Welcome to the UK

The phrase just being said as we switched the TV on this morning was "business as usual" before a sports item came on. From that I assumed that independence had been rejected, although I couldn't be 100% sure, as I had been privately saying that it would feel like that even if it had been "Yes". My other worry had been that it would be politics as usual in an independent Scotland, and I didn't like the thought of a mini-Westminster style of politics in Edinburgh as our inheritance. However a quick check on other channels confirmed our suspicions. I must say, a feeling of relief came over me, as the thought of the massive uncertainties facing us if we had gone independent were just a little daunting to my mind. However, I feel that this is the beginning of a new era for us all.

There can be no going back now on the road to greater devolvement of government as a continuing journey. Too many big promises were made in the last days of the vote here, and the growing desire for greater autonomy in other regions is also going to translate into political response soon. And don't forget the West Lothian question. That will now take on a much higher profile on William Hague's new committee's agenda I think. So, all in all, hopefully a win win ultimately for both no and yes. But I do admit to also feeling the tiniest wee bit of disappointment this morning too. We are funny creatures.

What country will we be in tomorrow morning?

For those of us who actually voted in the referendum today it was something of a momentous occasion, the impact of which we hadn't really been able to anticipate. But in chatting to others, there was a common strand of deep emotion which evidently ran through most of their experience of voting. "My hands were shaking", said one person. "I felt deeply moved as I stood there and looked at the voting paper" said another, and so on. The implications of a vote either way, ran through us. This was different. Governments come and go. Political leaders have their day and say. This had a "once and for all" irrevocable, unchangeable, fixedness about it. We don't readily go there in things so deep. We like to keep our options open. But today we had to commit. We all knew just how much this mattered, and we also cared that everyone else cared too. Again, a common theme was just how much we wanted others to vote, to show their hand, so that whatever happened, we would know that a great many people had shifted or stayed the course of our nation, and not just the usual crowd.

By now the boxes from the tiniest communities are making their sealed way to the counting centres, and soon the media will be fixing their gaze on those spots and flooding the nation with speculation, opinion, and guesswork. I know some people will sit up and with bated breath give the process their rapt attention through the wee hours. Much as is invested in the result, I will not. I can't change the outcome now, and the razor's edge of emotion as the counts swing the overall result one way and then another will not be good for me. Great moments in the history of our nation have come and gone without everyone staying awake throughout their course. It will be strange however going to bed knowing that the morning will bring news of something that matters deeply to all of us, and will change the face of our nation (UK and Scotland, yes or no) for good. Some people are expressing the worry that we will whatever happens wake up a divided nation. I don't think so. We are pretty good, I suspect, at accepting the majority decision, by and large, and working with it together. There will no doubt be some high profile dissenting from the majority view, but that will just help sell papers hopefully.

So I go to bed tonight with the feeling that we've all jumped off a diving board together, into the dark. Let's see where we land.

 

New take on the referendum

In the interests of evenhandedness, and to show that I can be influenced by intelligent, articulately expressed common sense, I share parts of a comment written by Richard Holloway, from a selection of contributions on Independence in the Review in Saturday's Guardian, .

"The referendum debate reminds me of those arguments for and against the existence of God that were such a feature of our cultural scene about 10 years ago. The cases offered in support of either side were rationalisations of convictions reached on other, usually subconscious grounds, which is why they tended to fortify beliefs already held rather than make new converts; and they left agnostics undecided. The same thing seems to be going on here, with the agnostics the group likely to swing the vote, depending on which side they find less satisfactory on the day."
"Economics strikes me as no more conclusive a science than theology, which is why I have been more irritated than enlightened by the use each side has made of the dismal science in the debate; but while the arguments of the yes side may not have persuaded me, the arguments of the no side have propelled me in the opposite direction. Rather than making a positive case for the union, the Better Together campaign has wasted its energy on attacking the idea that Scotland could go it alone, a tactic guaranteed to anger those of us for whom the question was never whether we could, but whether we should."
"And there has been little recognition on the unionist side that the British political system is broken...... Overcentralised Britain concentrates power in ways that are hard to challenge. I support the Catholic principle of subsidiarity: power should be decentralised to the maximum degree; and that's what the soft form of independence on offer will help us achieve."

I can't help but agree with Richard on the force of the arguments so far. Whether or not I've been pushed as far as "yes" I'm not saying. But I do think that more and more people are beginning to agree that the argument isn't really about economics. Maybe it's just about politics.

Let the revolutions begin - end the tyranny no 2: the tyranny of news

I have been fed up with the way the TV and radio, and the newspapers for that matter too, give us our news, for years. The TV and radio are particularly bad. You get a small handful of headlines at the start - maybe 5 or 6, and that, dear reader, is your world news for today. No matter what else has happened, you ain't going to hear about it. And then the rest of the programme is taken up with the special editor for this or that appearing on location, in a hotel, or in front of a meaningful building "somewhere", telling us little more than the newsreader did, followed up by long minutes of speculation and opinion being thrown at us as if it were the news. I guess they think we are more inclined to be impressed by them if they are giving us the news "on location".
Then there is the aggressive interview. Some politician whose party or who personally has done something to make a headline is sat in front of a camera or a microphone and someone like Eddie Mair or John Humphrys fires off questions designed to get one word admissions and headline grabbing scoop statements so they can tell us that we heard it on their programme first. The belligerent aggressive tone of much of the interviewing is breathtaking. Moreover, if the interviewee declines to answer by bodyswerving the question, they are usually asked the same question again at least 4 or 5 times, albeit with slightly different words. But the answer which the interviewer wants to elicit is not so much news as a headline grabber. I want news, not the carousel of questions which the interviewer thinks will enhance his or her reputation.
So what do we do? If you can, you could always switch the news off after you have heard the headlines, because believe you me, you really won't know much more by the end of the programme. Perhaps we could all switch to buying the i, cheap and full of news.
The fact is, the media have trained us to expect and understand news in the way they deliver it. It is a tyranny and a conspiracy. I have heard of a couple of guys who run a news station in the New York I think, and all they do is give brief news headlines when they go on air. Great. And when I want opinions, I can listen to Question Time.....just don't get me started. 

Let the revolutions begin - end the tyranny no. 1: the unsolicited tele-sales call

Right. For all you who hate these calls but are a little unsure of how to deal with them, let me give some advice on how you can get a little fun out of these scourges of our existence.
The first thing you have to remember is that a tele-sales person relies on the fact that you are basically polite, won't tell lies, answer truthfully, and don't want to hang up without some form of closure like "No thanks, goodbye." They are never going to allow you to do that. They have learned to speak non stop for long minutes, and they will only ask you questions to which your ego or innate sense of politeness tells you the answer has to be either "Yes" or "I don't know" either of which will then give them permission to go on at even greater length.  If you happen to be lucky enough to get a recorded sales pitch, then fine, just hang up, they don't count.
The next thing you need to do is when you pick up your phone to answer it, never ever say who you are or even give out your number or any detail at all! This is very important. Say "Hello" and wait, or if you have the bottle, say nothing at all, because it's really up to the caller to greet you and introduce themselves. If it's an unwanted sales call they will ask if you are Mr or Ms John Smith. At this point if they have a wrong name, you just say, "Sorry wrong number" and hang up immediately! If they have the RIGHT name, this is where tactics need to be employed.
First, you ask, "Who is calling?" without having admitted that you are the person they have just mentioned. They then should give you enough information to decide on whether you want to take this call or not. If they don't give you enough information then persist with your questions, ignoring theirs, until you have the info you want. If you don't want to continue with the call, you have a number of options. If they want to sell you some home improvement stuff, double glazing or some such thing, simply say "I'm sorry, I don't own this house." This will probably be true unless you do own it outright and have paid off the mortgage. If you do own it outright, and don't want to tell a fib, or they want to sell you something which is not related to ownership of the property, then you could ask them to repeat who it is they want to speak to. If they ask you outright if you are that person, just say, "Hold on I'll see if he/she is available." That way, you are not lying, just buying yourself time. Put the phone down, and ask yourself if you are available for this particular call. The answer should be "NO" unless you have lost all sense of time, order and priority, and desperately want to hear the sound of another human being. Having decided that you are not available, you pick up the phone and say,"Sorry he/she is not available at this time." If they are quick enough to ask who you are, just say that you are a friend which is true. If they ask when the person might be available you simply say you don't know and need to go now, "Goodbye" and ignore any questions about when might be a good time to call back.
Now, if you want to have a little fun, you could use a different approach, although it does require a little dissembling, which in my book is ok with tele-sales calls. So, when they ask "Is that Mr/Ms/Mrs So and so?" you reply that Mr So and so has just gone to prison, but would welcome the opportunity to talk to this company if they (the caller) can just give you a number to pass on, and said person will phone them from prison if they can do a reverse the charges or free number call. Usually the caller beats a hasty retreat. You can invent any number of different scenarios which will also discourage the caller, like, "He's in the middle of a law suit against a tel-sales company for misrepresentation of goods". Really your imagination is your only limit.
Should the caller be trying to gain access to your computer, this is definitely a scam. Give nothing away. If they ask if you use Microsoft or Word tell them you don't know (act dumb), and do NOT do anything they tell you with regard to your own computer, like type in a code or address they give you. Ask the caller for his or her name - I once got Albert Einstein I kid you not! Then ask for the manager's name. Then ask for the manager's Microsoft Authorisation Code, which if they have the presence of mind to deal with, they will make up on the spot. At that point tell them it has too many (or too few) characters in it to be correct, and hang up.
So, take control of the process, be robust, creative and have fun. 

Communications

I used to think I was quite modern media savvy. I enjoyed emails, texting, online chatting, skyping and skype messaging. I knew how to navigate websites, blogged, and even put content into web pages. But it has been a revelation to me to see how these things have faded in comparison to the way Facebook is used as a way of communicating by Gen Xers and below. I was recently informed that if we in the church want to reach them, inform them, get them into our loops, forget web sites and blogs and get onto Facebook instead. I guess it's not just Facebook either. My falling behind includes Twitter. I don't tweet, yet. Nor does the church, but we are going to have to I reckon. This news is, to my generation, a staggering blow to the use of English and quite threatening to those us who fear the slithey hashtag prefix. Grammar and spelling are blown out of the water, and communication is reduced to fairly instant and ephemeral sound and readbites. But we are not going to change it by complaining. If we don't get on the ship, we won't even be noticed as not being there. I will however continue to blog as it serves very well as a kind of pressure vent for me. I can have my wee bit long winded comment (forgive the Scottish paradox), and then feel better. Besides, I know my generation does not have a monopoly on long windedness. You can hear today's teenagers on the bus having fairly extended rants and outbursts of enthusing too. "Mrs Green is sooo boring. I fell asleep in her class. She just goes on and on and on..." (like you my dear). Or, "I wiz oot o ma head last night. Did ye see Dave totally oot o it tae. Whit a night. Wicked man..." and more of the same, as others join in the game of "outdo" to see who was most drunk. This is NOT a criticism of today's dissolute youth, merely a reflection on the fact that nothing much changes, because we were the same...  except that now we have the ability to be able to communicate this stuff in a medium that truly deserves it. Now, where's the dinosaur park?