Fake News and the Age of Cynicism.

We live in an age where knowledge has never been so widely or cheaply available.  The results are all around us: the computer device you are reading this on, the artificial fabric which keeps most of us warm either in the house or on the street, the car or bus that most take to work.  All fruits of knowledge and the labour of teams of experts who wrought this knowledge into material goods.  Knowing and doing is how most people earn their living.

There is one area of life however where knowledge seems to be unwelcome and that is the public sphere.  Especially in Anglo-Saxon society, it can be considered rude to show off one’s education outside an academic or applied setting.  On one level this is fine: it is an attempt to put others’ at ease who, through whatever circumstances, may not have shared in the advantages of a good education.  In another way, it is also a defence against any bad feeling that may result from excessing erudition.  “Know-it-all”,“too clever by half” or “too clever for his own good” are peculiarly British insults for those deemed boorish or precocious thought the use of too many big words.

It seems though that this suspicion of knowledge and those who possess some (for long gone is the age when anybody can claim to know everything), has moved into a new higher level.  This did not come about by accident but instead has been long in the making.  

The media have had a long history of skewing the news to fit their particular agenda.  When it comes to newspapers that has been long accepted as people are free to purchase the news that appeals to their own sensibility.  As for state-run media, the free-to-air stuff where most people get their daily news, it is more dangerous.  If the facts are tailored to fit the government view, this will work while the the media outlets are still relatively limited.  In the age of the Internet though, that is no longer the case.

Obviously the Internet changed everything and what the world is seen since is a constant struggle for control.  Some nations like China have been particularly heavy-handed with the setting up of the Great Firewall.  Others like Russia have more relied upon monitoring of internal consumers and  that for the majority of the population, English is still not widely spoken or read.

What happens though in the West?  It is impossible to suppress the news completely.  Facts can be challenged and checked.  So the answer is to attack the facts themselves.  This is not a competition between facts so that a path ahead can be mapped out based upon some reason, but rather the undermining of facts by downright contradiction, making it less possible to see reason at all.  

Contradiction and outright lying in politics has of course a long history.  It’s theoretical basis is outlined in the beginning of Plato’s Republic: rulers occasionally have to lie to the population, concealing a current truth in order to bring about a beneficial outcome.  

What happens though when the desired outcome is not beneficial to most, but rather to a narrow clique?  In order for this to be achieved, the last thing that most people should be told is the truth. Instead people will have their prejudices pandered to.  Something going wrong?  It cannot be Our fault can it?  We are wonderful!  It must be Their fault.  It doesn’t really matter who They are, as long as there is a recognisable difference.  The point is that it is Them that are holding Us back.  There might be too many of Them here.  Their culture does not fit with Our culture and ways.  They are a burden on society.  If it wasn’t for Their rules, we would be free to do everything better.   Even worse, the Elite is on Their side!  Elites cite Facts in order to bamboozle ordinary folk like You and Me.  Unless You are one of those who go around citing Facts?  Are You an Expert?  In which case You are a member of the Elite and thus either one of Them or, even worse, a traitor to the rest of Us.

I am not even going to pick a side here to attack.  There are so many to choose from nowadays.  Once political debate is reduced to the Them versus Us, facts and reason no longer matter.  The people who buy into whoever version of this are lost to both.  Instead their opinion is putty in the hands of whoever feeds them dialogue.  It is not even news.  It does not even have to be a version of reality because the motives of anybody who contradicts the dialogue must be acting from the worst of motives.  People have been trained to be cynical.

I will leave you with a suggestion.  If you automatically dismiss everything said by somebody you identify as an opponent.  If you are in the habit of branding certain parties as evil.  If you object to certain people simply by their presence. If you call for freedom from dictatorship without having any clear idea or knowing solid examples of what form that oppression takes.  If you only use facts to further your cause. 

If any one or more of these points rings a bell with you, ask yourself these questions:

Who is doing the thinking for me?  

What do they hope to achieve?  

Why am I not getting the all the facts so I can make up my own mind?

Then go and get those facts and be careful of those who would have you disbelieve that it is possible to do so.  The Internet is here: use it well.

Take the Time

When the World feels like sanity 
Is in short supply 
And reality is a commodity 
That most people 
Has called “Sell” 
Rather than “Buy”. 

This is the time 
When one looks deep 
Into one’s heart 
When self-belief 
Plays its part.
Take the time though 
Take the step back 
From the brink. 
Take that breath 
And look afresh 
At what you know.  

Or what you think you know. 
Consider again the facts 
Consider returning 
Back to the state of unknowing; 
Of admitting that one 
Might be wrong. 
Look at the facts anew: 
Humility is the rarest virtue.

The Royal Yacht Britannia: an Appeal to Boris Johnson

The Rt. Hon Boris Johnson Esq.

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Downing Street West

London SW1A 2AL 25th September 2016

Dear Sir,

It has been reported in the media that you intend to launch consultations on whether the Royal Yacht Britannia should be recommissioned for use as a floating embassy and, possibly, resume her role as a royal yacht.

As a person who has often visited the yacht and can actually see her from my front window, I wish to register my objection to this scheme.

First of all sir, I understand you have some reputation as a historian.  Then you will be aware that current Britannia is serving out her retirement as a museum and she is a beautiful one at that.  On the surface one would expect the exhibits to focus solely on Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her family.  There is far more on offer.  It is not often that a slice of society from the mid 20th Century can be served to the general public in such a layer-cake fashion.  Her Majesty, family and honoured guests at the top, through the officers and ranks, with the poor bloody marines and laundry crew deep in the bowels of the vessel.  

Britannia as a museum is a confection for which the public has great appetite: she is the top tourist attraction in Scotland.  In Leith, where Britannia is moored, there is still areas of great deprivation.  More can be done to make Britannia relevant to the local population but, if she is taken away, so will be jobs and incomes.  One is not solely talking of those directly employed by the company.  Britannia is the centrepiece of the Ocean Terminal shopping mall which is on its way to recovery after the recent economic crisis.  Hotels, restaurants and businesses all benefit from tourism that Britannia brings.  A quick check on accommodation websites, such as AirBnB, shows that in Leith alone there are over 300 rooms being let out by households in the area.  Removing Britannia will be a blow against Leith, people who are trying to make an honest living from hospitality and those who depend upon them.

A recommissioned Britannia will need considerable upgrading.  The oil-fired steam turbines in the engine room are a magnificent museum display and they should remain as such.  My father, who was a chief engineer, was scornful of the technology even in the 1970s.  In marine engineering, one of the greatest advances has been with engines, with their physical size being reduced substantially over recent decades.  Having previously worked with graduates of naval architect schools, it is also certain that the science of fluid dynamics and therefore ship design has seen recent improvements too.  

In a very fundamental sense, Britannia is a ship of her time.  Nowhere more so is on the automation side.  In terms of computation power, a tourist’s average smartphone has far greater capacity than anything designed for Britannia, even in her later days of service.  With recommissioning, the whole pre-digital nature of the vessel will be irrevocably and forever lost.  There are very few complete historical artefacts that can show pre-digital, industrial-era technology at the zenith of design and manufactured quality.  I have not even touched on the necessary upgrades which would have to be performed on the security side and whether they are even feasible in light of today’s threats.

One of the modern success stories of British manufacturing is in luxury yacht design.  As a nation, we have the capability to deliver a brand new, top-class vessel that would serve as a floating bill-board for what our manufacturers are able to deliver today.  If the government should decide that we do need a moveable embassy (which might also double as a new royal yacht), then we should avail ourselves of what we are currently capable of.  Compared to some modern super yachts, while Britannia is undoubted regal, she is also modest in capability.

Time moves on and some things, because of the unique history and perspective that they offer, should be preserved for posterity.  Britannia is one such artefact.  Since I first voiced my opinions on social media, some people of nationalist persuasion have contacted me.  Their perspective is concentrated upon the symbolism of the vessel and what it represents to them in terms of Britishness and royalty.  The attitude is very much “let it go and good riddance".  Frankly it is an attitude that shocks me.  My retort was to point out that even in the Soviet Union, the Russians were smart enough to preserve their royal palaces.  They even painstakingly restored those which were gutted during the Second World War.  I view Britannia as a floating palace whose time of greatness has passed but should be preserved as she is now: at the height of her glory.  

After reading this letter, I hope you will agree with me that the grand old lady that is Britannia deserves the honourable and useful retirement which she currently enjoys.

Yours faithfully,

PS.  I write a blog which covers current affairs.  As such, I will be posting the above letter online and any reply you may make.  MV. 

Grammar Schools and My Father's Education

I have been listening to the radio over the past few days with increasing fury.

Theresa May’s speech, standing on the steps of No.10 Downing Street, spoke of social inclusion and mobility.  I never believed it.  One’s cynicism seems to be borne out with her announcement  on the reintroduction of new grammar schools in England and increased powers for religious schools.

My father was born in 1935 and died in 2001.  He was from Hartlepool in the northeast of England and from a poor background.  He is no longer around for me to check the details but what follows is what can be recalled of his educational experience.

My father must have started school in 1940 and he enjoyed it. Apart from the threat of sudden death from the Luftwaffe and the near constant hunger, he said it, in general, was a great time to be a child.  All the children were covered in a substance called gentian blue - used to treat the resulting sores and general poor skin conditions resulting from the poor diet.

As a child, as he continued to be for the rest of his life, my father was bright.  He did very well at the junior school, that is until the age of ten.  It was then that the class got a new teacher.  For the next academic year, progress stopped completely.  Then the class sat the Eleven Plus exam.  Not one of them passed.

In the autumn, all those who failed went on to the local secondary modern school.  That was not quite true.  As a member of a different class in the school, the headmaster’s son had also failed his exam.  Nevertheless his uniform was bought, he attended the local grammar school and nothing more was said.

At the secondary modern, some pupils continued to get an education.  My father was among those who did not.  This even went as far as sporting activities.  One Wednesday afternoon, cricket was being taught to the selected.  The rest of the pupils were literally being ignored.  My father went up to the pile of spare equipment, got a couple bats, ball, wickets etc. and set up an alternative game.  One of the teachers noticed.

“What are you doing Veart?”
“Playing cricket sir.”

The teacher turned around and continued to ignore the group.

At the age of fourteen, my father left school without qualification and worked in an office as a gopher - go for this, go for that.  At seventeen he worked his day job and attended night school.  The lecturers was also the maths and and science teachers at the local grammar.  They used to say stuff like “I wish my pupils worked as hard as you lot do!”  Graduating with an Ordinary National Diploma, it was enough to get a job as an marine engineering apprenticeship.  This led eventually to a chief engineer’s ticket and a life at sea.

There wasn’t many people who had cars in the 40s and 50s.  My family certainly did not own one.  The observation was made that in Hartlepool, if the family had a car, any children went to grammar school.

To return to today, I simply do not understand May’s argument that the reintroduction of grammar schools will lead to greater social mobility.  Those who are better off will always find ways to preserve their privilege.  To an extent, that is human nature.  We should not be setting up new systems that allows privilege to be so easily preserved at the taxpayers expense.  

I am the first in my family to go to university and gain a degree.  An opportunity my father never had.

Liberal Democrats have already stated we will oppose these moves.  The reintroduction of English grammar schools is a retrograde step and should be opposed by any with a progressive outlook.

My Own Edinburgh Fringe - a Review.

Writing this on the final official day of the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, I’m sitting in my small yard under a clear blue sky.  It is the August bank holiday for most of the UK but not for us here.  Never say that the Scottish weather does not have a sense of humour.My personal circumstances in the past year has been none too bright.  Having being made redundant from the oil business (along with tens of thousands of others) at the end of 2015, frankly it has been a struggle to find a paid position.  I have been through all the usual routes, had my C.V. checked and redrafted and done voluntary unpaid work to keep my profile up.  None to any lasting avail.  So when I was approached to do some review writing for the Fringe, I was both surprised and thought “Why not?”

It would be fair to say that this opportunity did not come through my work as a geophysical engineer.  As part of the 2015 general election, all the candidates were interviewed on local radio.  One of the guys who carried out the inquisition, Dan Lentell, has kept in contact since.  Owing to my blogging activity here, he must have seen some transferable skills.  I was therefore asked to to sign up as a contributor to the website edinburgh49.com and send in some material for their +3 page.  Press accreditation was part of the deal.

The world of theatre is new to me.  By shear coincidence, last winter I was fortunate enough to meet a stalwart of the business, Jack Klaff, who I got to know a little over a few days.  As it happened, Jack had put together a panel of top media critics which gathered for a discussion of current issues at Summerhall on the 15th of August.  This, I decided, would have be a must see event before I wrote a single word .  It was a good decision.  Hearing the combined wisdom of professional critics helped me put together an initial framework in which to operate.   It also enlightened me as to the challenges that is being faced by criticism in the 21st Century.  In the 1980s, a critic writing for the press was paid 10p a word and could make several hundred pounds a week.  Nowadays, with the press losing money, theatre criticism is often unpaid by the big online websites and is being cut completely many of the long-established papers.  This is important because artists need criticism.  This isn’t only for the publicity involved but to improve their material.  Independent voices and a disinterested opinion are important: especially for artists who are starting and those branching out into different fields of the industry.   Artists come to the Edinburgh Festival not to make money - all but the biggest names lose cash hand-over-fist.  They come to make a name and in the hope of a good review, or failing that, at least an honest and informed one.  

Armed with these new insights, I went that evening to my first ever show as a reviewer.  Clare Plested in her character-based comedy Flock Up.   I like Clare and like what she is doing.  There is huge potential there.  The show has its issues though and I hope my review reflects accurately both the positives and negatives involved.

The second challenge that I have had to address is writing to format.  Being a newbie, it took time for me to understand what was being asked and the reasons behind them.  This sometimes led to exasperation for the editors because of lack of mutual understanding and, on occasion, my failure to account for every detail.  It was a tough learning curve.  However, I wish to record here my public appreciation and thanks for their support, criticism and patience.  As the process went on, one would like to think the quality of my submissions improved.  Thank you Steve Griffin and Dan.

When I went into this, I knew from the start that reviewing shows would not be an easy gig.  It takes time: a lot of time.  I live in Edinburgh but even so, the process of obtaining tickets, travel and being at a venue ready to work is not being on a jolly.  When watching a show, it is not simply a case of sitting back and enjoying.  Notes have to be taken: recording the act, the staging and technology involved.  One has then to digest the material, consider the themes, message and intent of the writers and whether the artists successfully portrayed this to the audience.  Then comes the actual writing: the task of informing the readership of what it is like to be there, as well as conveying, with both intelligence and kindness, own’s own view.  I am certain that all this would become faster and smoother with experience but even so, this old dog has many tricks to learn.  Reviewing is certainly not a process to be entered into lightly.

Reviewing has also led me to a renewed admiration and appreciation of what the artists go through.  Showtime is just the pinnacle of their labour and being live in front of an audience is a culmination of months, perhaps years of effort and hard work.  In this at least I have some direct experience.  It is said that politics is show business for ugly people and through my own background, I am aware of the depth of knowledge and experience that is required to be in front of an audience and give a reasonable account of oneself.

It is my political experience that can sometimes also lead to insights on the more negative side of reviewing.  The one show I saw and paid to go to was Jonathan Pie - Live.  Pie is a character created by actor and writer Tom Walker.  Pie’s rants on You Tube became famous last autumn at the time when Westminster was voting on whether to enter the war in Syria.  I decided not to revue the show and just kick back and enjoy it because I was with company.  Besides, I had just seen Guy Masterson and didn’t want to risk messing up that write-up by over-burdening myself.  The show was fantastic and, what is more, Walker was unexpectedly very kind to my own party, the Liberal Democrats.  Next day, I noted this on a Libdem Facebook page and while most people took it at face value, others were decided sniffy about Walker.  Apparently the character of Jonathan Pie got his big break on Youtube from R.T. (formerly Russia Today) and some consider Walker to be disloyal to the UK for taking Russian money.  Walker is seen by some to be a willing tool of Russian propaganda.  A cynic might suspect that the two-stars awarded to his show by the Guardian (among others) is a reflection of this.  It was no two-star show I saw that evening and many other people I have spoken to who saw it seem to agree.

But what do I know?  I’m just a beginner.

Post Brexit Blog

After the Brexit vote I needed a vacation.  Thanks to the generosity of my family, I got a week away somewhere hot.

A week wasn't long enough.  Leave the country to it's own devices for a week and everything goes to hell.  There is a completely new, unelected government.  It may have been constitutionally legal but make no mistake: this is not the government voted for by people in 2015.  Owing to the first-past-the-post voting system for Westminster, both the Conservative and Labour parties cover too much of the political spectrum.  With a more representative voting system, each would split into at least two separate parties.

Just as we see the right of the Conservative party take over from the Cameron regime, Labour is openly split between its social democratic (let's be kind here and not refer to them as Blairites)  and socialist wings.  Corbyn's total ineffectiveness in the Commons has led to the open revolt among the majority of Labour's MPs.  His power is indeed with the membership and, just as with the Tories, it is obvious that the only thing hold Labour together at this time is the necessity of gaining power at Westminster.   The Trident debate was especially jaw-dropping. In anybody else's world, the sight of MP after MP rising up from benches behind and each plunging in the dagger would have led to Corbyn's immediate departure.  Not so for Jeremy: for unlike Caesar his power lies not with the senate but as a tribune of the people.  It may be a sad day for Labour but the realisation may finally dawn that it is the election system itself that is causing the failure of democracy within both parties.

May didn't even have to face an election but rather nimbly stepped over the political corpses of her enemies as they either did each other in or fell upon their own swords.  I am still considering the resuscitation of Boris Johnson though: whether it was an act of crassness or supreme genius.  I think it was more the latter.  In terms of foreign diplomacy, it was as crass as when the last Bush administration selected arch-critic of the UN, John Bolton, to be the US ambassador in New York.  In terms of Conservative party politics, Johnson did more than any other politician to bring about the surprise Brexit vote and this was done by betraying his friend and long-term ally David Cameron.  May may have little love for Boris but she is smart enough to know to keep enemies close and to keep them busy; which is  something Cameron failed to do and is exactly what Boris will be for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile here in Scotland Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP must be feeling it is all going rather swimmingly.  The nation voted to remain in the EU, Labour is in disarray and the Conservatives' move to the far right has even put political distance between the SNP own austerity regime (rigorously denied but still ongoing) and the Brexiteers down south.   Indeed an envious position to be in but not without peril, for now is the real test for the SNP.   Are they a real party of leadership, working for the best for Scotland or is their only raison d'être to separate Scotland from England?
If Sturgeon decides to go for an early second referendum  independence referendum (#Indyref2 in the parlance of our times), it might well be won.  It will also prove that this is the SNP's only sole and narrow aim, for the economic arguments against independence are far stronger now than in 2014.  The decommissioning of the North Sea oil fields are ahead of expectation, despite celebration at the oil price faster-than-expected rise to about $50 per barrel.  Uncertainty over Brexit and even the prospect of a second Scottish referendum will make matters worse.

A more powerful and better solution would be to seek an accord with Northern Ireland and work, hard, to keep Scotland and Northern Ireland both in the Union and the EU.  Both the North and the Republic of Ireland have been put into a terrible situation by the Brexit vote, as not only trade but the whole peace situation is in peril if the land border is reinstated.  Since Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU, a smarter solution would be move the EU land border to the mainland, between Scotland and England.  This could be achieved if the United Kingdom becomes a federal union.

One of the more risible soundbites made by SNP supporters at this time is "I am an Internationalist because I am a Nationalist."   People who say this either do not know the meaning of nationalism or internationalism, as they are mutually exclusive.  The EU is an internationalist organisation in the true sense of the word.
The latter observation leads us to the real cause of the Brexit vote and that is the rise of nationalism across the globe.  The far right, in the UK, in Europe and in the US (make no mistake: Donald Trump is a far right nationalist) are gleeful at the outcome.  They see Britain's exit as the start of the end for the European Union.  Parties across Europe have been emboldened to work harder for this end with Marine Le Pen in France being particularly enthused.

We live in dark times but I am glad that, despite disagreements on individual decisions and policies, I am a member of the Liberal Democrats: the only UK-wide party campaigning for a Britain with a continuing future in the European Union.  As Paddy Ashdown so graphically put it, we were roadkill after the 2015 election but, with the rise of nationalism my party has been consistent in opposing it, wherever it has arisen.  We are the internationalist party and will continue to be so.

If you support Britain being in the European Union and an have a believe in international cooperation instead of competition, you should join us.  https://libdems.secure.force.com/LiberalDemocrats/NewMemberRegistration

This Week: The Highs and Very Lows

This week has seen some of the best and worst of people and politics.

My own week started on Leith Links, campaigning with the Edinburgh North, East and Leith Liberal Democrats.  Given that the EU referendum is coming up, we decided to put our efforts into supporting the Remain campaign.  Always the party with the greatest enthusiasm for the European Union, I found it a real pleasure engaging people on the subject.

Even those who didn't want to know the Libdems (I know, hard to believe!) were usually willing to talk on Europe.  My approach was straightforward.  Those who were undecided were offered, and glad to accept, information on the matter.  We had brochures, leaflets and we're glad to answer questions.   People who had already decided to vote to stay were offered rather tasteful lapel badges with stickers and balloons for the children.

It was those who intended to vote for Brexit that were really engaged.  I always asked "Why?"   Now some would not be talked to, offering a stream of thoughts as they departed.  Most did stop and explain their reasoning.  The amount of misinformation about the EU is rather scary.   One person was not even aware that the European Parliament was elected and was seriously surprised that the next election for the Parliament would be in 2018, after they had missed the 2014 elections.   Others had to be reassured that the UK did have full control of non-EU immigration. One person raised the question of anti-social behaviour (littering) by some young Eastern Europeans, to which I countered "That is against the law so why aren't we applying own own laws?"  Countering minor nuisances like this doesn't depend upon the nationality of those causing it.

The result was that over half of those who had claimed to be solid No voters went away with a different point of view.  It was a good result and shows the value of real facts and direct conversation.

The next morning was the start of the lows.  News of a mass shooting came through from Orlando.  There had already been the murder of promising young singer, 22-year-old Christine Grimmie,  in the same town, earlier in the week.  It seems a perverse coincidence that there would be another incident there so soon.  As the details arose throughout the day, the full horror became clear.  The biggest mass killing by a single shooter on US soil was a homophobic hate crime.  From my viewpoint, LGBT+ rights are simply human rights.  I know that the gunman, whose name frankly should be forgotten, claimed to act in the name of ISIS but, giving the previous involvement that the murderer had with the Pulse club, perhaps that was just to give some self-justification for the atrocity he had decided to commit.

America, I don't think the root cause of the problem is the amount of guns in society, although that is a massive factor.  Rather it is the general attitude toward the value of human life.  It took two mass killings in the UK, thirteen in Australia, before guns were banned in the respective nations, with widespread public support.  It seems to us abroad, despite the continuation of the phenomena, despite the anguish of the parents and relatives of the dead, the attachment to firearms continue.  Perhaps since the right to bear arms was as part of a trained militia, that the only legal weapons should be flintlock muskets and civil war pistols.  Seriously though, military grade weapons have no purpose in civilian hands.  I remember that assault-grade weapons, such as a BAR, used to be sold with only three-round magazines for civilian collectors.  The only reason one can see to change that was to sell more weapons and bullets.  An AR-15 comes with a 30-round magazine as standard.
It might be naive to suggest a total ban but a handgun is more than enough for those who feel the need for personal protection.  Taking military grade weapons off the open market would finally signal a change in American attitudes.  Even that is too much for the NRA, arms dealers and their cronies in the Congress and Senate.   In my opinion, any society that does not value human life is the last society that should have open access to firearms.

From horrors like the massacre at the Pulse Nightclub, sometimes beauty comes forth.  Such beauty was the reaction.  Vigils were held across the world and I would like to thank the Edinburgh branch of Inclusive Networks for organising Wednesday's event, held in St.Andrew's Square.  The event was open to all and people of all ages and genders attended in large numbers, despite the unpleasant and dreich weather.  Two choirs, Loud&Proud and Edinburgh's Gay Men's Chorus, sang wonderfully and there were speeches from politicians and non-politicians alike.  The most moving part was the reading of the names.  Stalin was right: numbers are just a statistic.  Hearing the names, hearing how young and how much life would have been ahead of the fallen, that for me was important.  I turned fifty this week so in a position to fully appreciate how much life, how many futures, were taken.  For many LGBT+ people the massacre was also a violation of a haven: an area where one could relax and just be oneself in a safe and supportive environment.  It is a shame that such places are still necessary but, despite what has been achieved over the last fifty years, it is so.  We are still not in a society where neither the life not dignity of every individual is respected by all.

The following day (which was my birthday anniversary) I attended the afternoon's political rally held by the IN campaign.  This rally was symbolically very important because of its cross-party nature.  Chaired by Scottish Libdem leader Willie Rennie: Greens, Conservatives, SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrats were all represented by senior party figures.  For Labour it was Scottish party leader Kezia Dugdale and for the Liberal Democrats it was Nick Clegg.  Whatever views you may have about Nick (mine are mixed), he is a brilliant speaker.  Sitting next to me was a lady from the SNP who breathed a none-too-subtle "Oh my God" when Nick was a little way into his speech.  By the end she was clapping enthusiastically.

More importantly though, while all five parties want to see different outcomes from the European Union, we are all united in wanting to see it work and Britain to be an important member and leader in Europe.

I am immodest enough to note my own question was well received.  A few days before the "Official Information About the Referendum" leaflet from Vote Leave came through my letterbox.  Noting in my preamble it had ended up in the bottom of my canary's cage, I asked how best to challenge the misinformation held within it.  One example is that it stated that Turkey is set up to join the EU.  This is a lie: Turkey is nowhere near fulfilling the criteria for EU membership despite decades of negotiation.  More disturbingly, the leaflet notes the positions of Syria and Iraq in relation to Turkey.  This is beyond EU debate: it is nothing less than an appeal to xenophobia and I asked, with a week to go, how best to fight this aspect.  I appreciate Willie giving me the opportunity to put the question, which was well-answered by Nick.

At the start of the event, Willie Rennie informed the hall that there had been an attack on Jo Cox MP, to considerable shock and dismay.  None of us knew that by that time she had already died of her wounds, leaving a husband and two small children.  It was only in the late afternoon, tuning into PM and hearing Jo Cox's maiden speech being broadcast, that I knew then she was dead.

I didn't know Jo Cox but have no reason to disbelieve any of the tributes being made of her.  I am sure had she lived, that she would have made a great contribution to public life.  What shook me was the violence and manner of her death.  Members of parliament (and we now have several parliaments across the UK) come from the public and are at their best when serving the public.  They have to be available and approachable, which of course leaves them vulnerable.  When it comes to security, I think it should be up to each member of parliament to speak with the police and make the arrangements that they feel most comfortable with.   What should not happen is that members of parliament are cut off from the open access that is currently afforded.

I have stood for parliament a few times now and have yet to be elected.  Perhaps it will never happen, who knows.  It should be noted that most people who stand are aware that that they will not be elected.  We stand in order to propagate and promote the ideas, to lay the groundwork for party success in the future.  That may involve personal success but nothing is guaranteed.  If we were doing it for personal gain, we would be idiots.  There are some exceptions of course, especially when a given party is at its zenith of fortune, but on the whole what I say stands.  The vast majority of candidates do it for love and a wish to serve, not for money and certainly not for the glory.

When out on the hustings, in street, on the doorstep, one is vulnerable.  I have been pretty lucky: never having suffered personal abuse nor intimidation.  Most people are very nice; regardless of what they may think of one's personality or politics.   My fortune should not be taken for granted.   I personally know two candidates, standing in the 2016 elections here in Scotland, one of which who suffered intimidation after an otherwise civil hustings, and another who had to undergo the humiliation of racial abuse as the spoiled ballets  were being shown to all candidates.  The former was a woman and of course the latter comes from a BAME background.  Both cases are an outrage and I am aware that perhaps one reason I have not had similar experiences is because being white, male, straight and solidly-built (okay, a bit fat), such abuse does not come my way.  I have unearned privilege but I am aware of this and working for a society where such humiliations are not heaped upon other heads.

Listening to the news this evening, it was stated that the killer of Jo Cox was, during the 1990s, involved with the US Neo-Nazi group The National Alliance.  Now I remember this bunch.  They were the real-deal, full-fat Aryan white supremacists.  While at university, by accident I discovered the group online and, being blonde and blue-eyed, I felt it incumbent upon myself to disagree with these bastards.  If Jo's murderer was indeed involved with this group and paid real money for their publications, I find it extremely easy to believe that, unless he had undergone a Damascene conversion in the years since, that he would be a supporter of today's Britain First.  In their own way they are just as vile and nasty as The National Alliance was then.

I started this week in campaigning mode for the Vote Remain and Scotland Stronger in Europe teams.  It didn't turn out that way.  This week is a ghastly, horrible, reminder that as a society we may feel that we have come far from how things were in my youth.  In reality we haven't.  The demons of hatred, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny are still with us.  Their chains have become loosened, resulting in the deaths of many.

It is up to every single one of us to continue the fight against hatred, in all its forms.  We do not win by hating back.  Hatred is defeated through knowledge, wisdom and love.  Love is love.