Various people seem to be of the opinion that if Scotland becomes independent the United Kingdom comes to an end.

This is not my understanding.

When southern Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1922 there was no change in status of the United Kingdom (the new title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland being affirmed in a 1927 Act of Parliament).

Therefore the United Kingdom will continue, whatever the result of the Scottish referendum.

Overnight stay

Above: overnight stay at a country-house hotel in Buckinghamshire. The house has a long history, and was once used by an exiled French king. Arrived late afternoon, the damp January day adding a melancholy air to the beautiful landscape.



Above: on a nearby knoll, as if it were a garden ornament, was the local parish church dressed in Strawberry Hill gothic. It was not raining, but there was a persistent drip of water from the trees, condensed droplets from the mist.  A cold damp melancholy day.




Above:  inside the rooms were very grand.  Hardly any other guests, so it seemed as if we had the place to ourselves.  After dinner I walked the enfilade of state rooms looking out at the gardens ethereal in the moonlight.



Above:  fabulous gothic staircase.  One of the waiters said the hotel is used as an overflow for Chequers (no idea if that is true or not).  Another waiter said Margaret Thatcher came here to write her memoirs (again, no idea if this is true).



Above:  I slept well, and waking the next morning I drew back the curtains to look out at the view.  I could have sat on that window seat for hours, so mesmerising was the countryside.  Although the morning was cold the freshness of the air was exhilerating.



Above:  drawing back more curtains I found a narrow door that led onto part of the roof.  Pot plants and garden furniture.  Despite the dampness I made myself a cup of coffee (UHT milk) and sat out in this private little terrace.

Then I showered, dressed, and went down to breakfast.

How can they use another country's currency?

Above:  statue of Ariel (from The Tempest) on top of a cupola at the Bank of England.

Earlier today I watched Andrew Neil's Sunday Politics which discussed what currency an independent Scotland might use.  The SNP insists they will use the Pound Sterling ("Sterling is a convertable currency and we would be using it" said an MSP interviewed on the programme - I didn't catch his name).  But how can they use another country's currency?  What are the mechanics whereby notes and coins are going to find their way into Scottish banks and cash points?  Are they going to buy pounds from the Bank of England?  If so, presumably they will have to pay for them in gold?

Or will they have their own version of the Pound (the "Poond" as suggested in yesterday's Guardian), print their own banknotes and fix the value to the Pound Sterling?  This will presumably cause them a lot of problems as Alex Salmond's administration is a big spender.  A PWC report in 2009 said that the public sector in Scotland was 50% of GDP - what will the credit rating agencies make of all this?

The SNP's strategy is to steer discussion away from issues such as the currency and focus on the process of the referendum.  For instance there is currently a lot of sidestepping about when they are going to talk to the Westminster government about the legality and fairness of the way the referendum will be run.  If there are to be extra questions on the referendum paper then surely a question on the currency must be a priority?

Mostly a "tarting up" of existing campaigns - the past week at work

Monday 

When I arrived at the office this morning I was met by Campaign Manager Callum Smith and talking to him took up the first hour.  Then a drive across the city to a digital printer who was producing another of the Institute's reports.  Because many of the reports are quite specialised they have small print-runs and limited distribution.

When I returned from the printer it was to go into a meeting with Campaign Managers Callum Smith and Keith Chandler and the Institute's Director Vijay Singh.  I was conscious of not having much to contribute.  One of the items they discussed was whether to do more press releases ("we find we are more effective when we work behind the media instead of putting our stuff in the media").

I rang my last employer (the NGO) to remind them I had not had my final payment.

The afternoon was quite hectic as I prepared for the exhibition the Institute is attending this weekend (I will not be going).  A problem was the stream of wrong information that I kept getting from Keith Chandler.  He is not a "details" sort of person.

 

Tuesday

The warm weather prevented me from sleeping.  I woke at 3am and just dozed until 7.  I have even turned off the heater in my bedroom and removed the eiderdown from my bed. 

In the morning a meeting with Vijay Singh to fix my priorities for the rest of January.  It is a relief to work with someone who is consistent.  He is a mysterious character, saying little about why he is involved with the Institute.

Lunchtime I went to a service (half-hour Holy Communion) at a local church - cavernous and High Church, with lots of Marianist touches.  Holy water just inside the door.  The altar-piece was Edwardian - a Madonna and Child (Mary holding a pomegranate) with nasturtiums and what looked like periwinkles).

Work on the Institute's various databases of opinion-formers.

Wednesday

During the morning a meeting with Campaign Manager Callum Smith.  We got on very well and outlined the various campaigns he wants to take place over the next six months (some new initiatives, but mostly a "tarting up" of existing campaigns).  Then we were called into Vijay Singh's office to watch a presentation about a problem area he wishes us to address.

In the afternoon I finally got the literature done for the exhibition this weekend.

Thursday

The leaflets for the exhibition were delivered by the digital printer (we had to pay rush charges to get them done in time).  Several compliments about the leaflets from various people.  A rehearsal for the exhibition held in Vijay Singh's office (I just sat at the back and watched).

In the afternoon there was little to do so I allowed myself to relax (and do nothing).

Friday

Because most people from the Institute had aready left to go to the exhibition I took today as holiday.  At home I used the day to catch up with my work for two freelance clients I give marketing advice to.  These two clients pay me more than the Institute, and only take a few hours each month, but the work could end at any moment.

Joan McAlpine will be Chairing the Committee on Un-Scottish Activities

I watched the Parliament Channel while waiting for Dateline London to come on.  It was a session from the Scottish Parliament.  And there was Joan McAlpine in the notorious incident where she says people who do not agree with the SNP are "anti-Scottish".

Presumably if Scotland does become independent Joan McAlpine will be Chairing the Committee on Un-Scottish Activities.

However, the incident does identify one flaw in the SNP - Alex Salmond does not have complete control of his party and various individuals are liable to make embarrasing off-message remarks.

How many of these remarks will be necessary to bring his party down - the number is not great.

Douglas Alexander made Nicola Sturgeon squirm over some statement about patriotism made in the Scottish parliament "by Alex Salmond's aide".

Not sure what this is all about, but it made the Deputy First Minister squirm.

Nicola Sturgeon rather wasted her opportunity to talk about Scottish independence by joshing with Kelvin McKenzie and making silly comments about the World Cup (she is not good a humour).

Question Time

I am watching Question Time - David Dimbleby has just made Kelvin McKenzie look a complete idiot over whether Labour needs its Scottish seats to form a government.

John Swinney just huffed and puffed

At lunchtime I watched the BBC's Andrew Neil interview MSP John Swinney about the Scottish referendum.

John Swinney was unable to answer any of the questions put to him.

It was a pathetic performance.

So far the SNP ministers have just had deferential local media to deal with.  To have someone of the stature of Andrew Neil actually in the Edinburgh parliament building asking them hard questions is an entirely new development.  John Swinney just huffed and puffed.

The referendum campaign is going to last until "autumn" 2014.  It will be a bruising experience for the SNP, and one they may not survive in the long run (unless they get their policies seriously sorted out).  One thousand days of squirming and trying to change the subject is going to make them look ridiculous.

Alex Salmond's contemptuous rejection of David Cameron's offer of a referendum within eighteen months may prove to have been a miscalculation.

The referendum campaign has begun in earnest

Above:  Alex Salmond is supposedly Scotland's most popular politician, but to my eyes he appears pompous and very slightly camp.  His party have appropriated the Scottish flag as their emblem, although this is clearly an improper use of the saltire.  Because Scotland is such a small world politically, it is difficult for a critical press to operate - "difficult" journalists tend to get frozen out.

It would appear that David Cameron set a trap for the SNP and Alex Salmond walked right into it.


By making an issue of the timing of a referendum, David Cameron has provoked the nationalists into announcing (in a way that brooks no argument) that the plebiscite will be in the last quarter of 2014. Now that the date has been announced the referendum campaign has begun in earnest, and all the areas that the SNP has so far preferred not to discuss (border arrangements, Euro membership, debt allocations etc) are going to come under intense scrutiny. The length of the campaign is also likely to count against the SNP as there are a number of contradictions in the independence argument that they are now obliged to address in some detail.

The date of the referendum, the number of questions to be asked, the electorate that will qualify to vote, and the electoral monitoring authority are all areas that are now being prised from Alex Salmond’s grasp.

To look at these in turn:

Although a late date for the referendum is supposed to be to the SNP’s advantage this is not necessarily so. The “arc of prosperity” (central to SNP economic policy) is not likely to return any time soon, and a longer campaign is going to tell more heavily on the nationalists than on the unionists. Also, by provoking the SNP on an issue of relatively minor importance David Cameron has made Alex Salmond appear obdurate and unreasonable.

The number of questions on the referendum paper is a crucial element, and it is by no means certain that Alex Salmond will get more than a simple Yes or No question. Although the SNP won a mandate for a referendum on independence, they do not have a mandate to ask additional questions. And if more questions are to be added, why just one additional question on “Devo Max”? Why not ask whether an independent Scotland should join the Euro, or become a republic, or indeed whether the new country should remain in the EU (since in the last poll on the subject a majority of Scottish people wanted to leave the EU)? Alex Salmond says that the wording of the question needs to be decided “in Scotland” but this is not entirely correct. The Coalition government has a legal duty of care to ensure that the referendum is carried out fairly and democratically. Alex Salmond cannot complain that Westminster has this duty of care as the “reserved power” over constitutional issues was in the Devolution settlement of 1997 which Alex Salmond himself campaigned for. If Westminster failed to exercise a proper duty of care then they would be open to legal challenge and the referendum itself could be declared by the courts as invalid. So it is very far from certain whether the SNP are going to get their way over the wording.

On the issue of whether 16 and 17 year-olds should be given a vote in the referendum, this appears (to my eyes) as a blatant attempt at gerrymandering and may well backfire on Alex Salmond if he insists of the point. In any case, young people do not tend to vote. And if the point if conceded that the electorate should be widened, why not also include people born in Scotland who now live elsewhere?

The issue of whether the referendum should be monitored by the Electoral Commission or not is another area where public opinion is surely going to favour the status quo (the alternative would be to risk Scotland looking like a banana republic where dodgy electoral fixes take place).

Adela Quested

I have seen the film Howards End many times, but I had not read the book until last week.

In one of the early chapters EM Foster describes a luncheon of blue-stocking women, and one of the party is referred to as "Miss Quested" who plays an unidentifed musical instrument.

Is this the same Adela Quested from Forster's A Passage to India?  If so, it helps to explain the development of one of the most complex and enigmatic characters of twentieth-century literature.  Howard's End was written in 1910 and A Passage to India in 1924, so assuming Miss Quested was 20 in the first book, she would have been 34 in the second - just desperate enough to go out on the "fishing fleet" to India.

A Passage to India is on one of the satellite channels on 29th January.

Watching Nicola Sturgeon on Newsnight, she is saying that the proposals on the independence referendum have "backfired" on David Cameron.  That the government is in "disarray" over the issue.  That it is already back-tracking.

And yet everything we know about David Cameron indicates he has probably laid a trap for the SNP.

It's been a week since I made my New Year's Resolutions, which included not buying any books for a whole year.

And yet I still find myself hanging onto book catalogues which continue to entice me.


A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology - Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past by Margarita Diaz-Andreu.

Ancient Rome as a Museum - Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting by Steven Rutledge.
   
Rural Settlements and Society in Anglo-Saxon England by Helena Hamerow.

I wonder if other addicts have this craving?

"This is of course confidential" - the past week at work

Tuesday

The long Christmas and New Year finally over.  The weather, a loud storm, kept me awake so that I didn't get much sleep.  When I got up at 6.30 the storm was still raging although the temperature seemed fairly mild.

Thirty mile drive to my new job, which is at an Institute located in an office on an Enterprise Park in a nondescript city.  I was immediately welcomed by Office Manager Bridget O'Farrell (tallish, slim, aged about twenty-five, fair curly hair cut short and boyish, green eyes, very freckled face and arms).  She showed me my new desk, brought me some coffee, told me all the general office things I needed to know.

A tall young man (a boy really) came up and introduced himself as IT and Accounts Assistant John Johnson.  He gave a rough overview of the technical facilities available.  He then set up my new work e-mail (I declined the offer of an official mobile phone as I can barely keep track of my own one).

Then Bridget took me on a tour of the offices, introducing me to the twenty-nine staff who were in that day (the Director of the Institute was out all day).

A programme of briefings had been arranged for me, and I spent the rest of the morning talking to Development Manager Tim Watts (aged about thirty, short ginger hair, very pale blue eyes).  He was hesitant and unsure about what he should tell me.  Everything he said was prefigured "this is of course confidential".

In the afternoon a briefing with Campaign Manager Keith Chandler (aged thirty-eight, ex-RAF, very hearty, well-built, double-breasted dark suit, moustache clipped short in the military style).  He gave me a not entirely coherent description of forthcoming projects.  He told me I would enjoy working at the Institute.

When 5 o'clock arrived I went home.

Wednesday

The new journey to work is congested, so that I had to wait in a line of traffic just to get into the city.

I was due to have another meeting with Keith Chandler this morning but he put it off, while at the same time giving me vague requests to produce some literature.  I rewrote a letter of his that needed some care in drafting.  Then I looked through the library of reports produced by the Institute over the years.

In the afternoon a briefing meeting with Lois Cooper, Deputy Director (aged about fifty-five, fairly stout, no-nonsense attitude).  She had started at the Institute about ten years ago as a PA and gave me a history of the organisation - a tremendous start, then some years of stagnation, and then the current regime.  She explained that funding was key and when the money ran out (as it sometimes does) everything stops until they can get some more.

Broadly the Institute researches areas of interest, develops policy ideas, and promotes these ideas in various campaigns.

Thursday

Limited parking spaces at the Institute so that I have learned to arrive early.

At my desk I began to plan the layout of a booklet, and also plan an exhibition stand (both of these were for Keith Chandler).

Then into a meeting with Director Vijay Singh (aged about forty-five, chubby face with glasses, very shrewd).  He gave an overview of the Institute's work and how he wants it to develop.  He then talked about what my contribution would be - research, literature production and PR.

The meeting with Vijay Singh lasted all of the day, and when it ended I went home.

Still the mild storm rages.

Friday

Most of the morning I spent compiling a newsletter which is to be given out at an exhibition.  This entailed a lot of discussion with Keith Chandler, who is so disorganised he is infuriating.  Vijay Singh interrupted one of the meetings to give me a list of people at a "sister organisation" he wants me to cultivate.

Drama when the bickering on the Accounts desks (other side of the floor from me) broke out into swearing and shouting.  Marcia Walsh, who supervises the section, ordered the two miscreants (who included John Johnson) into an empty room close to my desk ("Get into that office NOW").  Through the thin partition I could hear sobbing from the female Accounts clerk and lots of self justification. 

Although it was a trivial scene, and soon over, it was at variance with the sober, almost staid, image the Institute has.

Another long meeting with Vijay Singh who explained the complex relationship we have with a big national organisation that currently provides most of our funding.

As I came out of the meeting John Johnson crept past me into Vijay Singh's office, presumably wanting to get his version of events in first before any recriminations begin.

Not sure who is advising Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on her personal style (perhaps no-one is) but she should avoid wearing eliptical glasses with pointy sides.  They make her eyes look spiteful, and that is surely not what she wants.  Especially as many of her comments are barbed.

When I turned over onto BBC2 this evening I caught the end of Never Mind The Buzzcocks with a loud-mouth presenter screaming out the f-word.

Then Newsnight began and Emily Maitlis (in a quotation) used the b-word.

The second incident seemed by far the more shocking.

Difficult to see how Diane Abbott can retain her post in the Shadow Cabinet

Difficult to see how Diane Abbott can retain her post in the Shadow Cabinet following accusations of racism on social media.

Have just watched BBC News 24 and the presenter Matthew Amroliwala pointed out to Keith Vaz MP that Diane Abbott had admitted the comments were offensive by apologising for them.

Diane Abbott is of course a much-loved national icon, but this will not save her.  As we have seen with another much-loved national icon (an icon possibly more loved than Ms Abbott) all it takes is for a mischief-maker to send a simple e-mail of complaint to the Metropolitan Police and the police MUST take the complaint seriously, investigate it formally, and arrest Diane Abbott.  I emphasise the word "must" as this is what the law absolutely requires.

Given the partisan world which Diane Abbott inhabits it is inevitable that an e-mail of complaint will be sent to the Metropolitan Police, that she will be arrested, and subsequently there will be months of uncertainty while the case proceeds to court.

As critics will complain that Diane Abbott cannot properly perform her duties as a Shadow Minister while under criminal prosecution the pressure for her to go will be irresistible.

Therefore it is difficult to see how she can retain her post.

On the Today programme this morning former Home Secretary Jack Straw and BBC presenter James Naughtie linked John Terry's name with the Stephen Lawrence murder trial as if the two were connected.

It happened in the last eight minutes of the programme.

John Terry is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can John Terry possibly have a fair trial when a supposedly responsible politician and a leading BBC news presenter have broadcast to millions, through the respected institution of the BBC, that he is no better than the murderers of Stephen Lawrence? This was a disgraceful smear, and makes it very unlikely that the John Terry trial will have any credibility.

Someone in the legal profession needs to ask these two clowns to explain themselves - perhaps they should be called into the trial (whenever it is held) to explain their contempt for the legal process?

Books I have read over the Christmas holiday (I'm still reading Howard's End).

The surprise was A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian by Marina Lewycka.  I was given this some years ago and put off reading it - because it had tractors in the title; because it was set in Peterbough (a town I know only too well); because it was recommended by someone who has very middle-brow tastes.  But its very funny and full of insights about the big themes of life.

There seems to be a persistent connection between trainers (sneakers) and violence

Above:  one of the news items over the Christmas holiday was the fatal stabbing of a young teenager in a Foot Locker shop in Oxford Street.  The motives for the stabbing are unknown.  However the report caught my eye as there seems to be a persistent connection between trainers (sneakers) and violence.

Above:  one of the more bizarre aspects of the London riots is that the rioters did not on the whole steal food, or rob money, or target the institutions of the rich and powerful.  Instead they looted trainers (as reported in this article by Tessa Hadley in the New Yorker as well as many other news reports).  Why are trainers so desirable that they are worth risking a 12-month gaol (jail) sentence?

Above:  obviously trainers have been integral to youth culture for about thirty years (Chris Brown even starts his video for Yo Excuse Me Miss in a sports shoe shop - no idea what the hand sign means).  But the obsessive nature of the trainer cult seems at variance with other fashion trends which come and go as each part of the body is fetishised.  It's as if footware became sexualised and fetishised round about the year 1980 and the frenzy has never been switched off.

Above:  a Foot Locker TV commercial in which a young couple play out a sexual fantasy which involves the girl beating her partner with a succession of trainers.  What is happening here?  Why has violent contact involving trainers (in the context of harmless role-playing) become a substitute for more routine sexual contact?

Above:  if we accept that trainers first became mass consumer items circa 1980, what else happened at that date that might be relevant to this discussion?  Football (soccer) emerged at that time from a generally working-class spectator sport to a mega-consumer industry encompassing all social groups and with a 20% female following.  A report by the British Social Issues Research Centre revealed that 70% of Spanish football fans prefer watching the game to making love, which indicates some form of sexual sublimation (and obviously football is a game that is focussed on feet).

Above:  finally there is the 1998 study by Giannini, Colapietro, Slaby, Melemis and Bowman that links the fetishisation of feet with the prevalence of venereal disease.  The study only looked at the sexualization of the female foot, but I wonder if there is a correlation with the male foot also.  The venereal disease that became prominent in the early 1980s was of course AIDS, and fear of this disease has never really gone away.

So is there a connection between the arrival of AIDS, the associated fetishisation of feet, the subsequent consumer cult around trainers and football, and the increasing violence that is associated with sublimated homoerotic sexual frustration, particularly of young men? (note: stabbing is a form of sublimated penetration by one male of another).

Caveat:  these are just my thoughts.  I have no evidence for any of this.  I could well be wrong.