Ed Miliband and Michael Rimmer: Life (poorly) imitates Art

Over the last few days many column inches and much airtime has been expended on Ed Miliband's latest big idea: public PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions). The idea is that, after MPs have had a chance to ask the Prime Minister questions during the weekly PMQs session, the opportunity should be opened up to the public to submit their own questions.

Rarely have I heard such a lame-brained idea, and this is even more concerning as it originates from the leader of the opposition. Is the executive really being held to account by someone who is transparently such a remote-controlled halfwit?

Do we not already elect and pay MPs to ask the executive questions on our behalf? It's called Representative Democracy! And even if our democracy is so dysfunctional that our MPs are no longer capable of representing our interests and reflecting our legitimate concerns in the business of parliament, I am confident the remedy is not some gameshow gimmick. And who chooses which public questions will be submitted? Can expect well-rehearsed responses to questions chosen in line with some pre-ordained and manipulative media agenda?

I am reminded of Peter Cook's character in the 1970 satire on the influence of public relations, The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. In the film the eponymous anti-hero rises to prominence in British politics and eventually induces the electorate to acquiesce to his dictatorship by insisting, in the name of democracy, that they are involved directly in an incessant series of petty decisions.

Any similarity between Ed Miliband and Michael Rimmer ends pretty quickly though, since Michael Rimmer is stunningly competent and effective at implementing his Macchiavellian stratagems, while I think it is safe to say that is not something you could ever accuse Ed Miliband of. 

The evidence today points to a Labour Party so disconnected with reality that policy making has become an exercise in public relations. When Ed Miliband could focus his attention on:

• The TTIP currently being negociated with the USA, which introduces the affront to democracy that is unaccountable secret tribunals of corporate lawyers to resolve any disputes that should arise between big business and democratically elected governments; 
• The award of fracking licences in Scotland, hushed up and rushed through (a reserved matter); 
• The macabre juxtaposition of food banks and obscene wealth in our deeply divided society;
• The piecemeal privatisation of the NHS in the world's biggest coporate car boot sale;
• The inexcusable brutality of the Isreali regime towards the Palestinian people;
• And any number of other compelling and urgent issues

he chooses instead to listen to his post-pubescent advisers who have negligible appreciation of anything but the PPE and PR notes they cribbed and crammed at Uni barely yesterday. He is a puppet, a drone, a perfectly absent presence in the political debate, remotely controlled by children who have just graduated from CoD (Call of Duty) to HoC (House of Commons).  

It is no wonder then, that they find themselves abandoning all pretence of principle to wallow with any bedfellow in the No campaign in Scotland, and the ultimate irony is that the Labour Party in Scotland would prefer that Scotland is governed by Tories in London than the Labour Party in Scotland as a result.  

In Scotland we are blessed to have a referendum campaign that is provoking genuine democratic engagement, that is prompting people to educate and inform themselves and reflect critically on the evidence available to them, to consider and debate in a mature, respectful and responsible manner what is in their real interests and the interests of their children over the long as well as short term, and this is taking place irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.

The grassroots engagement underway in Scotland today is the model of real democracy that Ed Milliband should be looking to if he is seeking to revitalise our parliamentary institutions. 

The day I met President Barak Obama

(This is a previously unpublished first draft of an article that subsequently appeared in the Daily Record)

"I don't care what it costs, just don't get me anything with Stilton on it".

With these words the leader of the free world dealt a devastating blow to the dreams of an independent farmhouse craft blue cheese made from unpasteurised milk somewhere in Scotland.

I was in Washington as part of a delegation led by Darren Millimetre, leader of Her Brittanic Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The backdrop was our discussion of  key matters of international significance, like the budget for the space programme which will allow us to land an astronaut on Mars and returning him safely to Earth again, and what the precise conversion factors are between metric and imperial units of measurement.

But being a Scottish MP, once we decided to take a break for lunch, I leant over the desk and asked President Obama straight to his face what he would like me to get him from the Pennsylvania Avenue branch of Greggs.

President Obama was a senator from Illinois, which is near Wisconsin, where they make all of the cheese consumed in North America, so he knows a thing or two about cheese and the diversity of types available. We live in a world where what happens in relation to cheese outside of Scotland matters. And as part of the UK Scotland has a seat at the top table when the cheese is being sliced up and shared out.

As a Scottish MP I have seen Scottish cheese being consumed at lunchtime by members of the board of the IMF, and my great-great-grandparents were among the first to introduce Emmental to China.

After lunch, I reflected on the big decisions we have to make, and the wise advice of my very very good friend, my best buddy, my BFF. On the 18th of September, I won't be having any blue cheese at lunchtime.

Attack of the living dead!

Yesterday we saw zombies roaming the Scottish political landscape. Zombie lies.

American comedian, television host and commentator Bill Maher recently noted the presence of “zombie lies” in political discourse. A "zombie lie" is one that has been debunked time and time again, yet somehow continues to be perpetuated by those whose positions are supported by them. Lies that keep coming back from the dead, as it were, to consume the brains of the living.

Yesterday Gordon Brown claimed that Scottish Independence would impact people's ability to access life-saving organ transplants. This was almost immediately contradicted by a response from the authorities who actually administer organ transplants and blood tranfusion. In fact it turned out that a written response to an enquiry which contradicted this had been available for over a year.   

This is the latest in a series of demonstrable falsehoods uttered by the No campaign in relation to the NHS. For example, there was the notorious Vote No Borders video that claimed Independence would prevent access to services at Great Ormonde Street Hospital (GOSH) for sick children. This was contradicted by GOSH themselves. In the same video they made a similar claim about Royal Marsden Hospital.

The Health Service in Scotland is already independent, and has been since its inception. The NHS was founded on that basis. So a Yes vote and Scottish Independence will have zero effect on how it conducts itself. The necessary arrangements are already in place. This has been repeated again and again. The claim that Independence will somehow threaten service provision is an example of a zombie lie.

In fact, the only thing that will impact the NHS in Scotland is a No vote. One threat is that, as the NHS in England is privatised, the public funds dedicated to it will decrease. Consequential reductions in the block grant will apply to Scotland under the existing devolution settlement as a result. This means the Scottish Government has to cut funding whether it likes it or not, as a result of policies pursued at Westminster that only apply to England.

However, as has been pointed out by Iain MacWhirter in The Herald, this is only part of the picture, and possibly not even the most important part. The free trade agreement between the USA and EU currently being negociated in Brussels, the TTIP, opens the NHS up to competition from North American service providers. A health service is exempt only if it conforms to certain features of a state run monopoly. The UK government's recent reforms have removed the grounds for exemption of the NHS in England on this basis. They have in effect prepared the NHS in England to be broken up and sold off at knock-down prices to the North American health industry under the terms of the TTIP. How long will the NHS in Scotland survive in the event of a No vote under these circumstances?

Gordon Brown and the No campaign know all of this.

Misinformation is when what you are told is inaccurate. Disinformation is when what you are told is deliberately false. The No campaign is engaged in the latter.

One could catalogue the zombie lies. A (non-exhaustive) list can be derived from some of the items discussed in a previous blog post. Statements regarding the EU, ship building, defence, and so, provide rich sources of zombie lies.

But we have to ask ourselves for what reason the No campaign repeatedly unleash hordes of zombie lies to pre-occupy the Yes campaign. Why repeatedly make claims that can simply and easily be demonstated to be false? Why make claims that are almost instantly contradicted by any authority able to make a definitive statement on the subject?

I can only conclude it is because it is preferable to the alternative - that the Yes campaign will be able to invest even more time and effort than it already does dissecting the shortcomings of our current political arrangements and exploring the exciting possibilities an Independent Scotland offers, without being distracted by the need to refute deliberately frivolous and vexatious statements.

There is a great deal the measures to which the No campaign resort have in common with climate change denial. The zombie lie is one tactic common to both, and there are many other, all designed to instill fatigue and resignation in their opponents, and more importantly, the undecided, the real target of these tactics.

The aim is not to demonstrate your point finally and conclusively. The aim is to set up a succession of illusory temporary mini-debates in which little by little you delay the inevitable conclusive demonstration of the opposite.

For example, every time I hear someone claim they don't have enough information about the Scottish Independence debate, or say they have lost interest in the debate because both sides just contradict and attack each other, I see a result of one of those temporary, illusory mini-debates. I see instances of the "in the interest of balance, here is someone who is wrong" gambit. I see occasions where one of the five stages of climate change denial is articulated in terms of the Scottish Independence debate.

And then there is the cybernat slander. At the time of writing I am personally aware of two people whose cars have been vandalised because they had Yes stickers on them. Online, empirical evidence suggests that abuse of Yes campaigners compares to abuse of No campaigners in the ratio roughly 3:1. The cybernat slander - the idea that disproportionate numbers of Yes campaigners engage in dirty tactics online - has no evidential basis. If anything, the opposite is the case.

The cybernat slander is simply another cynical tactic that allows the No campaign to avoid discussing real issues.

The way to deal with these tactics is not to sink to employing them yourself. The way to deal with them is to remain focussed on the real issues: self-determination, governments the people vote for, implementing policies the people choose, and the rejection of policies that have no mandate in Scotland. 

Over and above everything else, remain excited about the enthralling possibilities an Independent Scotland offers. Our authentic enthusiasm is one thing most anathema to the No campaign, the one thing they most wish to deprive us of. They prefer the last days of a declining empire to the first days of a better nation.

So stay positive. "Never heed whit the houdies croak for doom". Vote Yes and Party!

Please don't go

You're my best friend,

so naturally we have to live together,
share everything. I have a spare room.
Leave it to me deal with the finances.
I'll let you have some pocket money
to buy yourself something nice
from time to time.

You're my best friend,

don't talk to anyone else.
Your voice is stronger if I decide
who our friends are, who to spurn,
if I speak for both of us.

Just think of all the parties
you would never be invited to
if you weren't my friend.

My very best friend.

You get into nightclubs
when you're with me,
otherwise you would get sent
straight to the end of the queue,
so let's stick together, friend.
Just think how stupid you look
out there on your own.

Don't even think of leaving.
What have you got going for you?
Don't make me laugh!
I love you. Please don't go!

What would I do without you?

You're my best friend. 

The worried

When considering the reasons why someone might vote no in the forthcoming Scottish Independence referendum, it occurred to me there were two categories of people it is difficult to argue against.

The first category is the sentimental. The individual may decide entirely on the basis of a sense of identity, and feel a powerful sense of British identity and little or no sense of Scottishness, and this may determine their preference. It is difficult to argue against this position precisely because there is no rational content with which to get a grip. My response tends to be that it is alright to respect someone's irrational choices when they have no adverse consequences for others, but when their choice will impact a huge variety of practical outcomes for everyone living in Scotland there is a democratic responsibility for critical analysis and rational and balanced appraisal of all available evidence.

Nevertheless, the idea of a nation is intrinsically irrational. I find myself quite frustrated by the argument I hear from time to time that this irrationality itself means we should opt for the status quo. You cannot argue against the existence of Scotland on the grounds that nations are irrational constructs without at the same time undermining any argument for the preservation of the United Kingdom. That is, unless, you are going to assert that one irrational construct is better than another, which leads us back to the sentiment mentioned above, while introducing a whole new level of hypocrisy to the mix, as Simon Schama did recently in one of the those interventions in the debate that emanate from the metropolitan bubble in London that indicate its contributor has completely missed the point of what is happening here in Scotland today. Until as a species we consent to an enlightened world government which respects the rights of all humans and encourages the unique and authentic self-expression and fulfilment of each one, I will choose the irrational construct I judge to be most likely to deliver this at my local level and most likely to participate in its advocacy in a responsible manner globally. I think we are well past the time when we could pretend the United Kingdom represents such a world government. If anything, a Yes vote finally ends the bizarre, destructive, obsolete, delinquent anachronism that was the British Empire that assaulted the globe with precisely such pretension and self-delusion.  

Nevertheless, there are those with a strong sentimental attachment to the United Kingdom who acknowledge the irrationality of this attachment and choose it as the basis of their choice. Perhaps the most I can offer them is reassurance that I don't believe the qualities and attributes they value will be abolished on September the 19th in the event of a Yes vote, and that what is best in Britain does not rely for its preservation on the political accommodation we arrive at on that day. What the Tolpuddle Martyrs, Watt Tyler, and the Levellers, stood for and have in common survives the political discontinuities in 1603 and 1707 that separate them in historical time and space, just as common cause and solidarity with the unfortunate and oppressed always has.

The second category is those with some legitimate concern about what practical outcomes may occur in an Independent Scotland. My response here is to consider whether they have legitimate concerns, or have been misled by those opposed to Scottish Independence who are systematically misrepresenting the situation. Legitimate concerns must of course be addressed, and I see the invigorating, exciting democracy emerging in Scotland during this debate as the best means to do this. It is in relation to this category that I was delighted to see online in social media the comments of Fraser Coats, who said:

"What concerns me is the many people who are worried about pensions so are voting to remain part of a country which has been attacking pensions for decades;

"Who are worried about job losses so are voting to remain part of a country which has attacked industry after industry;

"Who are worried about terrorist attacks so are voting to remain part of a country whose slavish devotion to US foreign policy  has brought terrorism to these shores;

"Who are worried about financial stability so are voting to remain part of a country whose deregulation of the financial system (together with America's) caused the biggest financial crash since the 1930's".

This prompted me to wonder what else might be added to this list of concerns:

The people who are worried about ship building and so are voting to remain in a country that has cut 90% of ship building jobs over the last 30 years;

The people who are worried about defence and so are voting to remain in a country that cannot mount a credible response to incursions in our waters or air space;

The people who are worried about the fate of the NHS and so are voting to remain in a country which is privatising the NHS and opening it up to competition with US service providers via the terms of the TTIP;

My friend Dominic Ryan added:

"The people who are worried about not being able to stay in the EU and so are voting to remain in a country whose newly appointed Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, has stated if there was a referendum today he would vote to leave Europe"

The list goes on: please use the comments thread to contribute if you wish ...

Repairing our intimacy engines

I watched Kirsty Wark's programme Blurred Lines recently. Like most people, I suspect, I was shocked by the situation it described: a casual and endemic rape culture, and one which access to the internet has apparently made significantly worse. I consider that item to be an excellent piece of journalism. It was important, urgent, and the problem being reported was calmly, clearly and systematically described. It prompted a lot of conversations. These thoughts have emerged from some of the conversations I have had. 

The only part of the programme that didn't work for me was the very end, where the item concluded with note of hope that the fundamentally neutral character of the internet meant that women would be able to use it to challenge the rape culture it currently mediates. This felt to me like a mandatory but spurious positive ending added on to avoid leaving the audience utterly despondent after a clinical and highly effective description of a serious problem with no apparent solution.

The programme got me thinking about this problem and how to solve it. This is not indulgence in a frivolous academic exercise for me of course. Like most men I have a wife, a mother, sisters, a daughter, lots of women whose safety and happiness are paramount to me, and sons who I want to see grow up to be capable of fulfilling and respectful relationships with women. So the need to solve this problem is directly and personally relevant and compelling. For example I don't want my daughter exposed to the relentless, exhausting, degrading and demoralising abuse some of the girls on the programme had to endure just to participate in online gaming communities, and I don't want my sons being involved in this.   

So I started to look at the evidence to see if the problem could be described in a way that makes a solution possible. I suppose opting for this approach is a result of my technical and scientific background. I decided quite quickly that a lot of the discussion of the topic in feminist literature was not helpful. For example, one key theme of the programme was the way in which rape culture prevails amongst "geeks". This is a community of people often marginalised from mainstream culture and society and so is not as conditioned by its norms, such as the patriarchal structures described by feminists. Members of this community often hold society and its problematic norms and values in as much disdain as anyone who is concerned with solving society's problems, and yet for some reason they are still subject to this specific societal problem. They can be and often are excluded or ostracised from society in a potentially brutal manner that would break the most insidious social conditioning and erase all of the tedious aspirations and attitudes convention requires of them and yet this problem still lingers, indeed thrives. So existing feminist criticism of social values and conditioning that this group has already rejected does not contribute to the analysis of the problem.

A lot of the existing discussion of the problem, such as the problem of patriarchy, seems to me to describe but not diagnose. There are lists of symptoms but no solutions. The underlying issue is eluding us somehow. Patriarchy may be implicated in other areas of the oppression of women, but there is something key to the understanding of rape that is not explained by it. Women are objectified in our culture, and objectification certainly correlates with rape, but it is not clear to me that this objectification is the origin of rape, rather than another consequence of a common cause. We are not describing the problem in a way is amenable to its solution.

Other observations I considered include the fact that we are talking about a behaviour that all men are capable of. We are not discussing the actions of a definable set of psychopaths. You can't test a man to see whether he will rape or not and then remove him from society. We cannot solve the problem by isolating rapists a priori. So in describing the problem in a manner amenable to its solution we have to look at circumstances that apply to all men. Also, most rapes are not premeditated. There will certainly be occasions where a psychotic or sadistic individual uses rape as an instrument for some premeditated outrage, but for the moment I am setting that to one side as a special category for which special measures and interventions should be available, rather than a widespread general social and cultural problem, which is how I would categorise the endemic casual unpremeditated rape or equivalent online behaviour perpetrated by "normal" men described in the programme.

In addition, access to the internet seems to have exacerbated rather than alleviated the problem. That is an understatement, as the programme clearly demonstrated. Somehow rather than being a forum which mediates a culture free from the problems of rape that exist in society generally, providing intercourse among individuals liberated from society's conventional patriarchal structures, the internet has massively amplified the problem. It is as though with the internet, with respect to rape culture, we have somehow inadvertently placed a brick on the gas and pointed the car at a wall. It is a disaster.

While thinking about this I found myself reflecting on one idea: our concept of beauty. These are imagined social constructs. Certainly they include biological imperatives such as indicators of health and reproductive capacity, but crucially, also include fantasies about routes to intimacy. I was thinking about the complicated narratives wrapped up in our ideas of beauty, the routes to intimacy which they describe, and whether incomplete or distorted narratives can alienate normal men in a way that enables them to commit rape.

Consider the small child who watches or listens to a fairy tale and absorbs the implicit set of trades, bargains, negociations and deals entailed by the fantasy it describes. For example, consider the beautiful princess rescued by the valiant knight, an easily recognisable and common motif. Her vulnerability and dependence is intrinsic to her beauty in the story, while endurance and capability are central to beauty of the male protagonist. The rescue itself is an exchange in which the knight and the princess both achieve validation of these attributes and acceptance of each other as a key to achieving a resolution which implies intimacy. This tableau represents concepts of beauty that are highly complex and offers connected sets of interrelated trades. The participants in these concepts of beauty are reliant on each other for fulfilling the requirements of these trades, the outcome of which is intimacy. Beauty is our way of negociating approaches to intimacy. What we find beautiful, in all its culturally specific detail, is a kind of map that plots our course towards each other, avoiding threats and hazards until our bodies and minds can meet through contact and conversation and profound understanding. 

In all its complexity, beauty is a marvellous intimacy engine that can drive us into each other’s arms. However, if it’s is not operated properly, or if it is malfunctioning in some way, that beauty is transformed and twisted into something opposite and ugly. The tone of the dialogue is distored into something shrill. Attempts at intimacy end up on the rocks. Trades are thwarted and engagement becomes invasion. The engine is shackled and eventually tears itself apart. The risk of this is increased significantly when we consider beauty to be a passive attribute rather than an active process, when we don't consider our standards of beauty to be contingent and temporary terms in the negociation in which we slowly, gradually reveal ourselves to each other, and believe them to be absolute, to be demands that must be met without equivocation. We are then driving this intimacy engine blindfold. And the internet accelerates this journey and blindfolds us more securely than ever before by enabling greater emphasis on representations of beauty as a passive impersonal attributes that can be observed without direct involvement by the observer, and portraying standards of beauty as static, immutable and absolute, and something to be adhered to.

The way someone looks to you changes as you get to know them. Some people who you initially thought conformed to some ideals of beauty become less attractive if you find them to be selfish or shallow, while others whose first impression might have been less favourable become infinitely more fascinating as you discover their generosity and happiness . And we can all think of individuals whose physical beauty is not due to conformance to some ideal of perfection but rather to some odd combination of idiosyncratic features which we find intensely pleasing but don't know why. The key thing is to understand that beauty is not an impersonal attribute but a process, a set of rules, rituals and languages, a complex mechanism which we use to navigate that most perilous of journeys, the journey towards intimacy with each other, and it is a mechanism that we cannot operate alone. The internet however encourages the catastrophically flawed view that beauty is something we can steer single-handed, not to put too fine a point on it. 

The portrayal of beauty as something one-sided, something that can be represented, observed, and appreciated, that can conform to artificial ideals of "perfection", rather than as an exhilarating negotiation of intimacy in which we mutually participate, perpetuates the problem.  And the internet is implicated in the representation of beauty as an impersonal attribute rather than engine of intimacy. It restricts our ability to participate fully in the joint endeavour that is getting to know someone. These limited ideas of beauty blindfold us while we ride our intimacy engines faster and faster. Our abject failure to understand and maintain the delicate mechanism we are driving leads to catastrophic malfunction, and the result is an ugly twisted mess that no-one walks away from.

So as I try and find a solution, at the moment I find myself looking at ways in which we can equip men with narratives of beauty which are not incomplete or one-sided, ones in which they join in rather than feel left out, ones that are open-ended and ongoing. Perhaps we need to help men rediscover a sense of quest? Or is that just for fairy tales?

Or to adopt a more direct, phallic and macho analogy, help them understand that their intimacy engines require careful maintenance and expert handling if they hope to get anywhere with them. And maybe sometimes they need to sit in the passenger seat.

Bannockburn speech

(Text of a speech given at a rally at the Rotunda at Bannockburn on the 21st of June 2014)

Feasgar math dhuibh a h-uile duine.

The 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn is upon us. It is thrilling to see such an incredible turnout. Some people who are not here today, who are perhaps only dimly aware of this event, might wonder why we are here, and what it all means to all of us today. “How can some men hitting each other with sharp objects in a muddy field a long time ago possibly be relevant in this day and age?” they might ask.

Let us remember the reason the events we are commemorating today took place. They happened at a time when the common people of this country had to assert themselves to challenge the claims to rank and privilege of declining mounted feudal elites when those claims were forcibly pressed by invasion, a time when it was necessary to act to “lay the proud usurpers low” and cast off “oppression’s woes and pains”.

When we reflect on Bannockburn in particular we see that the Scots were heavily outnumbered and faced what was perhaps the most effective and best resourced military machine in Europe at the time, drawn up before them to defend privilege. How could this formidable force, the only professional army in Europe at the time, possibly have been defeated?

The answer lies in what forces Scotland could mobilise and motivate for the struggle against it. The adoption of feudal institutions of status and privilege had not been as complete in Scotland as elsewhere and their erosion was more advanced at the time. Defeat would have set the common people of Scotland back generations in terms of their ability to protect their rights. Everyone knew what they stood to gain or lose as a result of the decision reached on the field of battle.

They did not fight because some throne was being usurped. They fought because their rights were being usurped. 700 years ago the mounted elite usurping them hurled themselves upon the massed schiltroms of ordinary people bristling with spears and steadfast with grim determination. 

And at Bannockburn a professional army was beaten by a people's army.

And it was "not for honour, glory or riches" that they fought, "but for freedom, and that alone, which no honest man gives up but with his life". Where Wallace inspired, Bruce Won. So when people wonder what this all means, we can tell them, the meaning of Bannockburn is Victory in service to that ideal.

Which brings us back to today. "Those days are past now, and in the past they must remain." These days we gather like this not for military engagements, but to participate in peaceful and democratic processes.

But we can still see the opponents of Scottish Independence drawn up to defend a UK that is used by the plutocratic elites of today as a means of self-aggrandisement, a UK that is an obsolete delinquent post-imperial anachronism being used as a mechanism for usurping worker’s rights with bank bail outs, corporate tax evasion, artificial austerity, low pay, poverty, food banks, inequality, demonization of the poor, creeping privatisation of public infrastructure that took generations to build, like the NHS, illegal wars, and a politics polluted by cynicism conducted in the shadow of weapons of mass destruction based on the Clyde.

Against all that we see arrayed an unprecedented grass roots movement putting boots on the ground, and a New Scotland being built from the bottom up by this army of hope, through an historic level of authentic political engagement that is awakening and transforming our country. And this New Scotland is guided by values of peace, justice, inclusion, tolerance and solidarity, not by the values of the rat race and the fast buck that steer the quill and tip the balance in Whitehall.

This political engagement is happening in places where today’s cynical plutocratic elites never visit, in places abandoned by a Labour Party that would rather see Scotland governed by Tories than by Scots, a Labour Party that will wallow with any bedfellow in betrayal of their principles.The battle today is being fought on the doorsteps. This political engagement is happening in the schemes, where today’s great schiltroms of support for Scottish Independence are gathering.

And the decision delivered in the referendum on 18th September, 700 years and some few months after Bannockburn, will be their Victory.

Alba gu brath!

Supermassive black swan

As black swan events go, this is the blackest. The blackness is intense. It is not the kind of blackness that comes from simply not reflecting or emitting visible light. This has the blackness of a black hole that swallows all light that falls upon it. This blackness will suck your eyes out of their sockets if you look at it too long, leaving you wandering in the wilderness like Oedipus.

We know how groups can obtain and use positions of authority. A community can find itself at a disadvantage as a result of prejudice or bias, and seek to rebalance the power dynamic. It can be a "revenge of the nerds" type of situation. Or if it is a group identified by ethnicity or religion, perhaps recent immigrants into a city or country, they can join political organisations and become disproportionately represented in positions of political authority to redress the imbalance in the power dynamic that was placing them at a disadvantage due to prejudice. Take for example catholics in early 20th century Glasgow, who were subject to prejudice and so joined the Labour Party. There are inumerable other similiar examples in cities and countries around the world. This is entirely unremarkable.   

But what if we are talking about a group that is not disadvantaged by prejudice, one that already enjoys privileged access to positions of authority. What disadvantage could possibly exist that would require them to subvert the high offices already open to them? It would have to be a need to conceal their acitivities due to moral turpitude and criminality. They are put at a disadvantage not by prejudice, but by entirely appropriate censure, and this is what they seek to overcome. And they have no need to seek political authority to publically promote legitimate interests. They already have political authority which gives them access to all the apparatus of state for the private indulgence of their illegitimate interests. And the revelation of this activity becomes an unexpected political black swan event that changes everything. This black swan has dragon's breath and devastates everything it encounters.  

We have glimpsed the tip of the iceberg here when we look at behaviour of elected members, because these individuals can subvert the apparatus of state to entrain a range of other organisations in their activities that would not otherwise be available to facilitate them. For example, to what extent are the security services, particularly those departments that are effectively unaccountable due to the Byzantine justifications for total secrecy to which they can resort, implicated in colluding and enabling these activities? The Home Secretary has announced an enquiry. What she should have done is redirect the River Thames through the Houses of Parliament, for they are in truth the Augean Stables, and that is what is required to clear out the filth residing there. And once that is achieved, do we need to look down river to Horse Guard's and up river to Millbank?

Epistemology in the kitchen

Kitchens are central concerns in our lives. We are fascinated with cookery programmes. All good parties end up in the kitchen. In mature civilisations, large, protracted, elaborate communal meals are a focal point of family and society. And it is interesting to reflect on why. We are hard-wired to appreciate the consumption of food, not merely as a necessary act of nutrition, but more than that.

I recently watched a TED talk given by Suzana Herculano-Houzel in which she discussed how the relatively large size and energy consumption of the human brain can be sustained. It transpires that it is only by cooking our food that we release enough calories and enable sufficiently rapid access to those calories to sustain the energy consumption of our brains. Without cooking, we would have to forage and munch non-stop and still would not eat enough. Cooking liberates us from this. Cooking is a fundamental part of being human. In this context it is natural to see the evolutionary impulse that causes our fascination with food: not just eating it, but preparing it in ever more elaborate and savoury ways, exploring its possibilities, consuming it as a social activity rather than just a nutritional one, discussing it endlessly, employing it in metaphors, cooking up ideas.

And so it was today in conversation with a colleague that food provided an example of something that is the best response I am aware of to Meno's Paradox. "How did anyone ever work out how to make a meringue?" he asked. It's true, it is difficult to imagine the serendipitous conjunction of events and circumstances that could possibly lead one to the perfect recipe for a meringue. One can just about imagine some ancient cave dweller accidentally encountering a wild boar carcass roasted by the burning trunk of a tree struck by lightning experiencing the culinary "eureka" moment that must have accompanied the discovery of bacon. But no-one can accidentally separate egg whites, whisk them correctly, fold in sugar and cook at a low temperature for the right amount of time.

But what has this to do with Meno's Paradox? In his early Socratic dialogue the Meno, Plato has Socrates reflect on the impossibility of knowledge. We can't learn what we already know, as we already know it, and we can't learn what we don't already know, because we don't know what it is we are trying to find out. This paradox leads to the conclusion that knowledge is impossible, and what we regard as knowledge is in fact recollections of the soul's experience of the perfect world of "Forms", once these ideas are further elaborated in Plato's metaphysical system.

The meringue provides a perfect counterexample to this proposition. If this conclusion were true, we would not have any meringues! The next time you are in the kitchen faced with some culinary dilemma - you find you have run out of coriander and need an alternative, or you need to cater for an unexpected dietary requirement - remember you are engaged in an activity that lies at the heart of what it means to be human: not just cooking food, but cooking up ideas, and embarking upon discovery in humanity's first every laboratory.