The “Bedroom Tax” protest song I linked to in March has been updated, recorded in a studio and is available on iTunes, Amazon and other online stores. You can listen to the studio version beforehand on YouTube.

Yesterday I attended the first of three annual March/Rallies that are to be held in the lead up to the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014. The last (and only previous) time that I was part of a public expression of opinion would have been towards the end of the Thatcher government in the 1980s, when I was part of a protest against Michael Forsyth opening the East Sands Leisure Centre in St. Andrews. I’ve nothing against the fine institution that is the East Sands Leisure Centre, I should hasten to add; just the company it kept at the time.

That was an angry protest; very civilised, because it was St. Andrews, and quite small scale, but angry at the things that the government of the time was doing. Although it was also very civilised, yesterday was otherwise a different kettle of fish.

It was a bit bigger, for a start. 9,500 according to the organisers; 5,000 according to a police estimate, but that was apparently made before the march started and certainly not at peak attendance, which would have been at the start of the rally in Princes Street Gardens.

The main difference, though, was atmosphere. This wasn’t a protest against something, it was a statement of support for something, and the overwhelming mood was positive. At the rally, I listened to about two and a half hours of people giving speeches (interspersed with musical interludes, of which see a couple below), and it was only towards the end of that that we started to get some angry speeches – from trade unionists railing against the current Westminster government. While I could sympathise with their reasons, I’m glad that the majority of speakers were not in that mould. That’s not to say that other speakers didn’t have an occasional dig, but it would be as an aside in a more forward-looking speech.

Another good thing its that it clearly wasn’t about one party. Obviously there is one party which has an enormous presence in this debate, but after a speech from the First Eck there were speakers from other parties and none. Margo McDonald was first up, followed in an order I can’t recall by Dennis Canavan and speakers from Labour for Independence, the Greens and the SSP. Conspicuous by their official absence were the current parties of Westminster government – which is a shame, as there must be some who have an interest in Scottish independence. I hope someone in those parties has the guts to take the sort of stand against their leadership that the Labour for Independence guy has. One journalist came out in support – the chronologically gifted (her words!) and more-than-usually-worth-reading Ruth Wishart.

Anyway, I just wanted to write about the experience of being there, not to change your minds. Having said that, if you want to accompany me next year, that’d be great.

Dougie MacLean sang Caledonia for us, which was well received:

Rock bagpipes have been done before, but Gleadhraich were rather good at it and moreover come from Carnoustie. Shame I didn't capture their rendition of “My Generation”, which was also highly enjoyable:

If you want to hear "My Generation", Gleadhraich themselves have an earlier performance on YouTube.

Being somewhat averse to blowing up balloons, never mind anything else, I was somewhat surprised to wake up this morning as an extremist:

Mr Clegg said the Lib Dems vision of Home Rule represented the views of the Scottish people and argued that those who were for independence, or keeping the current constitutional settlement, were extremists.

“All the evidence suggests that is the mainstream of opinion and the extremists are those who either think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow, or those who say there should be no further change at all,” Mr Clegg said.

“Well, I don’t agree with either of those two extremes.”

From The Scotsman (article link).

Leaving aside the other hyperbole in his statement (I don’t know anyone who wants to “yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow”, rather than negotiating a new relationship with the rest of the UK in the wake of a successful referendum), can it possibly be the act of a reasonable person, an honest, responsible or even just pragmatic politician, to label people who believe in peaceful self-determination for their country as extremists?

I wanted to be sure he actually used the word extremist, because I would just about have let him off if he’d just said that independence and the status quo were at two extremes of a spectrum of possible constitutional outcomes. That would have been a poor choice of words, but accurate. But no, he actually called supporters of independence and the status quo extremists. I hold no brief for supporters of the status quo, but this isn’t fair to them either.

Definitions of extremism tend to agree that extremists are people with beliefs or behaviour far outside the societal norm. Recent polling suggests that 39% of voters in Scotland support independence, as against 38% who oppose it, with a large number of “don’t know”s. It also suggests that 65% would support independence if they believed they’d be £500 p.a. better off. Not the most noble reason for voting for independence, perhaps, but it appears that opposition to independence is weak and driven by financial fear (a £500 loss reduced the percentage preferring independence to 21%). Finally, somewhere in the region of 80% (can’t find the figures) would support full financial autonomy, with only Foreign Affairs and Defence handled by Westminster.

Even the lowest of those figures could conceivably produce a majority for independence in a referendum, so I’d love to know where Nick Clegg gets the idea that supporters of independence are  extremists “far outside the societal norm”.

Nick Clegg, you’ll probably never read this, but just in case you do, I’ve frequently voted for your party since the 1980s, but you have lost me and you aren’t likely to get me back with personal insults. Your party was tanked in Scotland in May last year, and guess where a lot of your votes went? If you ever want them back… well, don’t hold your breath, oath-breaker, but if you do, you need to get over the fact that the SNP are a legitimate and peaceful political party, with the support of a larger proportion of the electorate than the other parties put together (51% in a recent poll), with many supporters and members including at least one Cabinet minister who are English, with widespread support among Scotland’s ethnic minorities, and with a policy of encouraging immigration. And they got there without the support of any UK or Scottish media, and with politicians like you saying stupid things like this. If that’s your extremism, it seems to me that the world could do with a few more extremists.

Excellent. A majority for the SNP in a proportional electoral system that was specifically chosen to prevent just that ever happening – against not one other major party,but three. That is a stunning result that – realistically – may never be repeated.

After four years of minority government by the SNP, with very hostile opposition and no friends in the media, all three opposition parties took a pounding, which shows that the SNP have done something very right and the other parties have all got it very wrong. Without getting into the politics of it too much, the SNP have come across as can-do and consensual, while the other parties have often appeared negative and oppositionist.

People want positive government, something they’re unused to getting from political parties of all stripes, and they’ve responded to it positively when it’s come along.

That’s about all I want to say, and I haven’t gone into any specifics about policies because I don’t want to get bogged down in discussing them. This is not a political blog, and despite occasionally feeling that I need to comment on something, I want it to stay that way. And I don’t currently have the energy to respond anyway.

I don’t really want to publicise my own political preferences much, but I feel obliged to let you know where I’m coming from, so: I’ve largely viewed myself as a floating voter since turning 18 in 1985, although practically speaking my vote has almost always gone to the Liberals or Lib-Dems. I nearly decided to vote SNP when the Lib Dems first adopted a specific policy against holding a referendum on independence in 2003, and they lost it when they put that policy into practice by choosing to stay out of coalition government on those grounds in 2007. Blocking democratic expression isn’t a “principle” worth staying out of government for.

When the census takes place on 27th March, for the first time there are to be questions in the Scottish form about the Scots language – can you understand, speak, read or write it? – and to help folk answer the questions there’s a web site with samples to read and listen to.

Since Scots is often regarded as a dialect of English¹, some help’s a good idea; and if you’re not one of those required to answer the questions, then it may still be interesting to listen to some voices that you don’t usually hear.

For those looking for something a bittie different, I would recommend haein a listen to Aberdeen and the North East, Orkney and Shetland. I had to concentrate hardest to follow the Caithness speech.

¹ There’s certainly a close relationship between Scots and English, and it’s understandable that there would be disagreements about whether they’re far enough apart on the spectrum to be regarded as separate languages. For an article about why Scots can be considered a language rather than a dialect, read here.

If you support the re-establishment of a direct rail link to St. Andrews, now might be a good time to consider a donation to StARLink.

If the money’s collected within the next week or so, an engineering feasibility study that usually costs £20,000 can be undertaken for only £4,000 + VAT. Over half the money has already been raised in the last couple of weeks, but obviously more is needed, and timing matters. If undertaken within this timescale, the consultant can use the study as a demonstration example, which is why the much reduced price.

You can send a cheque made payable to “Starlink” – a suggested sum is £25 – to:

Starlink
Freepost
5 Whitehill Terrace
Largo Road
St Andrews
Fife KY16 8RN

If you’re not already a supporter, the StARLink web site provides some reasons why you might wish to be. It’s also worth looking at the site’s news archive to see the support the campaign has received over the years. One impressive example is the survey data taken last year showing that upwards of 70% of car users visiting St. Andrews would have considered coming by rail instead if it were an option.

Well, the first legal case in which I’ve had a financial interest has so far had a disappointing outcome. However, I have no regrets about spending the money. I still see it as not just right, but essential to challenge the exclusion of selected major parties from debates that were always going to be the focus of the election campaign, even if the extent of their effect was unexpected. I stand by the case I made a few days ago.

Since getting home, I’ve searched for and read Lady Smith’s opinion, since the various news reports are not particularly helpful in understanding what happened.

In a nutshell, the emphasis was placed on a different part of the BBC Editorial Guidelines than the one I quoted, and the SNP weren’t aggressive enough in pursuing their case earlier. There was also an emphasis on viewing the debates as being essentially a series which must be completed, for reasons of freedom of speech and contractual obligations.

The part of the BBC Editorial Guidelines that was referred to advised basing impartiality decisions on the voting record from the preceding election at the same level (i.e. the 2005 UK General Election in this case). That is one reasonable basis for decision-making, and I can’t object to it per se, but it does seem at odds with the section I quoted previously, which is also fair – in a different way. I couldn’t see Lady Smith’s justification for preferring one over the other. Obviously my opinion of the relative importance of these conflicting pieces of advice differs from Lady Smith’s.

I am less surprised by the judgment that the SNP were not aggressive enough in pursuing legal action. Seeking a reasonable negotiated solution appeals to me as being the right way to do things (especially if you don’t really have the spare cash to go to court), but if you don’t put the boot in early it can look as if you’re accepting the situation and accept that the opposition’s case have merit. If you’re not serious about defending yourself, why should the court? Reasonable though it may have been to work through all the complaint procedures, allowing the ITV and Sky debates to go ahead before going to court was a tactical error.

I have little sympathy for the simile that the three debates are like a three-act play or a three-round boxing match that must be allowed to run their course. If they’re not fair, they should be stopped; and if they can’t be practically stopped within Scotland only then they should be stopped at the UK level. Sorry, but if they’d followed the model used in other countries such as Canada or New Zealand, there would be no problem. The leaders’ debates may be popular but they’re not necessary for free speech – we managed elections fine without them before.

Finally, another reason for rejecting the interim interdict was that the SNP proposal for a solution was not detailed enough – they left room for negotiation on details such as who should represent them on the debate, what proportion of time they should receive, and so on. Reasonable, maybe, but Lady Smith was of the opinion that this lack of detail would have left the BBC unable to be certain of meeting the requirements of the interdict, and therefore it could not be granted.

I don’t believe this outcome is fair, but justice isn’t necessarily about fairness; just about whether the rules have been satisfied. Personally, I’m not even sure about that, but have to accept Lady Smith’s opinion.

Indications are that a favourable outcome to the judicial review in June is not certain either. If that’s the case, I’m not sure where we go from there, but I don’t believe this is an acceptable way to run or report an election and I’ll be looking for further ways that I can contribute to the prevention of this sort of imbalance in future.

Hurrah! for a new Scottish newspaper, albeit not a very traditional one. The Caledonian Mercury, a name last used for a Scottish paper in 1867, is mostly going to appear online, with occasional print editions. It’s a commercial venture written by real journalists working freelance, and is an attempt to break out of the straitjackets (various) of the current print media.

It makes the expected promises about wanting to be a positive contribution to journalism north of the border. It makes a rather less expected, but welcome, promise not to subject itself to the Scottish cringe.

It’ll be interesting to see how it measures up. My impression on its first day of official publication is that it’s made a good start.

There isn’t as much content as in the more traditional newspapers, and some of it’s obviously been written as much as a few weeks ahead of the launch date, but what is there covers stories I haven’t seen addressed elsewhere, and covers them well, so on day 1 it has added value.

It’s difficult to address the issue of the Scottish cringe without straying into partisan politics, and generating more heat than light. I think that’s a shame, as a pride in Scotland should not be in itself a political issue. Venture into the comment sections in other online news sources, though, and you’ll see vehement amateur politicians metaphorically kicking lumps out of each other, and accusing the publication and each other of outrageous bias; either as tartan-swathed revolutionaries or Anglophile Quislings.

No-one comes out of that sort of “debate” smelling of roses, and I’m hesitant to suggest that either side might have a point; but it does seem to me that at a time when there’s an SNP government in Holyrood there’s a lack of traditional news outlets – even Scottish ones – prepared to give Scottish issues a fair shake and discuss what’s being done or said seriously, on its merits – or even to discuss them at all, sometimes.

My first impression is that the Caledonian Mercury’s political coverage hasn’t succumbed to using unprofessionally prejudicial language, but has been quite even-handed and considered in its coverage of the parties. There’s more coverage of some parties than others, but that may balance out over time.

If for no other reason, you must visit it as the new home of Rab McNeil’s Holyrood sketch – once upon a time the last reason I clung on to buying The Scotsman! (And I like their unicorn.)

Poppies were required wear at work today. So was a suit, and so I wound up wearing two poppies, one on my coat and one on my suit.

Suits are not every-day work-wear for us, but then it was the day that Alex Salmond was officially opening our new office. In order for us to get the maximum personal enjoyment out of this momentous experience, employees were encouraged to tell their friends, presumably so that you can all feel jealous, or awe-struck or something. So there you go; you’ve been told! I saw the back of his head from a distance, if that helps to impress you.

Somehow people being treated as VIPs makes me come over all egalitarian, I’m afraid, despite respecting the FM’s abilities and recognising it’s a good thing for the company.

But today merited my coincidental two poppies none the less. With respect to Claude Choules, a British veteran living in Australia who often misses a mention, this was the first Armistice Day with no living World War I veterans in the UK.

That is a bit of a milestone. My eldest grandparent was only a little too young to have been involved, and within our lifetimes the number of British survivors of the war has dwindled from many to one. Inevitable, of course, but worth marking.

Thanks for Bill Stone, Henry Allingham, Harry Patch, and all the others they represent who didn’t travel with us so far, like my great uncle Pat.

According to Slashdot, the Thawte Web of Trust (of which I, tobyawand qidaneare notaries) is ending in less than 2 weeks' time – or November 16th, depending on which you believe. Maybe someone didn’t notice this was October.

The original article is Slashdotted, so I haven’t been able to read it, but if it is true it’ll be a little bit sad and quite a lot unsurprising.

E-mail certificates are one of those things that are good in theory, but difficult to convince people they’re worthwhile. Their main purpose is to show that e-mail hasn’t been tampered with since it was sent, and that it was sent from a particular person’s account; not problems that many people worry about, even with spam spoofing e-mail addresses to appear to come from people you know.

Perhaps a little more practically, if more widely taken up certificates might help to restrict spam a bit by requiring people to prove their identity to someone – but they’ve never had that take-up, and if they did then spammers would of course find ways to acquire certificates unrelated to their real identities. Faking identity would not, in the end, prove much of a hurdle.

There are other drawbacks too. Some e-mail systems (particularly web-based ones) don’t know what to do with certificates, so they make recipients more suspicious of the e-mail with the odd attachment, rather than less. And for the average user, the process of signing up for a certificate is scary and arcane. Although you can mostly click Next – Next – Next, there’s a lot of forbidding technical terminology floating about.

Finally there’s the biggest reason why I’m not surprised if Thawte have canned their free certificates program, and also why I’ve not been over-enthusiastic to recommend them for the last couple of years; they’ve never updated the sign-up process to work with Windows Vista’s higher level of security, and their instructions for working around the issue start “Turn off the Windows Firewall”…

E-mail certificates are still a mildly good idea, but Thawte’s free offering hasn’t been too attractive for some time – and unfortunately the alternatives cost.