Totally pointless and unimportant

Gwen has tagged me to reveal 8 interesting facts about myself. I apologise firstly - this may turn out to be highly dull and uninteresting as the subject is ME.

1. I was born with a third ear. My Dad flipped out because I, as his eldest, had to be perfect. As he was a doctor at the same hospital he organised a team of surgeon to remove said ear. The "ear" I must explain was more like a skin tag - it may have developed into an ear, I don't know but my Mum wasn't going to let me stay in the womb for another few months to find out (although by all accounts I was happy staying in there). So the surgeon tied a piece of string around my third ear and got ready with scalpel and bloop, it fell off of its own accord. So that's how I lost my perfect pitch at birth.

2. I have a fear of birds. Flapping birds throws me into a fit of squealing and rushing to escape. Dazza made me watch Hitchcock's "The Birds" - not one of his most romantic gestures....

3. Before I came to America, I had zero desire to ever visit America. I now live here and am even married to one. Never say never...

4. I once tugged the Queen Mother's skirt. I was five at the time and at Balmoral Castle. Prince Charles was coming home from the Falklands and the royals and the staff at the castle were all milling around. I as the granddaughter of one of the staff was milling around with the royals too. I saw a bright pink skirt and tugged it saying "Granny granny", looked up and saw the Queen Mum and screamed and ran for cover......

5. Sean Connery gave me $3,000 and I didn't even have to sleep with him (sadly). He has a Trust called the Scottish Education Trust that gives one off grants to Scots embarked on furthering their education in the Arts. So to come and do my masters he gave me $3,000!! Nice man.

6. I hate heavy metal. I mean the really heavy stuff. I hate Iron Maiden, Metallica and most of Guns and Roses. My sad admission is that I spent several of my teenage years pretending that I did like them. Dazza will attest that now every time he tries to get all nostalgic and play heavy metal I start bitchin'. So when he is at home alone I guarantee you the house is shakin' from him playing air guitar to Iron Maiden.

7. I used to suck my thumb ..... and sometimes in the middle of the night when I can't help myself because I'm asleep I still occasionally do....

8. Phew last one (I'm boring myself I think)... I love ab sailing. I have only done it once and I was about ten but I loved it. I can still remember the joy of letting go and jumping back off the cliff into nothing. One of my ambitions is to do it again.

I'm not going to tag anyone (gaaaasp - blogging fo pah....) because most of the non-Nola types have done this already and most of the Nola types don't participate in this tom foolery.
So paperback writer, Travelling Mermaid, Guilty With an Explanation, Longayelander, I Dream of Haggis, Sara B...... or anyone else
If you feel in the mood please reveal 8 facts about yourselves - if you don't, then have a good day and then blog about it - oh and please make it funny!!!

What is Doric?/Fit is Doric?

This een is gang tay be a dual post - een in Doric (this een) an an ither in English. Am going tay hay a go at tryin tay explane fit this weird dialect ahm tryin tay write in is. First aff Ah'd like tay tell ahbody thit Ahm dyslexic so dinnae get in a stooshie aboot ma spellins cos there's nay onny spell checker fir fit Ahm tryin tay de OK?

Doric is the dialect o Scots thats spoken in the Nor Aest o Scotlan. It varies a lot depindin on far aboot ye are in the region. Ah grew up in Keith half wiy atween Aiberdeen an Inverness. My Granparents lived in Ballater, an oor awa, an they iwise telt me that Ah soonded like Ah wis fae Keith. So if yer fae Huntlee or Towie or Inverurie or Stonehaven, yer Doric is aye gan tay be a wee bitty different fae other places. Fir example I wis aye telt aff by my Mum (ah wid say "mither" but she hates at an she'll nae like it if ah use at wird) fir sayin' "windee" for "window" 'cus in Crathie in Deeside they niver say "windee". Ma Granda fay time tay time wid say I soonded like a Keith kyard or a tink. The "Tinks" were travellin folk that selt stuff naebody wanted an their kids wid come tae skweel fae time tae time an they wir nivir excepted by onny oh us fa lived in the toon. Ah dinna think folk on Deeside thoucht that much oh folk fae Keith.

Keith is an odd toon. Its nae completely country an its nae a fishin toon either. There used tay be a big textile mill there ca'id "Kynochs" but they went oot oh business afore I even went tay school. So fan I wis growin up it wis a toon that wis tryn tay stay alive but wis really dyin. Culturally is wis a backwater wi nae idea oh whit wis oot in the world. But I learnt the value oh folk fae growin up there. Ah went tae skweel wi kids that didnae ken far their next meal wis comin from. Ah wis aye aware ah wis different but ah learnt foo tay get on wi as mony folk as ah could.

Ye see this doric dialect is nae easy tay pick up, especially if ye'iv nae growin up in it. Fan Ah went tay school Ah wis ca'id a snob cos Ah didnae spick doric, Ah didnae spick like abody else (we maestly spoke English at hame 'cos oh my Dad). But ma granparents did. So fan Ah wis Four an went to the skweel fir the first time Ah picked up the Keith version quick. Nae that it made muckle difference as they Ah kent Ah wis oor muckle different fae them ah tay iver be accepted.

Fir reference my Dad wis fae Inverness far they dinna spick doric (Ah've heard folk say that the best English in the hale oh Britain is spoken in Inverness) an fan my Dad first went tay my Mum's hame tay meet my granparents he didnae unnerstan a wird. Ah wis affa impressed wi ma American man bein able to decipher fit wis ga-in on aroon him fan he first went tay Deeside - he must've deen sometin richt 'cos my Grannie winted tay adopt him fae the start!!

The innerestin thing aboot Doric fir me is that it is definitely my mither tongue. Fan Ah meet a baby, even in America, Ah ayewis fine mysel spickin doric tay them an Ah divnae evin realise fit Ahm dee-in. Folk here gee me an affa queer look!!!

This one is going to be a dual post - one in Doric and one in English. I am going to have a go at explaning the weird dialect of North Eats Scots that I am writing in. First off I'd like to explain that I am dyslexic and there is no such thing as a doric spell checker so don't judge me on my spelling.

Doric is the dialect of Scots spocken in the North Eats region of Scotland. It varies depending on where you are in the region. I grew up in Keith halfway between Aberdeen and Inverness. My grandparents lived in Ballater, an hour away, and they always told me that I sounded like I was from Keith. If you are from Huntly or Towie or Inverurie or Stonehaven the Doric you speak is going to be slightly different. For example I was always told off by my Mum for saying "windee" for "window" becuase in Deeside, where she grew up, no one ever said "windee". My Granda from time to time would say I sounded like a Keith Kyard or "tink". The "tinks" were travelling people who would sell things people didn't want or need and their kids would come to school from time to time and never be accepted by those of us who lived in the town. I always thought that people on Deeside never thought much of people from Keith.

Keith is an odd town. Its not completely a country town nor is it a fishing town. There used to be a large textile mill there called "Kynochs" but it went out of business before I went to school. So when I was growing up, Keith was a town trying to stay alive when it was really dying. Culturally it was a backwater, with no idea of what was out in the world. But I learnt the value of people growing up there. I went to school with kids that didn't know where their next meal was coming from. I was always aware I was different but I learnt how to get on with as many people as possible.

You see, this Doric dialet is not easy to pick up, especially if you've not grown up with it. When I first went to school I was called a "snob" because I din't speak doric (we mainly spoke English at home because of my Dad). But my grandparents did. So when I was four and went to school for the first time I picked up the Keith version of doric quick. Not that it made much difference as they all knew that I was much too different from them to ever really be accepted.

For reference my Dad was from Inverness where they don't speak doric (I've heard people comment that the best English spoken in the whole of Britain is in Inverness) and when he first went with my Mum to meet my grandparents he didn't understand a word that was spoken. I was terrible impressed with my American man being able to understand what was going on around him when he first went to Deeside - he must have done someting right because my Granny wanted to adopt him from the start!!

The interesting thing for me is that Doric is definitely my mother tongue. When I meet a baby, even in America, I always find myself speaking Doric to them and I don't even realise what I am doing. People here give me a very queer look!!

For those English speakers - Doric is often referred to as the "Fit, Far, Fan" language becuase of the preponderance of those words. "Fit" means "what; "Fan" means "when"; and "Far" means"where". So the sentence "Fit fit does 'is shoe fit?" means "Which foot does this shoe fit?". There is a whole "Scotland the What" skit on this - "breeks" spelt T_R_O_U_S_E_R_S, "breeks". Doric is traditionally an oral dialect and rarely written down. So it demonstrates the clear division between the hierarchy of written and oral language and the hierarchy of English over Scots. Interestingly writing this post, when I swapped to translate into English the voice in my head suddenly sounded very posh and not all that unlike HRH Queen Liz II !!

Bit fit aboot Doric? Ken?

I'm nay affa happy i day. I wis hayin' a geck at a quine's blog fae Utah an she hid an interestin post tellin ye ah aboot a new Wikipedia in Scots. That'll be just gran ah thoucht an so ah clicked on her link tay see it.

Oh its affay fine and bonny. Its just grand. Bit its nay. Can somebody tell me fit wye they wid hay a hale wikipedia site on Scots an in Scots weeoot ony mention o Doric?? There's even a post on Aiberdeen weeoot onythin on Doric. Bit they gang an and an aboot Scots Lied and Lawlands Scots. I'm likely aboot tay offend some peer crater but ... fa spicks Lawlands ony mair? It smacks o central beltism - they dinna realise foo mony folk there are that dinna live atween Edinburgh and Glasgow!!

Doric is the dialect spoken in the North East of Scotland. I grew up speaking it, my maternal side of my family speaks it and it is still very much in existence. It has long been a neglected form of Scots - relegated to the stereo-types of North East Choochters - or "farmers". There is a lot of North East culture that has been overlooked or never leaves the small enclave of the Grampian mountains. I am appalled that there should be a "Scots" wikipedia without Doric.

If only I was computer savvy - I'd get onto the site and post an article on Doric ....

So if there is anyone out there computer savvy from the North East please rectify the situation for me!! Thanks

on yersell big man!!!!!

It's very interesting to read the views that have been posted on the BBC website on Alex Salmond's appointment as First Minister.

My favourite is

On yersell big man!!!!

Shuggie, Glasgow

More here.

A New Tartan Government

Alex Salmond has been voted in as First Minister of Scotland. The vote was 46 for Jack McConnell ('the best wee numpty in the world') and 49 for Alex Salmond. The Greens and SNP voted Salmond in with the Lib Dems, Conservatives and Margo MacDonald (independent) abstaining.

Alex Salmond will now form a minority government. Every decision of this new government will have to be made in a spirit of cooperation. MSPs will have to negotiate and debate in a mature fashion in the interests of the Scottish people. In his acceptance speech (I've included it at the bottom of this post) Alex Salmond described the parliament as a tartan of diversity, highlighting the first Scottish Asian MSP.

If he governs in the model of this speech I have hope for Scotland. Even though they are called the Scottish Nationalists I have always been glad that this has nothing to do with race. Salmond's vision seems to be of an inclusive Scotland where anyone is welcome. Given the state of immigration in Europe right now and the UK, I believe this is a mature, positive approach.

As an aside though, its interesting to me, the last time I went home (October 2006) I saw little difference in the people in the North East but I heard a lot of difference. There are a lot of Eastern Europeans emigrating to Scotland and they all generally look very similar to Scots. But sitting on a bus you realise they are speaking Polish, Latvian, Estonian.

And as a final aside I find this appointment personally interesting. I've know Alex Salmond since I was a child. My parents got interested in the SNP and canvassed for them in elections a bit. The late Margaret Ewing was a friend of my Mum's. I vaguely recall Alex Salmond coming to our house. It's interesting that at that time the prospect of him being First Minister of a Scottish Parliament was a total pipe dream.

Here is his acceptance speech:
This parliament, created by the people of Scotland in a referendum, is bigger than any of its members or any one party.

I believe that Scotland is ready for change and for reform. This is a small nation with a big future. But it is also a small nation with big challenges.

"It was said the other day that Scotland is a divided nation. Given the closeness of the election result, I can understand that in some ways.

However, it's not the case.

Certainly, the gap between rich and poor is too great. We need to grow faster. We need to heal the scars of the past. We need to be greener. We need to be still smarter. But we are not divided.

We have a sense of ourselves. a sense of community and, above all, a sense of the 'common weal' of Scotland.

In some ways we're not even a divided parliament. Of course, in this part of the chamber we seek independence and equality for Scotland - not everyone agrees.

But there is a broad consensus on the need for this parliament to assume greater responsibility for the governance of Scotland.

There is an understanding that we are engaged in a process of self government - and an awareness of the distance we have already travelled.

In 1961, Bashir Ahmad came to Glasgow to drive buses. In 1961, the very idea of a Scottish Parliament was unimaginable. In 1961, the very idea of a Scots Asian sitting in a Scots Parliament was doubly unimaginable.

But Bashir is here and we are here, and that part of the community of Scotland is woven into the very tartan of our parliament.

And we are stronger - so much stronger - as a result. We are diverse - not divided.

The nature and composition of this third Scottish Parliament makes it imperative that this government will rely on the strength of its argument in parliament and not the argument of parliamentary strength.

Despite all the challenges we will face together, I welcome that as a chance to develop a new and fundamentally more reflective model of democracy.

The days since the 3rd of May have been understandably dominated by questions over the structure of government - will there be a coalition or will we have minority government?

Let me say to parliament that what matters more to the people we all represent is less the structure of government and more what we, all of us, achieve of the people's behalf.

Presiding officer, all of us in this parliament have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a way which respects the parliament the people have chosen to elect.

That will take patience, maturity and leadership on all sides of the chamber. My pledge to parliament today is that any Scottish government led by me will respect and include this parliament in the governance of Scotland over the next four years.

In this century, there are limits to what governments can achieve. But one thing any government I lead will never lack is ambition for Scotland.

Today I commit myself to leadership wholly and exclusively in the Scottish national interest. We will appeal for support policy by policy across this chamber.

That is the parliament the people of Scotland have elected, and that is the government that I will be proud to lead.

Farewell my slippery friend!!

I would like to start off by stating a fact. Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He is not the head of state. He is not a president.

I am starting thus, not to enlighten my American readers (I flatter myself but my American readers are way too intelligent not to already be totally aware of this fact!) but rather to ground what I am to write in that fact. The press in the UK and the world are acting as if Blair is a president who is resigning. The level and degree of attention are completely in line with a presidential farewell.

The UK has no president. We have the Queen as our head of state. She is a figure head who firmly stays out of politics. We have a prime minister who is the leader of the ruling party of government. For the past ten years that has been New Labour and their leader has been Tony Blair. I have always thought this system to be a good one in theory. Good because no prime minister could get infected by a God complex and would always be kept in check by their party.

This theory worked to a degree. It worked until Margaret Thatcher. She changed things. She ruled by crushing her opposition. She was elected on the promise to put the "Great" back into Great Britain. So she attended international meetings as if Britain still ruled the waves and the world and bullied other leaders into place with her infamous handbag. Thatcher showed that given the right circumstances and leader, a God complex was indeed a possibility for a British Prime Minister.

This was the political culture that Tony Blair inherited. It is the form that he so quickly took. He quickly forgot that one of the main reasons for the 1997 landslide victory for New Labour (N.B. New Labour not Tony Blair) was that the country wished to be delivered from the ruling hegemony of Thatcherism. The UK was asking for deliverance from a political policy dictated by one prominent ruling figure (John Major was a last gasp demonstrating how corrupt, embittered and pathetic the Tory party had become).

I voted for New Labour in 1997. I celebrated all night with my fellow students. I went to so many flats in Edinburgh where everyone was on a complete high. The clouds had parted and the sun was finally shining.

I remember discussing Tony. He seemed like a family man, a Christian - one of those who see their religious beliefs driving them to do good for the less fortunate in this world. We discussed all the wonderful people who would be forming the new government - John Prescott, Robin Cook, Jack Straw, and the wonderful gusty, leftist, Clare Short. Yes, we saw all the spin doctors following Blair at every step but we put that down to "whatever you have to do to get elected" and after the hell the country had been through, the hell that was my only experience of political life in the UK, we were OK with the concept of "whatever it takes". Everything looked rosy and possible.

2007. The UK is a better place to live for a great many than it was in 1997. The NHS is better funded, education is better funded, the poor are better taken care of and the economy has been strong as an ox for ten years. New Labour have under Blair managed a great deal of success.

So why all the cheering for Blair's departure? Should this post be about how the UK will go to the dogs without Blair and everything is doomed?

Blair over ten years has embodied the much quoted saying "Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely". He took his inheritance from Thatcher and wore the presidential pretender badge with pride.

He charmed the world. He and Clinton were great buddies. Both can charm the socks off a centipede and they know how to play the game of media spin. But they both had a certain grounding. I do believe they both saw it as their responsibility to improve people's lives - but only on the "down low". Neither wanted to offend anyone with a large bank balance. Instead they courted them. But while the rich weren't looking they quietly improved the situation for the poor around the world (Africa for example) and fought for injustices where they found them (Kosovo).

I believe that Blair with Clinton by his side had a degree of sincerity and maturity which enabled the two of them to use the "special" relationship between the US and UK to better ends. Northern Ireland is now a country at peace because of the brave steps they took. Collecting debt repayments from poor African countries became something to be ashamed of and concern that we may be harming our own environment became something that was accepted.

Until 2001 I believe Tony Blair was doing a good job. Perfect? No. But good. I didn't like the media hype and spin that followed him around like a bad smell but I felt proud of my little country.

I think the point of Blair's undoing, the seed of his unpopularity in the UK, the moment he changed from Blair to BLIAR was when the supreme court gave the US presidential election to George W Bush. Bush and his cronies have poisoned America. So many people are angry with him. So many people are so sad at what the American nation has become. He slipped into the presidency like a snake. His residence at the White House has felt like a bad dream.

When I witnessed Blair befriending Bush I thought it a bit odd. I presumed, along with others, that Blair, being from a center-left party, would have little in common with Bush and that there may likely be some conflict between the two men.

Then September 11th happened and everyone in America "rallied around the President for the sake of the country" (I didn't see the need to rally round him, more ask questions of how this could happen on his watch - but that's another post). Blair said some eloquent things. He sounded like the serious leader speaking with reason and judgement. He wasn't going to shout about 'smoking anyone out of a hole'.

Ah ha, I thought this is why Blair had befriended Bush. He would be the voice of reason guiding this snake away from creating harm in the world. He would appear the lapdog but really be the sheepdog guiding things from behind the scenes.

I forgot, we all forgot in Britain about Tony's religion. It wasn't reason, or the political guidance of the world's superpower that steered Blair to Bush but rather their religious convictions. I believe that one major reason that the US and UK are in Iraq right now if because of the shared belief that these two men have that rescuing this country from Saddam is the just and right thing to do in the eyes of God. Whether it is conscious or not the whole thing smacks of the crusades. Bush also had God put in a word for him to make a huge amount of cash out of the project - Tony on the other hand was just happy being right.

This is the point when Blair went off the boil in the UK. I was in Scotland for the first part of 2003 and I remember watching the BBC news reports that showed that they were considering taking action against Saddam. I remember thinking they've got to be crazy, what does Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda? I remember rubbing my eyes in disbelief as they started trotting out "evidence" of why we should invade Iraq.

I wasn't the only one rubbing my eyes. The whole of the UK was in jaw dropping disbelief. Where was the Blair we elected? Where was the Labour Party, all be it "New" and shiny? I naively believed that the leftist MPs in the Labour party would keep this kind of thing in check. I was wrong.

Blair has created a structure of power within the New Labour Party where he governs in the mold of the politburo of Stalin's Soviet Union. There are circles of power with him at the center controlling everything. My friends and I have always been amazed that every cabinet reshuffle changes the names of the cabinet ministers but everything remains exactly the same.

Blair has taken the God complex from Thatcher to a whole new level. He had the nerve to take a country to war kicking and screaming. He ignored mass protest by the electorate who voted him in. He was no longer representing the people. He was representing himself. The whole Iraq fiasco has felt like a deep betrayal to the UK people. Instead of listening to the country, Blair decided to 'do what was good for us' as if we were an incapable child.

It does not feel good that the Iraq war has been such a disaster. It does not feel good to know that my gut instinct watching the BBC news in 2003 was correct. It does not feel good to know that Blair and Bush were wrong.

This is why Blair is deeply unpopular in the UK. It makes me angry that after what he has dragged us through in Iraq he can give a sugar coated, slick press conference full of emotion to announce the date of his resignation (the date - not his actual resigning like Harold Wilson did). All his pomp and circumstance being drawn out over his long farewell are sickening. There has been no apology over Iraq only carefully drafted spin that hints at it. Blair said in his "farewell" speech

"Removing Saddam and his sons from power, as with removing the Taliban, was over with relative ease. But the blowback since, from Global Terrorism and those elements that support it, has been fierce and unrelenting and costly."

This is no apology and his careful referencing of the Taliban and Saddam together shows his continuing adherence to the Bush doctrine of invading Iraq under the auspices of his "War on Terror". Blair shows that he does not believe him to have been wrong only those pesky terrorists who keep popping up like a hydra.

I am glad Blair is going. It has taken him a long time to go. He claims he is going for the good of the country. He is going because his party is forcing him to. He is going out like a victor in blaze of glory but behind all the fireworks and staged crowds the UK knows this charmer for who he really is. He is a snake in the same mold as George W Bush.

SNP turns green

The SNP have signed a deal with the two Green MSPs. Its not a great pact for power but at least it is movement. Scottish Labour seem poised to pounce if Alec Salmond wavers even slightly.

I think the most telling thing that has come out of the Scottish Election is that fact that the Scottish Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are all still very much ruled from London. It has shown that devolution is a sham when the ruling government (be it one of the three just mentioned) will do the bidding of their party in London.

So the SNP are facing being a minority government with the Greens. Shaky? Yes. But at least it will be a truly Scottish government concerned only with Scotland and Scottish interests.

It is going to be very interesting to watch and see what happens. I'm hoping for a breath of fresh air!!

Update: there is also now a SNP and Lib Dem coalition agreement - not for Holyrood - but for Edinburgh City Council (this is a big deal as Labour have been a monopoly there for way too long). Read this post for more info!!

Going going going going going......

Blair is to stand down on June 27th. The longest farewell in UK politics. The presidential pretender announced his decision amidst his faithful supporters in his home constituency.

The UK media have finally been able to take their carefully crafted pieces on Blair down off the shelf and use them (after blowing off the dust). The Guardian has a big section (and I don't know if it is just coincidence but they've a new look website too - the UK is changing already?), the BBC too but I particularly like Nick Robinson's post on his blog and the multitude of comments.

I know its difficult for Americans to comprehend (with W and cronies in power) but Tony Blair is deeply unpopular in the UK. He is not our president so we voted in the New Labour party back into government not "Tony Blair" - he just happens to be the leader of the party. Yes, he has a brain and yes, he knows big words and how to use them but his arrogance, self importance and spin spin spin have left most in the UK glad to see him gone.

Oh and there's IRAQ.

It takes a real brass neck to go to war without the support of your country behind you.

I am going to read and ponder further before ranting fully on the man who says he will leave soon ..................

The French have Lost Their Heads!!!

This guy is now the president of France. President Sarkozy.

He and Angela Merkle will make a pretty couple and no doubt seek to steer Europe towards the right. With all the problems with immigrants and racism in Europe right now this is very bad news. This man is a slippery customer and will no doubt be serving up some tasty treats for the village idiot in the White House.

The left is still alive with 47% of the vote but licking its wounds. I hope that the left that was born out of 1968 keeps a close eye on this guy and they learn some lessons. Le Pen would have been much much worse but I am heartily depressed at the French. Maybe when he dissolves the 35 hour work week they will wake up to themselves. I cannot actually believe that part of the message he ran on was that he wanted to enable people to live to work!!!!!!!!!! I hope when the French realise how opposite this concept is to their lifestyle and culture they may remember where they lost their heads and resume thinking!!

Historic Knife Edge Victory

They've done it. The SNP have won the Scottish Election. The results are as follows:
SNP 47
Labour 46
Conservative 17
Liberal Democrats 16
Others 3

This is the first time Labour have been voted out in Scotland since 1955!!! This is a historic event. This sends a message to Scottish Labour that being Tony's lapdog is unacceptable.
Alec Salmond (pictured) as the leader of the SNP said:

"There may well be Labour Governments and Labour first ministers in the decades to come but never again will we see the Labour Party assume that it has a divine right to rule Scotland."

I for one hope he is correct.

There is also the problem of the chaos of the election itself with 100,000 spoiled ballots. In a country of five million 100,000 is a sizable chunk. The SNP, if they hold power, have promised an inquiry into the fiasco. I did read that Alec Salmond commented thus:

"The inquiry will have the fullest powers and the most searching remit. It will be charged with laying bare the outrage of why over 100,000 Scots were denied their democratic voice."

Now before anyone in England starts making plans to emigrate to an Independent Scotland this victory means we are still a long ways off such a thing happening. The Scottish Parliament is set up in such a way that the only way to govern is through a coalition. So the SNP need to partner with another party. The stumbling block in this process is likely to be the SNP's wish for a referendum on an Independent Scotland. The Liberal Democrats have their instructions from the UK party not to buddy up with the nationalists if they insist on a referendum. I think Labour would rather jump off a cliff than share power with their sworn separatist enemy. That leaves the wee Greens and the "others". One of the "others" is Margo Macdonald who used to be in the SNP but due to some "issues" between herself and Alec Salmond, she stood and won as an independent candidate. So Alec might have to grovel on bended knee to quite a few old foes ... we'll see.

The behind the scenes bargaining must be chaotic right now but at least there is change afoot. Which way that leads us we can't know. I still hold out the hope that one day we'll quite simply grow up!!

One Hundred Thousand Disenfranchised Scots

Wow, I thought election ballot controversy was something only America did so spectacularly but no, Scotland is fast on their heels. According to the Beeb -
"The counts in Aberdeen, Argyll and Bute, Edinburgh, Eastwood, Perth and Tayside North and Strathkelvin and Bearsden were suspended until later on Friday due to technical problems."
And
"The polls have been hit by major problems with seven counts suspended and up to 100,000 ballot papers spoilt."
I have been bemoaning the fact that I am not classed as a Scottish citizen and therefore unable to vote in this election but if I was in Scotland, allowed to vote, and faced with this kind of fiasco I'd be really really pissed off!!

The Scotland Office said in a statement
"The independent Electoral Commission will undertake a statutory review into the conduct of this election. It is important that they look as a matter of urgency into delays in postal ballots, the high number of spoiled ballot papers, and the performance of the electronic counting machines."
And there was this from the commission:
"A commission spokeswoman said she could not comment on whether the election would have to be re-run."

OK, can we have more bungling please? When will people realise there is something authentic about a pencil, a piece of paper, a box to cross, and people at tables into the night counting by hand whilst supervised by officials. Computers crash, programs malfunction - is speed and convenience more important than democracy - ask the 100,000 really pissed off Scots who were disenfranchised by bungling politicians and their new toys.

Scotland & England: its been a wonderful three hundred year marriage but perhaps its time for divorce?!

Today is the 300 year anniversary of the Act of Union in 1707. It is the Act that created Great Britain and her United Kingdom. On Thursday the Scottish people go to the polls to vote for their representatives for the devolved Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. The near synchronicity of these dates is nicely significant. This is an election where the Scottish National Party (the SNP) look like they may steal Labour's thunder and actually form a devolved government in Scotland.

The SNP stand for Scotland's Independence from the UK. Since the seventies they have been a growing force in Scottish politics. During the days of Thatcherite Britain when the poll tax was introduced to Scotland first to test the system, Scotland was a bleak place full of a disheartened and disenfranchised populous. The almost total rejection of the Tory government by the Scottish electorate meant that there was a political schism between England and Scotland. When Labour were finally elected in 1997, Blair held true to his promise to let the people of Scotland decide if they wanted their own parliament, devolved not separated, from Westminster. And we most certainly did. The referendum was an over whelming resounding yes.

We got a parliament and our very own building built with plenty of political corruption, cronyism and cost. The parliament building was a financial fiasco but if you are ever in Edinburgh it is well worth walking to the bottom of the High Street to go on a tour, it is a gorgeous building that deserves the high praise and accolades that were bestowed on the late architect, Enric Miralles.

The parliament has been a hot button issue ever since its arrival. It adds another level of government to a country which already has local, national (Westminster), and European governments. It therefore also provides another level of cost to the Scottish people.

However to a country with our own education system, banking system (the Scottish pound is the same legal tender as the English but its still Scottish), and legal system, it seemed preposterous not to have our own government to identify us as a separate nation. Well, separate but with the kitchen apron strings still firmly attached.

Since its inception the parliament in Scotland has been run by a coalition of the New Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. And in my opinion it has not been overly successful. The cronyism, and small mindedness of the Scottish Labour party has been transferred into government. The question always seemed to be, would there or could there be any power in a parliament run by the same party as Westminster? Could there be a major disagreement and how would it be resolved?

It is my opinion that Tony and his cronies have run the UK parliament akin to the old power structure of the communist block. He is only prime minister but he acts presidential. It has filled me and my friends with despair that with every cabinet reshuffle the only difference is in name. Policies and decisions remain unchanged. It is also my opinion that the Scottish Labour party is run very much in the same mold.

So whats the alternative. Well the big one would be Independence. The SNP have always stood for the policy of a referendum on Scottish Independence within the European Union. When I was in my teenage years their policy was very much based on the utilisation of the oil in the North Sea in Scottish waters to enable the country to become financially solvent and prosper along the lines of Norway and Sweden. The arguments against this perception or claim were that establishing rights over waters in the North Sea would be difficult and removing such a cash flow to Westminster could do serious damage to England, which as our nearest trading partner, would be a foolish move.

I now find the argument of oil for Independence redundant. With global warming a reality, building a country on oil seems extremely foolish and irresponsible. I do however, see a bigger argument for Scotland going it alone by looking across the water to Ireland. Ireland is now one of the fastest growing economies in Europe. Where immigrants used to leave the Emerald Isle in search of better things the Emerald Isle is now attracting immigrants for the self same reason. If the Irish could do it why not the Scots?

We're not good enough. We couldn't possibly. We need looking after. Scotland is a proud nation with a distinctive culture of its own. A big part of that culture is what is called in literature, the doppelganger: Scottish identity is always double; it is always Jekyll and Hyde. On one hand we pray with all our might that we thrash any English sports team into next week, we bemoan England for neglecting to remember that Britain also includes Scotland and we take great pains to point out that we are not like England. But on the other hand we are quite content to sit back and be led from Westminster, to be a part of Britain. There is the pride, the strength that whimpers at the prospect of actually really running our own affairs.

I don't know if it is because of the connection between the Scottish Labour Party and the national Labour Party, but it always feels to me like a whispering campaign - "you couldn't do it", "you're not capable". Blair would have had a real political fight on his hands at every election without the steady stream of Labour loyalists in Scotland dutifully going to the polls for him come election day. It really is not in New Labour's political interests to have an Independent Scotland.

My gut instinct is that Scotland will never grow up until we take care of our own country. I don't make this statement out of brimming nationalist fervour but rather out of a fed up exasperation at my kin and country being so pathetic. Am I overwhelmed by Alec Salmond? No. Do I especially like the SNP or trust them? No. [as a side note I have always hated the fact that they are called the Scottish National Party - there are too many parallels with the fascist nationalist pasts of other countries - I really don't know why they are not called the Scottish Independence Party] But I don't see why we feel incapable of balancing our own budget, of running our own affairs. Scottish independance from the UK would not be a complete leap in the dark we would still be in the European Union and have a seat at the main table of that same Union instead of peering over another's shoulder.

I don't know what will happen on May 3rd. I have no way of affecting the outcome as I cannot vote (as a British citizen I can vote in the British election as an expat but there is no such thing as a Scottish citizen so I am disenfranchised). I am pretty sure the Scots who read my blog will have already turned in their postal votes by this time - so I am perhaps just meaninglessly wittering here. I know that the issue of Iraq is front an center in a lot of minds. How can a party be trusted that tows the line behind their leader in spite of public outrage? What is the alternative? Two very dear friends of mine commented that their hope for an alternative to a Blair (or Brown) government is an Independent Scotland - and they are English! I hope that one day my country will grow up and see all the great things we are so proud of, all the Scots who achieved so much, are all signs that we should take the risk.

300 years ago today the Act of Union was signed by the Scottish Parliament. It was signed by the Scottish elite who had lost hope in Scotland's prospects after the country was practically bankrupted in the Darien affair. The Union was signed against the wishes of the Scottish people for economic reasons by Scottish Nobles eager to win favour with the King who was so much more an English King than Scottish. The Union was an alliance that enabled the building of an Empire, it was an economic force to be reckoned with. That Empire is now dead and gone. The new economic force to be reckoned with is Europe and I think it is in Scotland's best interests to have a front row seat in building that prosperity because the last 300 years have proven we make one hell of a team mate.

P. S.
For a most brilliant analysis which says everything better than I can and if you're curious about Scottish humour go HERE to watch a video which had me in stitches!!

Scottish Election Warm up

I am going to do a long post on this subject (hell, I can't vote in this election , so at the least I can voice my opinion in the blogosphere). In the meantime here is a small podcast with photos from the Guardian. It is an interesting starting point - and has some beautiful pics of Edinburgh - although it is only focused on the capital. (there is a tendency in Scotland for some only to ever see the central belt - Edinburgh & Glasgow and the area in between - and forget there is a whole rest of the country).

For political ranting and disenfranchised expat raving, watch this space.

Class Structure in the 'Land of the Free'

My last post, and particularly the comments from it, got me thinking about American class politics and structure. The Romantic image that we are brought up with in Britain is that the USA is the 'Land of the Free' - the land free from class barriers, free from artificial restraints of birth, the land free with every possibility. This Romantic ideal haunts the history of the American pioneers, the pilgrims and the cowboy. The Declaration of Independence sounds like this ideal is sealed into law:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is a most attractive proposition. It sounds like Utopia. It sounds too good to be true. It is.

America has a class structure. But it is different from the long established aristocratic familial one in Britain. At the time of the Declaration, most white affluent men owned slaves who were never accredited the title of "Man" written by their masters. Women were disenfranchised and powerless. The poor immigrants from Ireland were kept one step away from slavery by the nature of their skin. Thomas Paine's idealism bore little relation to the class structure of the New States of America of his day and the acknowledgement of every man being created 'equal' came also with an equally large blind spot. Its a stirring message in theory, full of hope and value but in practice it has never been fully applied.

In America there are still the upper class that [pay to?] go to the vaulted Ivy Leagues of Harvard and Yale. There they find there is a commonly accepted and even encouraged means of solidifying such class structure - the Greek System of Fraternities and Sororities. When I first came to this country I was dumbstruck by such institutions. Here were these students voluntarily joining "houses" where they lived like they were at a private boarding school in Britain - only with alcohol thrown in for good (or bad) measure.

They have "rush" week where freshmen attend parties where they are tempted by the lure of each house and then vetted by each house until they are finally accepted or rejected. The general means used for vetting? Who they are! What does their father do? How much does he earn? Which school did they go to? What is their major and how much are they likely to make after graduating? And is she still a virgin or at least has she been faithful and pure towards her high school sweetheart?

Acceptance then means the ushering of a degree of hazing. All Frats and Sororities claim they have outlawed such behaviour but it persists. New members are made to perform demeaning and degrading tasks for senior members. Their desire to be part of this exclusive club is tested to the very limit. After all this is how to win friends and influence people. This will be the social network that will guarantee your career. This will solidify your place in the class structure. This will even help you find a perfect mate for a future perfect family. This is clear because this is what your father and/or mother did so before you.

Amongst this upper class are the WASPs. This stands for White Anglo Saxon Protestants. They are a group at the high end of American society that have held onto power and privilege since they arrived by boat in the 18th or 19th centuries. This breed can mostly be found in such states as Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Delaware.

Then there are the family dynasties. The oil rich Bushes. The bootlegging Kennedys.

For all the talk of freedom that abounds in this country everyone knows their place and generally stays there.

But there are the exceptions. This is where I perceive America as different. Only in this country could a poor peanut farmer from Georgia become the 39th President of the wealthiest nation on earth. Only in this country can a poor black girl from the ghetto rise to the top to become her own brand of "O". Only in this country can new money be spent as old resulting in the perpetual fantasy of the lower classes: the American Dream.

I believe it is this dream that keeps America's class structure in check. Why would you revolt against the rich when you hold onto the dream that you too can join their ranks? The upper classes let the occasional Donald or Martha into their exclusive club in order to let the others see from below the glass ceiling that they should tow the line, behave, because they never know when they may be given the key to the golden elevator of upward social mobility.

I think that the American class structure is so very sad for this very fact. The belief that riches are but a dream away placates so many from taking issue with a system that shuts them out.

But as with everything in this country there is also another side and its what I love about this country. For all the people adhering to the system there are others who do not. The Amish, the Mennonite, the Mormons all step outside the mainstream culture that slices society into class. There are people who pioneer outside the boundaries in a progressive activism of thinking and living outside of class. There are the vibrant and varied Gay communities in every American city with San Fransisco and New York leading the way. There are right wing and left wing anti-government types who hanker after the days when not every state was under the federal United States government. And then there are always the crazies. The ugly men dressed as women in South Beach, the freewheeling eternal backpackers and hitchhikers and those who provide fodder for shows on crazy lifestyles or crazy homes for a sleek coffee table book.

America has a class structure that can and does determine a great deal in regards to upward mobility and professional success. But America still retains that glow of the Romantic ideal, the image I was fed growing up, where some individuals step outside that structure and operate in their own way be it for religious, political, ethical, environmental or crazy reasons.
I can never pin this place down.

UK Spin

It was an interesting day for me in the blogosphere yesterday. I got angry at my country being accused of banning the Holocaust when it was untrue. I was really surprised by how upset I got and considering my recent post on what life like an expat is like, I suppose I am still very much patriotic for home in spite of all New Labours bungling and Blair's obedience to his master Bush. I still believe in the integrity of the country I grew up in. I believe in the justice system and the press (excluding the Daily Mail!!) to keep that same system in check.

However as I also wrote in my last post, I was taught in History lessons, in Scotland, all about the causes for the First and Second World Wars. Hitler's rise to power was facilitated by certain factors all lining up. It wasn't that Germany suddenly woke up and decided to persecute the Jews. It was a long build up of perception that the Jews were causing or aggravating the plight of the "german" people. And whilst the UK has not banned the holocaust from the class room, what I learnt in history tells me to be extra vigilant in looking for the signs that resentment is building in a civilised nation to where it could tip into uncivilised thinking and actions.

July 7th 2005 began murmurings in the press and society in general in Britain about Muslims. I remember talking with my friends about it. It was awkward. How do you address fanaticism in the Muslim community? How do you address a group of people who like to create their own community within a society and do not necessarily want to assimilate? How do you address the growing feeling that immigrants are changing the country from how it has always been perceived?

The UK is still very much a class based society. The recent split between Prince William and Kate Middleton has allowed the aristocracy to reveal their distaste for Kate because of her aspiring upper middle class mother and return William to the fold and set about finding him a true blue blood for the future throne. Oxford and Cambridge are still bastions of privilege and old boys clubs. Yahs still frequent the trendy bars in Edinburgh. Which school you went to and who your father is can still get you further in the UK than ability alone.

The difference now is that this class based society does not want to be seen as such. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, has gone out of his way to prevent a photograph of himself being published. Is he nude? No. Is he drunk? No. Is he wearing women's clothes? No. He is photographed as part of an elitist old boys club in Cambridge. He is in short, photographed as a toff!! He knows this is not the image to win votes. You have to be young cool, green and hip with none of the stuffiness of Oxford dons or polo matches.

The UK is a country of spin, thanks to New Labour. This is a country where perceptions are spun to hide the truth beneath. So we elected a party and prime minister in 1997, who was young cool and hip (alas not green enough..) and who seemed to care for people and making a difference in a way the population was starved of after so much thatcherite incompetency. That election was incredible. The whole country was on a high. It was like the good guys had finally triumphed over the forces of darkness and were riding home in victory. It was infectious.

Finally rid of the Tories, the UK seemed like it may modernise and shake off the class ridden power basis. We may find that the UK could become one of those trendy socialist countries that everyone is envious of - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland. That was the perception. That was the spin.

Underneath it all everything was the same. We were made to feel one thing when the reality was something different. So I suppose we did "modernise" into the ultimate "postmodern" country of Baudrillard's "Simulacra" where we are always spun away from reality. I did not know of Tony Blair's righteous Christian beliefs. I did not for a moment think that He and George Bush would have anything in common. New Labour might have had a face lift but surely they were supposed to be somewhat close to the left? Blair's beliefs had me thinking he was one of those Christians who truly care about the poor and helping people and to be fair I think some of that is true. But I was totally unaware that that would morph into a "holier than thou" attitude that invading foreign lands to liberate suffering people was OK. I suppose the high he got upon being first elected must have lasted too long.

Britain is a country of two faces. One is the outward modern one that has a diverse multicultural society that welcomes immigrants (I personally believe that after taking over half the world its only right that those people we colonised should be able to come and live in the UK too - although I can guarantee they won't like the weather). The other is a conservative class structure that wishes to preserve power and influence. I fear what would happen if the conservative elite ever felt truly threatened. I fear they would hold onto power at all costs. The compromise right now is that through the spinning of the simulacra everyone can feel hip and cool and modern and open and free whilst the mechanism doing the spinning is the same fixed structure that its always been.

UK is NOT banning Holocaust from School Books!!!

I was wondering what to blog about this morning when I saw this headline:
"E-mails are circulating around the world, claiming that the UK has banned the teaching of the Holocaust in schools."
You can read the BBC article here. I am so disturbed by this and have already read one blogger post on the subject. (I know this is not about N'awlins but I'm so angry that I'm posting on both my blogs!!)

It pains me to think that people (highly intelligent thinking people) actually think that my country would do such a thing. When I was in school in Scotland our History classes were focused on the causes of the First and Second World Wars. I know more German History than Scottish. Why? So that we could learn that we are all susceptible to Germany's mistakes and that our country had a large role in causing the First World War which led to the Second.

We have war veterans who liberated the concentration camps in eastern Europe. We adhere to the Geneva convention. We have a free and very vocal press. If this was true they'd be shouting it from the rooftops!!! And yet people will believe an email!! And not research this wild story!!! I am disgusted. I am angry and I am sad.

Update: The blog I read this on has recanted the initial claim that the UK had banned teaching the Holocaust. [thank goodness because I really like her writing and her blog!!]
I know that it must be very challenging for teachers to teach the Holocaust to some (not all) Muslim students who are taught at home that it never happened but it is a challenge that must be met head on. As Edmund Burke (allegedly) said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

thinking blogger award

I just received a nomination from Horizon for a thinking blogger award. I am touched and honoured - she has so many blogs on her roll and so many wonderful people comment on her blog I'm quite shocked that she picked my blog!
The task is now passed to me to do the same for five blogs that make me think.

I wish I could nominate the entire New Orleans blogging community, but as it is here are a few bright sparks:

Mark at Wetbank Blog. Always hard hitting, always controversial, always makes me think. My IQ goes up after every visit.

Traveling mermaid was my first foray into the NOLA blogging circle. I love her blog - full of fun, feisty political commentary and music (really like Rotary Downs that she linked to recently!).

Adrastos is a Nola blogger with a taste for British politics. My two worlds converge somewhat, under his posts. I am also glad to hear of someone else who reads the Guardian in N'awlins.

Ashley Morris is way more intelligent than I could ever hope to be and my wee brain cells get quite the workout following all his witty comments and links.

And finally a non-N'awlins blog:
Katie at Longayelander is an American girl from Long Island who is experiencing the joys (and irn bru, pub culture, and vomit...) of living in Glasgow. Its definitely thought provoking to see my country through an other's eyes.

My Art

This is an oil painting I did about 6 years ago from our deck in Cincinnati. It was one of those paintings I thought I'd more to finish on it and then realized I liked it just the way it was.
This is on a box canvas - it stands about 4 inches out from the wall - arylic (Golden - they rock!)
This I intended to be a background for something and then Dazza said he liked it just the way it was - it reminds me of Louisiana swamp (or a little - OK a very little - like Turner's expansive skies).

This was inspired by the last - and I like to think of it as a Miami hurricane - the wind blowing, the green sky of a storm all framed in Art Deco pink.

This is the last in this inspirational mode. It reminds me of the formations we saw in Moab last summer.

Autism and Blogging

I have just seen the most incredible video on Apophenia blog. I urge you to watch it - its the youtube after her incredible photos of a deserted factory in Michigan. After watching the video click here.

Books and Their Covers

I've recently discovered the joys of Library Thing. I actually stumbled across it quite a while ago and was intimidated by the scale of the website and putting in my books. Then I saw a book widget on another blog and suddenly I was hooked.

You see, I love books. Really love books. I have an inherited problem whereby I find it next to impossible to pass a bookshop without entering and buying books. So much so that as an English Lit student at Edinburgh Uni I used to avoid walking on the same side of the street as the Waterstones on Princes Street. There is one at either end so I knew I was safe if I stuck to the middle (but I often lapsed - and that's not mentioning Thins, and the smaller equally yummy bookshops around George Square).

I love text, I like how it looks, even from before I could read or write. Books to me are almost too good to be read. When I look at a book I see the endless possibilities of what is within it. I almost don't want to read it because I don't want to be disappointed. But I also cannot wait to read it. That's why my favourite books are so inherently exciting to me because they fulfilled my dream of what they could be and why the ones that let me down are so disappointing. Have you ever noticed the emphasis that is always placed on settling down with a good book- what if its not?

I also love book covers. I like the different designs and graphics and I know "Never judge a book by its cover". I'm sorry but I do. There I said it! What a book looks like and feels like and what the typeface is so important to me.

I was lucky to have the most fantastic job during my masters. I worked in the university library's conservation department. My job was to repair the library's book collection. I had to mend tears, restitch book blocks, mend covers. I loved it. I was even luckier in that the guys who ran the department were not only the nicest guys and great for a laugh but also were kind enough to teach me how to make a book from scratch. I learnt how to make a small 'normal' sized book which I gave to Dazza for his birthday a few years back. And they helped me make our wedding album - which is huge.