't impressed. I also heard him being interviewed on STV last night and my opinion hasn't changed. He struck me as glib and a wee bit too keen to declare himself 'rehabilitated' and then to challenge the voters to accept what he says at face value. I think maybe rehabilitation involves - or should involve - a bit more than losing your party's endorsement, followed by you claiming that you're all better now and asking plaintively: 'Don't you believe in rehabilitation?' 

I'm also not sure a man accused of harassing women is 'morally justified' in keeping his job (and his salary and expenses). That is surely for the voters to decide in a by-election, once the facts are known. 

Today I've seen a lot of comments on Facebook and twitter defending Mr McDonald. The concern (not always from men - some from women too) is that his career is in tatters, he has lost 'everything', his family life is 'shattered', etc. 

As soon as I saw these comments, I knew the SNP was in serious trouble over Mark McDonald.

What's happening to the woman involved in the case is not that different from what happens to rape victims. Because sexual harassment and bullying are a 'he-said-she-said' business, it is very difficult for the victim to prove what has happened to her. Westminster and Holyrood seem to handle these cases badly: everything is hidden and the whole story drags on month after month, so that in the end all of us - men and women alike - start to wonder if the delay in investigating is deliberate, intended to torture the accused and the victims alike.

Worst of all in my opinion is the fact that these cases occur in the very places where our laws are enacted (87% of UK laws are enacted in the UK, not in the EU). It seems our law-makers can't get things right. In fact, a small number of our politicians behave as if the law doesn't apply to them.

I don't want to go down the road of 'why do these men do these things' because it hasn't been proved that they did anything wrong. If they did, I want the police called in. And I want all the support and counselling available out in the community to victims to be made available in both parliaments.

But most of all, like most people, I want people to be treated with respect at their workplace. Is it that difficult to create a working atmosphere in which people are treated with consideration? 

Mhairi Black

Like a lot of other people, I watched Mhairi Black's speech to a Westminster committee the other day and was very impressed.

Although I'm not an SNP supporter, I recognise talent when I see it and Mhairi Black is very talented. She has a first class honours from Glasgow University - which she got while she was standing for Westminster - and she has made her mark since she got there, particularly on behalf of WASPI women deprived of their state pensions. She is clearly a person of ability and undoubtedly the kind of person the rest of us would want to have serving us in public life.

Tonight I was browsing through Facebook and came across a link to an article in the Evening Times in which Sam Heughan - an actor in Outlander - defended Mhairi Black on International Women's Day and expressed his shock at the way she has been treated on twitter.

You can see it here:
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16075088.Sam_Heughan_stands_up_for_MP_Mhairi_Black/

Please read this and then look at the comments that follow. There are 5, although one has been deleted (you may wonder why), but between them they have managed to send me into a state of real depression.

One objects to the language she used in reporting to the committee how people address her on twitter, as if she was using the bad language herself rather than reporting language that has been used against her.

One objects because she has made comments about Rangers football club. Another points out she has made similar comments about Celtic. As if either remark was relevant to the issue.

One points out she's a Catholic. I have to ask: so?

One describes her as coming from the wrong end of 'the ned spectrum.' Does that mean she's poor or poorly educated or from a working class background (none of that is true). Coming from a working class background myself, I find these assumptions most offensive.

So there we have it, folk: why Scotland is struggling to get its independence:

- sectarianism
- religious bigotry
- snobbery
- small mindedness.

Not one of these people deals with the fact that Mhairi Black has been treated with the most awful misogyny or that women have the right to take part in public life without being insulted on a daily basis. Not one even mentions Sam Heughan's comments.

It's time to get our heads out of the gutter. I'm just not sure how we do it.

Dear Jo Swinson

I see you want a statue put up to Margaret Thatcher.

I had a wee look at your online biography and I see you were born in 1980, which means you are too young to have endured (or enjoyed) the full effect of Thatcherism, since she was gone by the time you were 10.

It's also doubtful if the constituency you serve - East Dunbarton - is the kind of place where you would see the full effect of Thatcher's policies either. For that, you would have to take a wee road trip. Maybe to Motherwell to see what happened to the iron and steel trade there. or to Govan where you can play the 'spot-the-waste-ground-that-used-to-be-a-shipyard'. Or Linwood for a similar game but with old car factories. Then there's Fife and Ayrshire where you can see the coal mining communities abandoned by Thatcher's ideologically-driven purge. And then there's fun to be had in places like Kilmarnock trying to find all the engineering works and carpet factories replaced by brownfield sites.

All of these places were meant to go out and get replacement jobs in the 'service' economy. And it would have gone fine if only we hadn't had a major economic crisis caused by the part of the service economy that Thatcher - and later, Blair - were most proud of: banking and financial services. Their shenanigans were, of course, signalled early on to the Westminster government which chose to ignore them, believing as they did in an unregulated banking service. So come 2008 and the 'banking crisis' is was left to us, the tax payers, to pick up the bill. And when the Tories got back into power, they came up with another jolly wheeze: to squeeze public sector wages, and social security payments to the poorest, sickest people in the community. They call it austerity. People don't like it and they got the chance to register their protest by blaming the EU. Now we're leaving that too in an absolute shambles of a Brexit.

So that's how we got to where we are today.

There's one way in which I agree with you, Jo: if we have to have statues, they should be of women. But you must have realised inside your wee Westminster bubble that politicians are not looked on with affection right now, and suggesting a statue of Thatcher is not going to meet with any favour.

Still, there are other women who deserve our thanks. In Govan, this Thursday, International Women's Day, they're unveiling a statue of an amazing woman: Mary Barbour, a true public servant.

The statue's been paid for by public subscription. 

Back in 1915, with menfolk off at the Front, and the city's factories working all the hours to feed the war effort, the city saw a huge influx of new workers. With decent housing already in short supply, the landlords decided to up their rents, and evict any tenants who couldn't, or wouldn't pay the increased rate.

Mrs Barbour was having none of that; she knew the only way to beat bullies was to stand up to them, and so formed the South Govan Women’s Housing Association.

From protesting and postering, they soon began protecting their fellow citizens; blockading close mouths against sheriff officers sent to enforce evictions. Rent collectors were also targeted, pelted with flour bombs (and worse), with some even being debagged by gangs of angry women.

At the first sight of the rent man in a street, pots and pans would be banged, and he'd soon find himself facing an immovable force - the working women and housewives of Glasgow.

In November 1915, when a group of landlords took some tenants to court to force their eviction, Barbour organised one of the biggest marches ever seen in Glasgow, as thousands of women headed for the sheriff court, joined by the men pouring out of the shipyards and munitions works.

By the time they reached Jail Square (now Jocelyn Square) outside the court, the crowd was estimated at 20,000-strong

Outside the court trade unionist and Red Clydesider Willie Gallacher, teacher and radical John MacLean and Independent Labour Party (ILP) leaders addressed the crowds.

Inside the court there was such alarm that a phone call was made to Lloyd George, at that time the munitions minister in the wartime coalition government.

He instructed them to let the tenants go and said he would deal with it.

Outside a massive cheer went up. The celebrations went on for hours.

In a matter of days, Lloyd George pushed a Bill through Parliament restricting rents for the duration of the war and six months after. This was the first rent protection legislation of its kind anywhere in Europe.

And Mrs Barbour wasn't done battling. She joined the Co-op Women’s Guild and the ILP. She campaigned against the war. In 1920 she became the first female Labour councillor in Glasgow, only having won the right to vote two years before.

Then she got to work. She fought for baths and wash houses, child welfare centres and play parks. Better housing was a key demand.

She was the first to organise a family planning centre in the city, facing down opposition from the church.

She fought for home helps and free, pure milk for schoolchildren. She proposed having municipal banks that could lend at lower rates and build funds for the city’s needs.

And, if all that doesn't deserve a statue, I don't know what does.

Sexual harassment at Holyrood

I've been reading about the harassment of women in the Scottish Parliament. 

Nicola Sturgeon says she is: 

"shocked, saddened and disappointed" to learn that 30% of women working at Holyrood have experienced sexism and/or sexual harassment and that 45% of the perpetrators are MSPs. 

Unlike Nicola, I'm neither shocked nor saddened nor disappointed. I'm incandescent with rage. Who are these men - there may also be some women among them - who, according to the Times newspaper: 

‘abuse their’power to harass and belittle female employees'?
Everyone who works at the parliament is of necessity educated and informed and they must all surely be aware that what they are doing is being scrutinised - constantly - by their colleagues and the media. So why do they harass women? 
Maybe because they can? 
Maybe it's a power thing?
Maybe because that behaviour has been allowed for centuries. Maybe because some of them still think of themselves as top dog and believe they can do what they like. Maybe because the behaviour is so ingrained, they don't even see it as a problem. And maybe journalists who work at Holyrood condone this behaviour just by not seeing it. 
If the sexist and sexual behaviour is that ingrained maybe the whole lot of them need some - what should I call it? - oh, let's call it anti-bullying training. We don't allow bullying behaviour in schools and we're trying to stamp it out in the rest of the workplace. So why should people in the Scottish Parliament be  allowed to get away with it?
It's time to grow up, people. 
I look forward to seeing what the Parliament does about this situation. The nearest to it I can remember is when the director of education in Strathclyde Region (half the population of Scotland) asked a group of us in the 1990s why more women didn't apply for promoted posts in schools. Almost all of us answered: what's the point? Men set the agenda. They determine the format of the interviews. They decide who they want - and it isn't women. They want people who look like them and will play the game. It took 15 years, but - to their credit - that group of men turned things around. The Scottish Parliament can do the same but it needs firm action by a strong leader. Over to you, Nicola Sturgeon.  
PS The formatting of this post has gone nuts - sorry!

World Book Day

What the hell happened to World Book Day?

One minute, it was a great idea to get kids reading, and a good way for primary schools to raise a wee bit of money by getting parents to donate books to the library in their kids' names, a terrific excuse to get writers into schools to talk to their readers. Next I heard, it was a full-blown catwalk event, involving parents shelling out for costumes for their kids that they can't afford - and a new one every year, for heavenssake - so kids can look like characters in books.

And don't tell me parents can make their kids' costumes rather than buying them, please. First, you have to know how to do that and second you need time. Not so easy if you're a working or studying mother (I can't somehow see too many dads lining up to do this) and definitely not easy if you've got maybe three kids.

Are there any parents out there prepared to tell the kids' schools to tone it down?

I remember having the utmost respect for a secondary headteacher who told the school there would be no more proms. The kids were not happy but she was sickened by the amount of money parents were prepared to spend on their young people who were doing no more than celebrating leaving school. Of course, the kids whose parents couldn't afford the limo, the prom clothes, the ticket for the night out - well, they just didn't go. Like the kids who thought it was an utterly naff American idea and boycotted the whole thing.

Has anyone else come across nursery schools - nursery schools - celebrating with a 'graduation' ceremony at the end of the school year? I have and I'm horrified. Nursery isn't the end of anything, as graduation from a university is the end of a major stage of formal education. It's the start of the great adventure of learning and that doesn't involve wearing gowns and mortar boards (which university graduates in Scotland don't even wear by the way). 

And yes, I know boring old farts like me don't move with the times and we do rabbit on about education for its own sake and reading for its own sake. But the whole point of Scottish education - like the Scottish NHS - is that is should be free at the point of delivery. And anything that excludes some families from taking part should not be even considered.

Is there any way we can stick to that?

Brexit

I've had it with Brexit.

I've had it with TV and newspaper journalists who can talk of nothing else but still manage to make themselves look like complete eejits every time they open their mouths. Like the journalists who have so far blamed the failure to secure a deal on the EU, on people who voted remain, on business people who are trying to warn us we are walking into an economic disaster, on the SNP, on Tory MPs who refused to vote against their constituency or their own consciences and were labelled traitors by the newspapers.

I've had it with politicians. Today's reports of Boris Johnson reminding us technology has done away with 'borders' between London boroughs collecting the congestion tax - like there was some similarity with a border between two countries transporting goods and livestock and one paltry wee tax on motorists. With one country being an open door to another 26 in the EU and the other an open door to the UK. I'm sick of the Labour Party not being an opposition but trying to be everything to everybody even if that means flipping views just about on a daily basis. And most of all, I'm sick of the Tory government which got us into this mess and has no idea how to get us out.

I've had it with the way the government of the various parts of the UK is being neglected: laws are not being passed or repealed, austerity is still in place after 8 years and we're not even talking about it, people are getting poorer so retail industries are in the doldrums, the tax take is falling, the infrastructure is falling apart, the railways and hospitals in England are a disgrace, and EU citizens are leaving despite the fact we need them.

I'm sick of red buses, bullying by Nigel Farage, squabbles between cabinet ministers, some of whom couldn't run a menoj never mind a government department.

Am I only seeing the dark side of Brexit? I don't know. Tell me what the light side is.

Saving the Yes vote

I signed off from a few Facebook pages at the start of January. This was part of my 'be good to yourself' New Year resolution. They were all political websites and I'd got tired of the same people replying to any political comment, not with arguments against or for anything that had been written, but just with insults such as saying sh*tebag, w*nker and f*ck to anyone who tried to argue. Like a few other people, I did try to argue for open discussion and maybe a bit of tolerance or to at least stop calling No voters 'yoons' - and then gave up. For me, the crunch was being harangued by a small group of vegans. I'm willing to support people in their ethical aims but then I wondered is this really more important than getting independence? When I wished everyone well and said cheerio in January, my decision to leave these FB pages also met with a few personal insults and that persuaded me I was right to get out.

It also confirmed for me that something has gone far wrong with the Scottish independence cause - because that's what all of these FB pages were about.

If you think the Yes campaign is ready to go once a date is set for a second independence referendum, then you should leave this blog page right now. Because I think we're in trouble and I'm going to say why.

Money - the Yes campaign has none. The Yes campaign had very little cash in 2014 and now we've got even less. Is anyone filling the coffers? Does anyone have an idea of how to fill the coffers?  The Unionists do. They already have a stash of cash. Not to mention people with a background in PR and media, who will be able to flood the newspapers and TV with fake news - just as they did in 2014. Do the Yes people have any idea how to counter this? Yes has a loud voice on social media (Facebook and twitter) but the No campaign still has all but 2 newspapers onside. And a  lot of people still read newspapers in Scotland.

No Voters - we know who the Yes people are and we have a good idea of how to spur them into action, but do we know anything about the people who voted no in 2014? Do we just pretend they're not there or hope we can talk them round when the next referendum is announced? Or are we conducting online polls to find out how people feel about independence - how they think it will affect them, and how we can help persuade them?  In other words, do we have a strategy? Of course, there are No voters we can never talk round but do we have an idea about the people we might be able to persuade? Do we know how many people have shifted to Yes since 2014 by themselves after looking around at what's happening in the UK right now? Especially given what's happening in Northern Ireland over the open border, not to mention the fact that Westminster has taken back a lot of powers from Holyrood and handed them to the secretary of state for Scotland. or that the company that wants to frack in Scotland is taking the Scottish government to court over it and may well win.

Old People - the no campaign in 2014 had a good propaganda machine going: your pension will be at risk if you vote to leave the UK, your savings will be jeopardised if Scotland doesn't have the pound sterling as its currency, etc. Have we done anything to persuade this group of people (who voted massively against independence) that it can be done and we can all benefit? Or do we follow the Facebook riff that these old folk will all be dead by the next referendum so no need to worry?

Optimism - yes, I know it's a weird thing to put in this post, but I really believe that we need some optimism for the future. The UK economy has been in a mess since 2008 and doesn't look like recovering any time soon. People have suffered, especially in the public sector where wages are about 15% lower now than they were. Brexit has dragged us down, with nothing but bluster coming out of the Brexit camp as far as I can see. Is the future for Scotland looking any better? If Brexit has taught us anything, it's that the negotiations to leave the UK will be tough. But do we have enough going for us to make it worthwhile? I think we do: our exports are holding firm; oil prices are doing well; the Scottish Government is not just handling austerity but planning for the future - thanks to the Greens, who continue to act as a left of centre spur on the SNP government.

A year ago, a unionist friend put up a comment on Facebook in which she mentioned that Quebec had 3 referendums before giving up on the idea of independence. She seemed to be settled in for the long haul - and pretty certain Scotland would come to its senses and eventually reject independence. So there's another plus: the complacency of unionists. That can only work to the advantage of Yes voters.