Cybernats

Cybernat

It is probably one of the No Campaign's more successful ploys – the invention of the Cybernat. It combines so many smears and threatening images in one little insult - an organised group of rabid nationalists crouching at their PCs ready to pounce on anyone who disagrees with them and legions of No voters who want to make the positive case for the union but are afraid that they will be set upon. Just the word Cybernat, containing as it does the pejorative “Nat” and the menacing “Cyber” has a scary ring to it...

It's such an easy target that it has been largely ignored by the Yes campaign up until now  – mostly because they think it is just too stupid to bother with but newspaper articles from papers like The Mail and The Times (not a lot of difference these days) are still trying to get some mileage out of this piece of monumental stupidity. They imply – in some cases infer – that there is a group of trained online nationalist activists who are controlled by Alex Salmond – who is, for them, the political equivalent of Darth Vader.

Curiously enough though they are not very forthcoming when it comes to quoting examples of Cybernattery. I could do a lot better, quoting aggressive, ignorant remarks from the No camp without looking too hard. For example, there is a Facebook Page called Nationalist Say The Stupidest Things which has been on the go since very near the beginning of the campaign. It does exactly what it says on the tin. The contributors vie with each other to see how they fervently they can express their hatred and contempt for those who have the temerity to disagree with them. Just looking at the Better Together page shows much the same picture. The real hatred that shines through is really quite alarming. And Twitter... well take a look at these tweets made after the recent Olympic Games.

But the real point is this. Look at the “social media” , Facebook, Twitter and so on, you will find people who are rude, ignorant, threatening, intolerant and abusive on every subject under the sun. Foul abuse, physical threats, inappropriate sexual comments are hurled around in this brave new world , often by people who would not dare to raise their voice in a face to face debate. This is sad but true. It has nothing to do with the independence debate – except that, if you look for it in this area – on both sides – you will find it, just as you will find it in debates about gender, religion, football, sexuality, climate change and every area where controversy is possible. Ignoramuses, I'm afraid, are every bit as commonplace now as they ever were.

As with so many issues in this debate, it seems hardly worth bothering about because, as I said earlier it is so obviously false. The reason I am bothering to spend any time on it is that there are people – Alastair Darling to name but one who are still trying to gain capital from this. In some cases, people may read The Daily Mail and actually believe this kind of thing because they tend to believe what is written in the papers. But Alastair Darling doesn't have that excuse. He knows it is a complete fiction ( like a lot of other things he pretends to believe) but he goes along with it because he thinks it will help his case. But vilifying a large section of the population because he doesn't like losing an argument and doesn't want to lose his day job ( though he has plenty of homers on the go by all accounts) is not an acceptable campaign strategy.

There are huge numbers of ordinary people in Scotland,  SNP voters,  Green voters, some, like myself, former Labour voters,  Scottish Socialist voters and some who haven't voted up until now, who are committed to voting Yes. To invent an insulting name for us and dismiss us all as pawns of Alex Salmond is as stupid as it is offensive.

Why Yes?

Dishonesty in politics is endemic.

Starting with that sentence will not, I'm sure, inspire much controversy. It's human nature, after all, to present your case forcefully and to rubbish your opponent's with all your might. And, for the greater good, a wee bit of exaggeration here, a little distortion there, some wilful misunderstanding on the side – well, it's all in the game, isn't it?

Except that, when it emerges that exaggeration, distortion and wilful misunderstanding forms the whole of your argument, we have a problem. (Please note my heroic forbearance in not placing the word “Houston” before “we” in that sentence.)

Scotland is a small country. In identity it is quite distinct from England, its larger neighbour. There may be some who would argue with that but (apologies for the vernacular) they are aff their heids! Everyone knows we are chalk and cheese – north and south of the border. Our fortunes (Scotland and England) have been linked since a political settlement agreed in 1707 called The Act of Union. For many people in England, in the unlikely event that they would read this far, this is probably a surprise as, through no fault of their own, they believe Scotland to be a province – not a country and have no knowledge of the history of our two nations and their shaky relationship – over a lot more than 300 years.

Nowadays anyone who has a computer ( and that seems to be just about everyone) can look up the history of The Act of Union and research its origins and the motives of those who signed it. Looking back on the history of this period, they will find that chicanery, double dealing and hypocrisy are not modern inventions and that they are not all on the English side. How significant that history is today I leave to you to decide. The main emotion it inspires in me is a sadness that the ordinary people had as little say in things then as they have now. By the time (then) someone became landed or titled, and by the time someone (now) becomes either of the above or a politician, it seems a kind of amnesia about life in a council house where you worry about how much it will cost to live for the week sets in – and very rapidly.

Why this happens is a subject for a treatise on its own and I am sure there is more than one out there already. “All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” was a quote my late father - God rest his soul - was partial to. But it is not the whole story. There are degrees of power, degrees of corruption and, I assert, it is not an impossibility to have an honest politician who is not simply inspired by greed and self interest. Our politicians, in Scotland and the UK, are a mixed bunch in that respect as you might logically expect. I have no-one to recommend for canonisation and stories of expenses claims and second homes span the entire range of the British political parties.

So why am I taking the trouble to write this? Firstly, I believe there is only one sensible response to the Independence referendum – and that is a Yes vote - and, secondly, I believe there is a major, unusual level of dishonesty going on in the year or so leading up to this vote. We have Yes Scotland representing the side of those who want independence and Better Together representing the side of those who wish to continue the Union. It is interesting to consider the various factions on each side. Better Together comprises all those within the Labour Party who have attained any kind of office and everyone in the Conservative Party. The Liberal Democrats – well they just do what they are told these days – so they are there for the Union. Various independents continue to represent themselves and the UKIP and Respect parties are dedicated to the Union. How comforting it must be for David Cameron that George Galloway salutes his indefatigability.

For Independence, obviously there is the SNP - but there are also a lot of other groupings – Trade Unionists for Independence. Labour for Independence, National Collective and many others. The Scottish Socialist Party is also pro independence . There are prominent ex-Labour figures such as Dennis Canavan,who genuinely possesses socialist principles, actively involved in the pro-independence movement. It is obvious that there is a significant pro-independence movement not made up of SNP members. The reasons for this are clear and too many to list here but these, I think, are the main ones:

the lack of support for socialist policies in England

the defection of leading Labour figures to neoliberalism

the lack of sympathy with ordinary working people from Westminster politicians

the readiness of all Westminster politicians to bow to the worst media influences

patronising attitude in the media towards Scots

dishonesty in the Better Together campaign

The fact is that England, for complex reasons, is still a country where there is a conservative consensus. They do not always vote Conservative (please note distinction of lower and upper case) but they are historically conservative. Scotland is not. Recent election results have borne this out rather starkly.

So – to the point. Dishonesty in politics is endemic. But there is a point where it becomes insulting and I am afraid Better Together reached that point some time ago. Their technique ( and, make no mistake, that is what it is) is to continually ask questions about detail which cannot possibly be provided on economic futures. These are not questions they could answer themselves – ask Better Together about the future of Scotland and you will get lots of uplift about the Olympics and how happy we all are with austerity. None of their assertions is evidence based. If figures and statistics are the benchmark, independence will be economically beneficial to Scotland. You won't find Alastair Darling admitting that – but it is true – objectively – and those figures and statistics are available to him.

The real problem is that many of the assertions the Better Together campaign make are childishly stupid and transparently false and, much though I dislike Darling, I don't think he is stupid so why is he making statements like," independence is a one-way ticket to send our children to a deeply uncertain destination". What kind of destination is a vote for more Westminster led politics?  (Labour or Tory – it makes little difference now.)  The poor will get poorer – the rich will get richer and the sneer on the face of the ruling class will be just that bit more complacent. Happy days indeed! A funny thing – as you might imagine - I get into arguments and differences of opinion often here in Dunfermline (out in the provinces) – often with people who I feel should really be on my side – Labour party members. Mention the word “socialism” and it is a bit like mentioning a dodgy old uncle we don't talk about. Say, “Do you believe in cutting benefits? Do you think immigrants and the unemployed are responsible for the financial state of the country? How about the bedroom tax? What about that anti-union legislation – is Ed going to repeal any of it? Should Darling have gone along to the Tory Conference? Any plans to really throw your weight about and abstain on some Tory motions? ” Straight answers – don't hold your breath.

But when did that matter in politics? Better just to try to frighten people about their pensions and benefits (at the same time as calling them scroungers). And there are always those dodgy foreigners that we can blame too. In case I am not being crystal clear here, my point is that they know these points are false and they know the arguments are dishonest – but they don't care. This union is so important that they will say anything to try to preserve it. For some of them, of course, it is purely a career decision. After her Thatcherite statements about “something for nothing”, it is unlikely that Johan Lamont could forge much of a career in politics in an independent Scotland. But for some, there is a genuine attachment to the Union, which I understand to some extent. I was brought up British and Scottish. As kids, my older brother, sister and I went to the Picture House in Kings Park where we lived and we were members of the GB club. It wasn't till about thirty years later that I finally realised I was a member of the Gaumont British club and not a strange alien body called “The Jeeby Club” but I would have been proud and happy, had I known. I understand and share in the feeling of Britishness that comes from that era but the basis of it is simply not there any more. Materialism, Thatcherism, Monetarism, Neoliberalism and apathy have destroyed it. I went to school with children who mainly had Polish and Irish and Italian surnames – because I was brought up Catholic. It never occurred to me then that some of my classmates were immigrants, that my ancestors were immigrants and it was never brought to my attention in any way. Nowadays, mainly because of newspapers like The Daily Mail, immigration has been identified as the root cause of all problems in Nigel Farage's England – but, with a few exceptions, this attitude does not prevail in Scotland.

The Westminster government in recent years commissioned a study into immigration, and what they describe as “Benefit Tourism”, and the finding of a thankfully scientific and objective team was that there was no clear evidence of this. Furthermore they found that , on balance, immigration was economically positive to this country. Needless to say the findings have never been mentioned in any press reports I have seen. David Cameron has not been particularly forthcoming on this topic either but then neither have there been any Labour Party views aired on this subject of late – apart from craven agreement with the Daily Mail element which seems to characterise Westminster these days.

Here are some hard facts. I am a lifelong Labour voter. I will never vote Labour again. In the last few years they have betrayed the working class – who pay their wages – again and again. The “Free market” movement that was begun by Margaret Thatcher is being perpetuated by Darling, Lamont, Murphy and co in Scotland and Miliband and Balls in Westminster. I hope they are proud of themselves. As for Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and the others, I am sure there is plenty of room for improvement. None of them were elected by me and who knows what the future holds. But this I do know. A Yes vote is not a vote for the SNP. It is a vote for self-determination. It is a vote for a better future. When Scotland becomes independent we will elect those we want to run our country – and I predict confidently they won't include Rupert Murdoch, The Daily Mail or Nigel Farage.

Jesus and Me

For a dyed-in-the wool agnostic, I find myself making religious references often in my writing. Not quite sure about why but this poem, I hope, helps to explain it.

agnostic prayer (de profundis)

from the heart of my arid soul
and the depth of my lack of faith
a surprise

the procurator's blood red cloak
the prisoner's willing suffering
jeering mob
crying mother
frightened followers
the hard violence 
of swords and soldiers
nails and crosses

impulses and feelings
thoughts the material world
cannot explain

perhaps my upbringing
dominus vobiscum
et cum spiritu tuo
or a touch of the sun
or a touch of the son
agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi

pierce my side

perhaps
his willingness to suffer
reluctance to blame
tears and sweat and blood
at what must be

pin me here

they say god is above
they say god is love
faithless now
yet still there is love

I suppose, for me, poetry has always been what I referred to in my St Monans blog as "trying to write the trouble out of my head."  After all these years away from a faith I rejected as a teenager, I am still deeply affected by images from the New Testament.  Cynical friends will probably say, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" but it really isn't that. I have no interest in participation in any organised religion and feel only dismay at the spectacle the Catholic Church has made of itself in my lifetime - ironically through a lack of Christian virtues.  Years ago in the Sacre Coeur in Paris I picked up a leaflet produced by the Church aimed at non-believers and "Catholiques, negligents peut-etre" which ended with a prayer that has stayed with me.

"Oh God, whom they call love, if you exist, enlighten me."

But he never has.

Independence - The Yes/No Interlude

I recently wrote and recorded a song called "Country of the Blind".  It comes as near as I will ever come to writing an anthem in favour of Scots Independence. I have put it on Reverbnation, You Tube  and Facebook and played it live more than once and, while response has been favourable, it hasn't prompted any comment about the subject matter or any argument and, given the current state of play in the media and the slugfest about voting Yes or No in the coming referendum, that surprised me.  One possible reason that suggests itself to me is that people don't know that's what it is about.  I have never subscribed to the "War is Stupid" or "Give Ireland back to the Irish" style of songwriting. For me the direct approach works well in speech but not in poetry and song.  Anyway, here is the lyric in full and you can judge for yourself whether it is clear or obscure, after which I will make a few observations on why I have come to this political position.

The Country of The Blind

Sun is hot and the day is golden,

Dublin Street is all aglow.

Eyes are closed on the crowded pavement,

Cause no-one wants to know.

Nothing moves in the townhouse windows,

Not one flicker of the blinds,

Mindless cars jam up this city,

In the country of the blind.

Moon shines cold in the frosty evening

Stars are burning in the sky. 

Empty street and boarded shopfronts,

Disappointment in your eyes.

You grew up with a chance of living,

One day it would be your time,

Those who ruled would not prove faithless,

In the country of the blind.

We are here with a glimpse of freedom,

Or we can turn and walk away,

But if you're weak or sick or hungry,

You know they'll make you pay.

Raised to feel like second-best,

Taught that thinking was a crime,

Worked to subsidise the rich,

In the country of the blind.

I grew up with the same illusions,

Just like everybody else.

Waved the flag and I took my medicine,

And learned to hate myself.

Now I've seen the simple truth

I will no longer walk that line,

Hoping that it's not too late,

In the country of the blind.

First of all, I have never in my life voted for the Scottish National Party.   In the last verse of my song I am 9 years old and waving a wee Union Jack at the Queen and Philip as they drive through Kinglassie. (I can only wonder at what they made of the raggedy-arsed crowd cheering them as they passed.)  For most of my life I have written "British" on forms asking for my nationality and I have always found lyrics like "Caledonia's been everything I ever had" embarrassing. I do not walk around thinking I am from "Caledonia" and it's been "everything I ever had".  So why would I say it in a song?

So what has brought me to the decision I have made - and why is it important to me? There is no way that I can put my reasons in an order of importance - it is more complicated than that so please bear with me.  First of all, the Labour Party, which has had my vote for most of my life, no longer exists as a left-wing party. It is not worth constructing an argument in defence of this statement as it is self-evident. When the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland describes free prescriptions and universal child benefit as "something for nothing", unconsciously, or perhaps consciously, echoing Mrs Thatcher; when the Parliamentary Labour Party abstains on the Workfare Bill (slavery by another name) and Miliband and the shadow cabinet are desperately espousing austerity and accepting the rhetoric that describes anyone on benefits as a scrounger; when no-one in mainstream British politics is prepared to challenge the assertion that immigrants are to blame for our economic problems, it is time to accept that there is no real opposition.  Yet there is only one Conservative MP in Scotland and no such consensus here - so who speaks for me? Not the Labour Party.

Secondly, the real contempt that has been shown for Scotland and ordinary Scottish people by the "Better Together" campaign beggars belief.  Despite a fairly high profile and many assertions in the media, they have only two strategies: 

Appeal to Selfishness - Independence will cause you to lose influence/importance/a say in world affairs/we (English People) won't like you any more/we (English People) will stop subsidising you.  When it is Scottish people who are  delivering the message they couch it in more acceptable terms but the message is the same - you will be out of the club.

Fear - and this is the big one - Your pension might come from another country and maybe they won't give it to you any more (those bad untrustworthy foreigners).  The oil might dry up - then where will you be? What if there is another Recession? How will you cope without England to protect you?  We won't let you use the pound as we were only pretending that it was a shared currency - it was really English all along!  You won't get into the EU! You might have to stay in the EU! Your bank account/mortgage/credit card might be from a foreign country (their words, not mine) maybe that will cause problems for you...

I could go on, as there are lots of stupid scare stories going the rounds, but most of them are so genuinely fatuous that it's not really worth it.  Losing influence is one of the most ironic threats of all. We couldn't have less influence on anything than we have right now.  When England decides whether the EU is a good/bad thing in Cameron's referendum, make no mistake, England will decide - not Scotland/ Wales/ Northern Ireland.  Recently in the ridiculous currency debacle, one of the threats made was that Scotland would not have  as much influence over economic matters if they used the pound (which, after all is England's property). What will we do after losing all that influence that we never had anyway? And all the foreign country nonsense? At the moment my mortgage is with Santander (the clue is in the name) and most people don't know geographically where their credit comes from - but here is a clue. It's probably already a "foreign country".  In a way I am quite annoyed that I am spending time on such plainly spurious nonsense - but people are susceptible to scare stories and the media (in my view a national disgrace) know that.

The other dimension to the Fear argument is uncertainty and here I am going to quote an online source as he has put the point very succinctly. This is from a Facebook page called The Point:

Aided by a gullible and sympathetic media it’s easy to get results. Simply challenge the SNP, or Yes Scotland, to come up with ‘detail’ on how an independent Scotland would work on a range of issues; in relation to Europe, currency, borders, international treaties and so on. Even when a perfectly reasonable position is laid out by Yes campaigners, they then claim ‘uncertainty’ or that ‘the SNP have no answers’. This is an utterly dishonest position because they know damn fine that the ‘detail’ of all of those things would have to be worked out in a process of negotiation between all parties concerned after a pro-independence vote. Calls from academics, independent groups, and think tanks for the UK government and the Scottish government to come together and thrash out a programme for transition to an independent state have fallen on deaf ears as far as the unionist side are concerned. The UK government say they will not pre-negotiate independence. From their point of view that would remove the very ‘uncertainty’ they are trying to create to frighten voters.

Uncertainty is the natural position of human beings, countries and political parties.  If there is a Yes vote, there will be decisions, changes and elections. If there is a No vote these things will still happen but you and I will not really be involved.  We will be in or out of the EU depending on how many people in Middle England are reading the Mail. The British Government cannot tell you whether you will better or worse off in the Union three years from now. No-one can. They can tell you what their plans are (and they make my blood run cold as it is) but they don't know how it will pan out.  The rhetoric also manages to imply that, if there is a Yes vote, the oil will run out but, if there is a No vote, it will last forever. How is that for arrogance?  What have they done with the oil money so far? They didn't spend it in Cowdenbeath or Kinglasssie or Shotts or Lerwick or Tullibody or Motherwell - I know that.  Oil, as a resource ,  is a big one and Westminster don't want to lose it.  That is why Osborne could even be bothered to come up here and try to intimidate voters with the rubbish he spouted (with no authority) about the pound.

Finally, I stated near the beginning that I have never voted SNP.  I am not easily roused to political writing and I have never been given to singing anthems and romanticising William Wallace but, as a Scottish born adult, my intelligence has been insulted, my friends and countrymen abused and my patience exhausted by the tirade of idiocy that politicians and the tabloid press have heaped on us.  Right now I feel that I am being ruled by the Daily Mail and that there is no desire for a real debate on this subject - just more condescension and threats that lack substance.

An Independent Scotland will not be perfect but it will be better, much better ,  than this.  I am not , as I said before, a nationalist by inclination but I pray that I do not have to spend the rest of my life being patronised by people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.  We are better than that.

An Odd Boy

"Sport, sport, masculine sport,
Equips a young man for society.
Yes, sport turns out a jolly good sort,
It's an odd boy who doesn't like sport."

Viv Stanshall


Those of you who remember the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band will probably remember the above and chuckle nostalgically. Those of you who don't, please be assured it is ironic - not to be taken literally!

For the last few weeks the newspaper I take regularly might as well have been called The Daily Olympics. In addition to various supplements dedicated to detailed coverage of the Games, the first six or seven pages have been almost entirely devoted to stories of medal winners and statistical breakdowns of how well we are doing. Coverage on TV has been pretty much constant.  In addition to this the media has been awash with celebrities and politicians pontificating about how wonderful sport is and how we can solve this country's problems by persuading our young people to take part in sport at all costs.  Boris Johnson wants two hours of PE a day for all school pupils - just as he had at his Public School.  Made him the man he is today apparently...

I was reading, with some interest for a while, a Facebook page devoted to debating the pros and cons of Scottish independence - but to my dismay it turned into a debate about good old sport and how we must persuade our young people to take part in sport to a much greater extent than they currently do, the implication being that most of them are couch potatoes, computer game geeks or hoodies out on the rob.  Leaving aside the fact that this is plainly a false stereotype, it is also a piece of rank hypocrisy.  I do not know if there is any statistical data on this subject but, from the evidence I see around me in schools, playing fields and parks, young people are much more active than their middle aged counterparts. Does anyone seriously think Boris Johnson is a fit-looking individual. (Fit meaning in good physical condition - not its modern colloquial meaning.)  Lots of the individuals expressing the opinion that young people need to be more active look as if they would have trouble breaking into a trot.

But what really annoys me is the bland (and seemingly almost universal) assumption that everyone likes to watch sport; everyone supports a football team, everyone supports the athletes that are representing their country.  If you dare to assert your individuality on this subject, you are regarded as an eccentric at best - a traitor by some.  Well here goes! I don't care about football. I don't care which team wins on a Saturday. I didn't watch ANY of the Olympic coverage on TV and went straight to page six or seven of the newspaper. The supplements went straight into the paper recycling bin.  I don't think I am terribly unfit for my age. I enjoy hill-walking and swimming but I don't want to compete with anyone. The perfect swimming session for me is one where there is no-one else in the pool. The perfect walk is one done in good company with beautiful scenery and is not timed by anyone. No-one wins or loses and there is no honour at stake.

To some people this makes me dangerously subversive. So be it.  I have attended various social events over the years where I have ended up in the company of affable people I don't know very well.  If it's a group of men, they invariably talk about football. I cannot count the number of times I have been asked what team I support and am no longer surprised at the incredulity my reply that I am not interested in football provokes. Of course it makes no difference as they continue to rattle on about football anyway - just as if I did not exist and, in a way, for them, I don't.

Some people love competitive sport. Some people are passionate about football, cricket, rugby, athletics - either as spectators or participants. I am quite happy for them to have all the opportunities they have to pursue this but I am not happy with the pretence that competitive sport is synonomous with fitness and good health nor do I accept "Mens Sana in Corpore Sano".

Where do the athletes who fail drug tests fit into this model? Where do the brain-damaged boxers - or those who die in the ring or on the way to hospital afterwards - fit? Good old heathy competition has led to the Rangers/Celtic divide and the sectarianism associated with it.  How many fights/assaults/manslaughters have there been as a result of football supporters disagreement?

In 1945 George Orwell published an essay called The Sporting Spirit. I finish with a short quote from it.

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting."

Words - again!

One of the ways that I supplement my income and try to stay out of the classroom is playing at weddings.  One of the requirements of a wedding band is that they learn the happy couple's choice of song for the first dance. Over the years I have seen some strange choices. I could never understand the couple who chose Patsy Cline's "Crazy", for example, and, on another occasion, watched with some amusement as elderly parents attempted to join the happy couple on the floor dancing to "This Is How You Remind Me" by Nickelback.

No such problems on this occasion. The couple chose a song called "I'm Yours" by a singer called Jason Mraz. On first listen I thought he had a pleasant voice and the song, though unoriginal, was quite romantic in intent and would work as a first dance.  However, once you start learning a song, you look at it more closely and flaws start to emerge.  It wasn't just  that the structure is messy - this is almost a given these days with commercial pop singles - they are usually hacked about to make them the right length and to include the hook(s) as often as possible.  It wasn't the pointless and inappropriate addition of scat singing.  No, you've guessed it, what really annoyed me was the lyric.  Two examples should suffice:

"Scooch on over here
And I will nibble your ear..."

Embarrassingly twee and lacking any real romance or affection, this is a real stinker of a couplet for anyone to sing with any conviction. I wouldn't recommend saying it to your girlfriend either - she'll probably tell you to go and scooch yourself! Worse is to come, though:

"Listen to the music of the moment people dance and sing
We're just one big family
And it's our godforsaken right to be loved loved loved loved loved..."

Obviously the writer meant "god-given right" and presumably didn't realise what "godforsaken" actually meant.  But what bothers me is that he didn't bother to find out, thus making a complete nonsense of what he meant to say - unless he really meant that the right to be loved (five times) is one that God would turn his back on.  This is all part of what enrages me about the commercial attitude to song lyrics, which seems to be that they are not worth bothering about. The writer reached out for a cliche and found godforsaken and didn't care what it meant.

This is not new. Looking at some hugely successful pop songs we can find examples of very poor writing.

"I have never had such a feeling - such a feeling of complete and utter love..."  Did the writer not consider for a moment that the phrase "complete and utter" is a cliche which is invariably followed by a pejorative term - complete and utter nonsense, complete and utter chaos, complete and utter revulsion? The comic effect gained by this is completely the opposite of what (one imagines) Chris de Burgh was striving for.

Or consider this example:

"And it seems to me you lived your life like a candle in the wind,
Never knowing who to cling to when the rain set in."

It's probably unnecessary to point out that this is from a hugely successful song but it is also a very poor piece of writing. Leaving aside the obvious observation that candles don't cling to anything,  the point of the song would appear to be that Marilyn lived her life like a candle in the wind - that is the title after all and it's  repeated in every chorus.  If the image means anything it means that the flame (life)  is constantly in danger of being blown out by the wind (misfortune/fame). But the image is never realised - instead he goes on to talk about rain "setting in" and later the candle "burning out" before "the legend ever did". ("Ever", here,  adds nothing to the meaning but has been stuck in there to make the words fit the rhythm.)

Later the writer produces a line which is amazingly difficult to sing:

"All the papers had to say
Was that Marilyn was found in the nude."

Try singing this to the tune and you will see what I mean. What is really amazing is that Elton John is so talented that he manages to make a hugely successful pop song out of this drivel!

So why do I care?  Why not stop girning about stuff I don't like and leave it for those who enjoy it?

The answer is simple. I love pop music, rock music, country music, blues and most forms of contemporary music. There are examples of great lyric writing in all of these genres.  Take a simple - some would say cheesy - pop song like "Hit Me Baby One More Time". It's just teenage angst and lust but there is not a false step anywhere. The register is consistent and the song hits its target perfectly.

"My loneliness is killing me
(And I)
I must confess I still believe
When I'm not with you I lose my mind
Give me a sign
Hit me baby one more time"

Even better, in the same area, is:

Her boyfriend's a dick;
He brings a gun to school
and he'd simply kick
my ass if he knew the truth;
He lives on my block;
and he drives an IROC,
But he doesn't know who I am,
and he doesn't give a damn about me."

I have deliberately chosen examples of pop songs that are not in the singer/songwriter area to show how simple and direct writing can work in pop - but don't  underestimate this writing. The atmosphere is perfectly evoked, not a word is wasted and the rhymes are quirky but right in tune with the spirit of the song. The writer of  "Teenage Dirtbag" should get an award for managing, later in the song, to come up with the line "Man I feel like mould..." and making it work perfectly in the context.

When we go into other areas, the contrast is even more marked. Anything from Joni Mitchell would put the writers of "I'm Yours", "Lady in Red" and "Candle in the Wind" to shame:

"Uranium money
Is booming in the old home town now
It's putting up sleek concrete
Tearing the old landmarks down now
Paving over brave little parks
Ripping off Indian land again
How long how long
Short sighted business men
Ah nothing lasts for long
Nothing lasts for long
Nothing lasts for long"

And even a modest Snow Patrol song uses imagery to much greater effect and avoids cliche:

"You're cinematic, razor sharp.

A welcome arrow through the heart

Under your skin feels like home,

Electric shocks on aching bones"

Note too that the images link - cinema - sharp - arrow - heart - skin  - bones - and say something real about the physical effect of obsessive love.

The difference - the real difference - is not necessarily ability or intelligence. It's caring about the words, their effect, their meaning, their sound, their connotation.  The three lyrics I  attacked earlier all show the unmistakable signs of someone doing a job, hearing the ring of the cash register and not looking at their work with any artistic rigour.

It's all part of the business. I am reminded of a time when I forced myself to watch one of these modern talent shows on TV. It might have been Pop Idol - it had a panel which included Simon Cowell, Pete Waterman and others. It featured a singer from Glasgow called Darius who made something of a habit of appearing on these shows.  Bear in mind that the panel had, as usual, in the course of the programme, been pontificating on everything from Big Band songs to Lennon and McCartney and professing their great love and respect for this, that and the other. Darius had not been doing well in the programme up until then but on this night he appeared with a new image and a different stage presence  (basically he had managed to iron out any originality he might have possessed - always a kiss of death on these shows) and the panel all feigned amazement. Pete Waterman commented that Darius had thrown "a Spaniard in the works" much to the amusement of the others who just saw it as a foolish slip of the tongue. Not one of these "experts" including Waterman himself was aware that it was the title of John Lennon's second book. Their expertise - like that of Mraz, Taupin and De Burgh is in commercialism - not creativity.

Education, education...education?

Followers of my blog will have noticed that it has been very quiet since I went back to full time teaching for a couple of months. I must admit that I had forgotten just how tiring teaching in a secondary school is - how full on you have to be all the time.  The school I was working in was a great place to work and the staff there were friendly and helpful. So were the kids in my classes for the most part.  I am now in a different secondary school working three days a week and, again, the staff are supportive and most pupils are co-operative and pleasant.

If you have children at school in Scotland, you may be aware that the way they are being assessed and, to some extent taught, is changing at the present time.  People who work in teaching know that this happens all the time - it feels as if you just get used to one system and one set of jargon and then "they" invent another. Right now, it's Curriculum for Excellence (CfE for short) that is driving the change. Briefly, the theory behind CfE is that the way the curriculum is taught and the structure of the curriculum determine the quality of pupil/student turned out by schools.  This initiative is designed to produce pupils/students who possess key attributes called "the four capacities". These are:


Successful Learners
Confident Individuals
Responsible Citizens
Effective Contributors

At this point, like me, you may be forgiven for feeling some incredulity.  If you are a secondary teacher you are probably also experiencing a desire to punch the person who thought this lot up.  How on earth can anyone can believe that tinkering with the curriculum and how it is delivered (because that is what this is) can possibly effect such dramatic changes.  What evidence is there that it will work? No real evidence, I'm afraid. Of course there are thousands of pages of waffle describing and supporting this, written by those who have time and leisure enough to produce spurious apologetics. There are buzzwords and phrases in plenty - "rich tasks" and "crosscutting themes" are two favourites.  These pretty much mean the same as Language Across the Curriculum and similar initiatives from the 1970s - that the subjects in Secondary schools are not discrete but connected and overlapping. This earth-shattering discovery is made again and again by people who don't actually have to go into a classroom and work with kids. People who do knew it all along.

The striking thing for me is that I have been away from teaching for two and a half years and in the last two months have met teachers from different schools in different subject areas and discussed this initiative but I have not met one classroom teacher - or indeed anyone who is not in Senior Management - who believes that this is anything more than a waste of time and an expensive one at that. This is unusual. Typically teachers, like most other working people, do not welcome initiatives because they know that they mean more work for them and, when the backfires occur, the teachers will be left with the repair job.  But opinions have always been varied in the past and criticisms tempered with an acceptance that things in education are not perfect and sometimes new initiatives do bring about changes for the better.  The introduction of Standard Grade in the eighties, for example, took thousands of Scottish children who were previously classed as "non-certificate" and gave them a constructive curriculum with qualifications at the end of it.  It was by no means perfect but it was a big improvement and, although we grumbled, most of us accepted that it was worth doing.  That spirit is completely absent now.  There is no grudging acceptance or cautious optimism. Amongst classroom teachers it is almost universally loathed.

Why does this matter to you?  It matters because teachers do a vital job in society whether you are a pupil, a parent, an employer or just a "responsible citizen".  But they are not allowed to get on with this important task because they are continually having to implement initiatives which are, to say the least, not properly thought out. Initiatives like CfE have a negative effect on education because they waste time and resources and they cause resentment and division.

In my 36 years of teaching I saw countless initiatives and was forced to adjust what I did in the classroom as a result of various reports - too  many to list but here are a few that spring to mind:

The Pack Report
The Munn and Dunning Report
The Bullock Report
TVEI (Training and Vocational Educational Initiatives)
The Houghton Report
The Clegg report
Higher Still
The Howie Report
Assessment is for Learning (AifL)
The 5-14 Initiative (now being superseded by CfE)

The quantity of published material sent in to schools in my time in support of these  - mostly to no good purpose - must be responsible for large scale rain forest clearances.  Time and money and expertise are constantly squandered and we should all be aware of this and fight it. Teachers often get a bad press but they do one of the most important jobs in society and they should be allowed to do that job without constantly being undermined by those who should be encouraging and supporting them.