What does Remembrance Day mean for me?

The following is much of a post I wrote last year.  I thought it might be worth posting again today.

The Remembrance Days I attended at school in Edinburgh in the 1970s left a big impression on me.

First it was some of the teachers.  Several had seen action. One, a French teacher who was hopeless at keeping order, had been at Arnhem and was a bone fide war hero.  Another had been at Monte Cassino.  One of the primary teachers had been imprisoned by the Japanese and bore the mental scars as a result.  Another French teacher had taken a shrapnel wound.  And Bill Knox, the legendary and ubiquitous janny (janitor or care-taker if that term means nothing to you) had been evacuated from Dunkirk after a close shave.  Bill proudly wore his medal ribbons on his janitor’s uniform every day. 

It was obvious that Remembrance meant something to these men.  Sometimes a former pupil would attend the ceremony and they would stand in solemn thought considering their fallen classmates.  Once I saw the Deputy Head – a tough Aberdonian – escort one of these veterans who he had fought with to the memorial with his wreath.  I saw their faces – a stern stoicism masking deep emotion – as they walked out in the cold.

The second thing that affected me was the war memorial at the school with its names covering all four sides of a rather fine stone needle.  I stood and studied them more than once during my school days.  These were young men just like me – just like me!  They came from exactly the same place, from exactly the same background, with exactly the same life experience as me – just a couple of generations earlier.  But for the Grace of God...

These had been wars of national survival with a total mobilisation of the country.  If I had been alive I would have been there and so would my friends.  Something struck me that these boys deserved to be remembered.

Finally, as a young man I read a lot of history – I even went on to study it at university.  I read a lot about what these men went through, what they faced, what conditions were like.  I read the horrific combat statistics.  I read the accounts of battle.  I read the soldiers’ stories.  Many deaths were heroic but often they were just sad or tragic!

My Granny also left an impression on me.  Her husband (my Grandfather who I never knew) Hugh Young had been on the Somme (in one of the earliest tanks in fact).  He came back, but many of their friends and family did not.  Remembrance Day meant a lot to my Granny – or the 11^th hour on the 11^th day of the 11^th month as she called it.

My Granny and the teachers at my school left and indelible impression on me.  Remembrance Day was about remembering the people who had died and it was about raising money to support those who had been scarred by war.

I heard a guy on the radio form the White Poppy movement.  Now pacifism is a laudable and absolutely legitimate position to hold and to campaign for.  But this man was ungenerous, mean spirited, ill informed and talked complete and utter guff.

In a funny way I have never understood those who say Remembrance Day is militaristic.  Because the day focuses on remembering the people who have died I have always thought pacifists and those who are uncomfortable about our foreign adventures should be amongst the most passionate exponents and participants in Remembrance Day.  It is after all a day we focus on the true cost of war and the pity of war!

It is about remembrance whether we approve or disapprove of any given war.

Kate Higgins told the story of the origins of Remembrance Day and the Poppy in her blog 'Poppy Cock' earlier this week.  I think she is spot on in what she says.  The one big difference is that the meaning of symbols and ceremonies do evolve, like language, over time.  

So, I always wear the poppy because I believe:

1. We should never forget what happened in two world wars in the 20^th century and try to learn the lessons from them.
2. In remembrance of those who died in those wars – even if not known personally.

This means thinking of the 2^nd war which was a war of national survival for us – a war which pulled us and so many other countries into a conflict with tyranny.  This means thinking of the 1^st war where the slaughter was on an almost industrial scale – a much more complex conflict to understand but still a war of national survival although with a real sense of millions dying in the war games of a ruling elite.  This means thinking of the young who had their lives torn up to face fear and for many of them sacrifice.

Today wars are not of national survival and sometimes appear morally ambiguous. Iraq was wrong! Afghanistan was probably the right thing to do but has become less clear cut as time has gone on.

Nevertheless, these are security actions and it is important that they are undertaken and more to the point that we have men and women who are ready and willing to go into combat if called on.  And we should remember those people who die and we should look after those who are maimed or suffer mental torment afterwards.

Remembrance Day – lest we forget!

Which is the best Bond film ever?

I went to see Skyfall this week.  It is an absolutely fantastic film.  But is it the best?  Where does it sit in the pantheon of a great series of films?

Here is how I currently rate the Bond films from least to best.  It is of course a personal view and some of the placings will be a bit quirky to me (and I may even have got some of the details mixed up).  Have a read and tell me what you think!

23 For your eyes only

It feels more like a TV movie than a top Bond film.

22 Quantum of Solace

It is trying to be Bourne not Bond.  And it's all action and therefore lacks characterisation and story somewhat.  Good car chases though! (if a little like something out of Grand Turismo)

21 Moonraker
 
It is a good fun Bond but not a great.  In fact I am never entirely sure if Moore's slightly camp, played a bit for laughs Bond altogether counts as James Bond to be honest.

20 View to a kill
Same as Moonraker - I just find View to a kill a little more memorable.

19 Octopussy

It starts well and has great exotic Indian locations, mood and atmosphere.  The story line and characters are good but it ends up being another that feels like a TV movie - filmed on a railway line near Peterborough masquerading as East Germany.

18 Man with the Golden Gun

Decent enough Bond and good villain's assistant, but it's a Moore - so at the weaker end.

17  The world is not enough

Brosnan was a decent Bond.  He has that cruel quality.  But I think he suffers from not having as good scripts as some of the others - though the films are all well made and enjoyable.

16 Die another day

As above

15 Tomorrow never dies

As above again

14 Licence to kill (they should have called it Licence Revoked)

Dalton is a great actor.  And he plays the theme of revenge very well.  He is a better actor than Brosnan, though I think Brosnan is a better fit for Bond than Dalton.  Dalton is altogether too sympathetic and sensitive.

13 Dr No

This is a great spy thriller and begins to bring in some of the elements of classic Bond but altogether it is rather dated and doesn't stand the test of time for me.  Since the genre was just getting started it is a bit shallower in some of the Bond elements compared with later films.

12 Goldeneye

Brosnan's best Bond

11 From Russia with Love

Again a bit dated otherwise it would be higher.  A great thriller and Lotte Lenya (Rosa Kleb) is one of the great villains.

10 The Living Daylights

Dalton's best one.  A really enjoyable film and great story.  I enjoyed it a lot and have seen it a couple of times.  The chase on the Cello through the snow, the fight hanging out the back of a Hercules and the Mujaheddin when they were enemies of the Russians and before anyone had ever heard of Al Quaeda are all memorable moments in a memorable film.

9 Casino Royale

Daniel Craig's first outing.  Craig is the best Bond since Connery.  He has that sense of isolation, of matter of fact ruthlessness, of being resourceful and hard as nails - and yet flawed and vulnerable, with a sense of a suppressed character lying dormant behind those piercing blue eyes.  It is also a strong story with a good piece of personal history to James Bond.

8 The spy who loved me

A good one from Moore.  Good locations, a good female character, Jaws and the underwater Lotus (though the Lotus is not my favourite Bond car)

7 Live and let die

A personal favourite and one of the best theme tunes.  Solitaire is one of the best female characters in the series and the voodoo storyline has real menace.  I think I'm also right in saying the funny southern American cop appears for the first time in this one!

6 Diamonds are forever

Not everyone's favourite but one of mine!  Its a great story with some great character parts.  I think it also has my favourite Bond girls.

5 Thunderball

We are now getting to quintessential Bond films here. The awesome taking of the Vulcan bomber, the man in the mask, the Health club scenes, and the menace of an evil organisation trying to hold the world to ransom.  Is this the one with the brilliant, surprise elimination of the failed Spectre executive in their leather and chrome lair?  I think a couple of others are stronger only because I think they have slightly better endings.

4 Skyfall

The only later one I am placing with the quintessential Bonds.  As a stand alone film in terms of characterisation, the themes it explores and the inter relationships this is probably the best film.  It also has some quite stunning cinematography of London, Shanghai and Glencoe.  But it doesn't quite out Bond the top three.

 
3 On her majesty's secret service

Lazenby in his sole outing - but this is still quintessential Bond.  The drive by shooting of Tracey, the genuine sadness of the scene and the Louis Armstrong sound track make this oh so memorable.  And I haven't even mentioned the mountain top villain's lair, the sky chase and a particularly fiendish plot to take over the world.  This is classic Bond and a great spy thriller.

2 You only live twice

Others will probably place this lower but I love this film.  Ninjas, a futuristic spy chief's base, a great entrance by Bond - and it has a villain's lair inside a mountain with a mono rail and a piranha invested pool - what more do you want!!  Deserves a high billing alone for Donald Pleasance uttering the lines "good bye - meester Bond!"

1 Goldfinger

The quintessential Bond.

If you don't believe me go and watch it again!


Well that's what I think.

What do you think?
            

Hillsborough and the British disease

I was genuinely shocked by the new report on Hillsborough  this week.

There was already a lot we kinda knew already.

We knew why it happened and where the fault lay – The Taylor report was broadly correct in its assertions - both the initial report and the recommendations.

We knew the Sun lied and published a disgraceful article and that was down to Kelvin Mackenzie personally.

We knew the police tried to sanitise, spin and doctor statements – but it was shocking to see the full extent of it.

We knew the authorities in the 1980s treated fans like cattle or criminals and viewed policing football  as a public order matter not a safety one.

We knew that the 3.15 cut off time for assuming everyone was dead or beyond help was almost certainly wrong.

But I didn’t realise about the failure of the ambulance service and the major incident procedure.

Shockingly and tragically we didn't know that the crush having happened the emergency services could maybe have / should have been able to save the lives of some of the 96 who were not killed straight away.

I was shocked by the pomposity and apparent foolishness of the coroner’s report which I didn’t fully realise about.  Shocked by the way it assessed the evidence and treated the fans. Read about it here

I was shocked by the failure of the FA, Sheffield Wednesday and presumably the local authority. Leppings Lane was a known death trap. After Bradford we knew fences weren’t safe. The ground didn’t even have a safety certificate!!!!

Why did the FA use Hillsborough? And Sheffield Wednesday knew about the problems of the inadequate turnstiles and the dangers of Leppings Lane – its down sloping tunnel, its pen, its inadequate crowd number control, its propensity for crushing that put spectators in mortal danger - its near misses of tragedy at other games in the 1980s.

While the police are – quite rightly- criticised, why are we not asking some very serious questions of the FA and Sheffield Wednesday. We forget how responsible they appear and how foolish some of their actions seem in hindsight.

The authorities failed the fans. The police - a body there to protect us - when push came to shove, just protected itself.   It was shocking – an outrage and profoundly undemocratic and therefore disturbing.

As Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News observed this seems to be the British pattern: disaster, flawed legal inquiry, cover-up, campaign, wilderness years, proper inquiry, and finally an apology.  He cites Bloody Sunday, the Marchioness, the Mull of Kintyre and now Hillsborough as examples.  Repeated state cover-ups when the heat's on and careers are at stake.  It is shocking and it is not good enough.

Which is why it is still important today and why it is important to move onto the next stage in the pursuit of justice.

But lets not forget the FA and Sheffield Wednesday, who I think have as many questions to answer as South Yorkshire Police for the Hillsborough disaster.

Bursting Salmond's Baloon

Alex Salmond was jeered when he appeared in front of the crowds welcoming Scotland's Olympians and Paralympians in Glasgow on Friday.

So, just like Gideon Osborne, a crowd jeered at Alex Salmond.

To quote yesterday's Times, "Returning athletes were greeted like rock stars, but Alex Salmond was jeered by the crowd."

This must have been all the more galling because Lord Moynihan, a sports minister under Margaret Thatcher, the sort of Tory who usually gets a knee jerk negative reaction north of the border, was cheered onto the stage and "when he was followed by Mr Salmond the boos rang out".

Now I don't really know what the significance of this is, I don't really know why they booed him, or how much of the crowd booed him.  However what I do know is this: the SNP have really gone through agonies this summer over their identity.  First they were faced with the royal pageant fest that was the Jubilee of someone who is our monarch too - and a popular one at that!  Then they were faced with an Olympics held in our country.  Then they were faced with the success of those games and of Team GB.  And finally the whole thing was repeated again - successfully - with the Paralympics.

Many Scots were to the fore in these games, often succeeding as part of a team or a pairing with fellow countrymen and women from all corners of Britain.  We are both British and Scottish.  Something most of us instinctively understand and are totally comfortable with.  True some are more Brit than Scot, others more Scot than Brit, but we are British as well as Scottish nonetheless.

The referendum is about identity as much as anything else and it is deeper, more complex and ultimately more interesting than a narrow nationalism can accept.

I believe even the more considered and developed ideas of Scottish nationalism that have been expressed are, in the final analysis, quite narrow and limiting too.

Salmond was booed after a summer where he seemed to try to avoid the words Great Britain or Team GB.  After a summer where much of the pro nat chat on social media like Twitter was along the lines of 'it will never work', 'its all far too superficial and commercial' and 'I feel in no way British', then grudgingly admitting, 'I do feel British' but quickly adding that that's a social union - and 'err yes, I really enjoyed the Olympics'.

Perhaps this is why Salmond was jeered by Scots in Glasgow on Friday.

This summer has also been full of hype.  Yes hype for the Jubilee and then the London Olympics, but also hype for the never ending referendum and the cause of an independent Scotland.

There is also all the hype against Osborne symbolised by his boo-boy moment earlier.  The economy is struggling and there are things you can criticise Osborne for, and there are aspects of his approach open for debate.  But like other western economies he faces the issues of a massive structural deficit, sovereign debt challenges and chronic low growth.  There was a strong consensus in 2010 over what needed to be done and some realisation that there was little flexibility to allow for any panacea of easy growth solutions. 

Jeff Breslin writing at Better Nation touched on an aspect of this consensus as it affects Scotland, 

'The Scottish economy’s fortunes are currently noticeably clearly intertwined with the rUK economy’s, making a mockery of the back-and-forth breast-beating between Governments over which is doing marginally better than the other"'

"After all, what is Alex Salmond proposing – a low tax, fiscally conservative, light touch economy. It won’t be music to many Nats’ ears, but you’d struggle to fit too many Rizla papers between Osborne’s vision for the UK and the SNP’s apparent vision for Scotland."

Perhaps the significant thing about people booing Salmond is that helps to burst some of the hype.

Salmond is not our 'Dear Leader' - he is a politician with an agenda.  And most Scots do not support that agenda.  And furthermore there are more issues that face us than Scotland's national question and we are not on the march to inevitable independence.

My British Identity

Watching the Paralympics this week made me think about all the column inches I have seen written about the Olympics helping the image of being British in Scotland.

I've read a lot about us all getting behind team GB and their achievements somehow affecting the way Scots feel about their nationality.  Maybe it has, but if it has I think something more fundamental has been happening than getting enthused about the Olympics and the Paralympics.

You see, I believe many of us have a sort of two pronged nationality - we are both British and Scottish at the same time - they are not mutually exclusive.  Britain is a very old country and has grown organically that way.  It is quirky and ancient.  Great Britain and Northern Ireland - the United Kingdom to give it its Sunday best title - is a country of nations and regions.  That is just the way it is - but it is a nation state and one that makes plenty of sense.

After the remarkable victory of the SNP in 2011 I was beginning to think that maybe - just maybe - the SNP might be on the right side of history and maybe there was an appetite for independence.

I began to hear the arguments repeated loudly over and over again: 'The Union has had its day', 'Independence will solve our problems', 'The union is broken and dysfunctional', 'Scotland is just like the last colony and the Secretary of State is like a Governor General', 'We must stand up and look after our own affairs', 'Where is the positive case for the Union?'

I thought - ok, these people have a cause, and it has gone on for a lifetime! Every argument has been refined, every line trialed and every objection answered.  The National question has not pre-occupied the other side, and the other side, although probably bigger, is a more disparate group.  The case for the union will come - instinct tells me there is plenty to say here.

But, for a while, I thought maybe the case for the union would stumble and would never become clear?

But, this summer it has begun to come and it has begun to deepen and it has begun to spread out.  The case for Independence on the other hand has begun to look a little threadbare, a little predictable in comparison perhaps.

For me the Olympic opening ceremony began to express some of it.  Someone tweeting about it (not a Scot and not hooked in to our National question) noted just how much there was to being British.  We captured that sense of a quirky, eccentric spirit and a sense of humour.  We captured a sense of invention and ideas - in science, in technology and in engineering.  We captured an off the wall, open, dare I say it - liberal - spirit that helps fuel our diverse arts and music.  We captured our political progress - and this is a hard one - but we have always been able to progress on a journey improving and making better what needs to improve - adult suffrage, the fight against slavery, religious emancipation, a dignified retreat from empire, rights for women, the welfare state, the journey away from racial discrimination and to a multi-cultural society - one we are probably still tackling.  The list can go on.  But what a marvellous, open, liberal, progressive, inventive people we are.

And no - we are not a dysfunctional Tory conspiracy, we are not some regressive Westminster power block somehow alien to Scotland and holding her back.  We are so much more than that.

And nor is Scotland a colony or something grafted onto a foreign and alien body.

Many nationalists regard Scotland as a separate entity to England and Wales.  They regard the UK as a union of separate parts.  It is almost as if they are separate pieces stuck together like a couple of Lego bricks - related but separate.

Scotland is absolutely part and parcel of Britain and Britain is part and parcel of Scotland.

That inventiveness has so much to thank Scotland for.  Scots engineering is widely respected and that feeds into British engineering.  Scots financial governance has a high reputation and that contributes to the success of the City (and I'm talking about high standards of banking and accountancy here, not the casino banking that has contributed so much to our troubles).

Scotland and all the constituent parts of the UK have their traditions intermingled like waters from different streams converging together into a great river.  And that is something you can't simply separate.

Gordon Brown talked about some of this recently.  He argued that “Scottish ideas of justice and community” combined with “traditional English ideas of ordered liberty and individualism” to create not only “common political rights” but also “common social and economic rights”.

I believe quite a view nationalists are romantics at heart.  They have a patriotic vision of what Scotland is and of what a separate Scotland can be - sometimes a little Ruritarian perhaps.  But we are an essential part of Britain and I want to argue that Britain is a nation state.

One language, one integrated economy, one island (almost).  And while there are cultural differences they are not large enough to amount to being a separate country.  Indeed much of our culture is a fully shared culture - and again an intermingled one.

Danny Boyle showed that to be a very modern and dynamic country - not something where we are always looking into the past.

I believe Scotland is a marvellous place, a great nation and a distinctive part of the United Kingdom.  But so much of who we are is as British people, not just Scottish people.  And its not so easy or particularly desirable to separate that out.

For Britain is a nation state - a nation of nations and regions - its quirky that way!

That went well!

Well, that went well!

The local elections were an unmitigated disaster for the LibDems in Edinburgh, where I live!

I scribed most of my thoughts on a comment on the Better Nation website, so I thought I would lay them out on my own blog.

We all knew this was coming a year ago. Things were always going to get worse for us before they get better and fighting locals as the lead party what with the Trams, some big budget challenges and LibDem group’s ‘talent’ for self promotion was likely to lead to another pasting.

Well, we got that, but it was slightly worse than I expected. I had hoped for 7 and feared for 4 – we got 3!

Interestingly, I don’t think the liberal (small l) vote has disappeared. In large part, it has gone Green and to the National Party of Scotland.

Places like Meadows, Fountainbridge and Stockbridge have always had an inbuilt liberal block. People who are in touch with their inner tank-top and eat vegetables. Since we have blotted our copy book it has helped the Greens get 6 councillors and some big wins.

The Nats are the opposition to Labour – there to give scrutiny and an alternative way to do things. I think Labour need that. As such they carry the responsibility of representing many who are cautious about how a Labour administration will perform.

So in a non tribal sense I don’t despair for our city.

I’ve been a Liberal for a long time and I’ve met in both taxis and in large halls. I had always felt things to be ok because the ‘market’ demand for a centre party was there. A pragmatic party with a perfect mix of individualism and collectivism, strong on the environment and civil liberties and positive about Europe and the need for effective devolution within the UK (Federalism even).

I’m a bit more worried this time – in Scotland at least. I saw the Greens come through in the late 80s but they faded. Today they are much more coherent, rounded and a mature proposition. I think they have potentially more staying power as we look jaded and yesterday’s party.

There has always been a strong place for a non socialist alternative to the Conservative party – that is in a nutshell what the LibDems were in the 20th century. The Nats and the LibDems (Alliance in the 80s) have ebbed and flowed around this one over the last 40 years – over time and over different regions of Scotland.  Well currently the Nats have well and truly blocked us out of that one. It doesn’t help that we have blotted our left of centre copy-book with the coalition and everything that that involves during an era of global financial crisis.

The point is there isn’t really an opening there as the Nats are currently much more than just a nationalist party or the party of Independence.

So where does that leave us – in Edinburgh terms.

Well, I think we need to go back to our areas and form Focus action groups and get on with some of the things we do best – community action. We need to stay engaged and involved. I think in Edinburgh a core of activists and members will remain in the parts of the city where we have been strong.

For us in a lot of ways politics was re-booted 12 months ago. So we now put this behind us and move on.  This means we can start to hold the big groups on the council to account. Including the Nats and the Greens as they represent the interests of liberal minded voters (amongst others of course).

We can free of being in administration during a difficult period promote our ideas for the city and constructive criticisms of what goes on.

I actually believe the LIbDems have done a lot of good across Edinburgh in recent years. The LibDem councillors increased nursery places and care for older people and started building houses again. They also increased recycling, and importantly sorted out the financial mess the city faced after the previous administration. (Leaving aside the costs associated with the Tram project).

In the manifesto the group put together they developed a lot of detailed and valuable thinking of where the city should go next and what the priorities are.

The point is that stump politicking or internet trolling aside there is some good thinking there to continue to contribute albeit as a depleted group and to continue to think and develop ideas is a key thing we should continue to do proudly.

I don’t know what is to come in the years ahead. The Nats may decline if they loose the referendum in 2014. They may face pressures and fissures between those who see independence as building a new socialist Utopia in Scotland and those who see themselves as an effective disciplined centre left alternative to Labour. Who knows.

The point is we have re-booted the computer and the LibDems should get out there and campaign in this city.

Public sector pensions is not the issue!

All power to Steve Webb with his work on looking for alternative pension methods for British workers in the years to come.  This is the real issue, not public sector pensions.

Final salary pensions are dead.  They have been for over a decade now.  The public sector unions are either being King Canute like or don't understand the economics of providing pensions - or both!

A number of factors but primarily increasing longevity - we are living longer - means final salary pensions are no longer affordable.  No large company offers them any more.  Some are even moving to withdraw them for existing employees or members of the scheme.  They are too expensive.

The offers on the table for the public sector seem pretty reasonable.  Average salary schemes protect the lower paid and CPI growth rather than RPI growth at least gives inflation proofing based on the cost of living rather than none.

I'm sure there are still aspects to negotiate over but I hope a settlement can be made that is reasonable for us to pay for - that is 'us' who no longer have such pensions widely available in the private sector!

Where the unions have a point is that it is not a race to the bottom.  The withdrawal of final salary schemes and the oncoming auto-enroled pensions mean employers are tempted to put far less into pensions than they did before.  Employers  running a final salary scheme might have been putting 15% of their payroll cost into pensions.  In the future it could be down to 4%!!

We need alternatives for big British firms that allow them to provide decent pensions but the big issue is - as Tom McPhail the pensions commentator said tonight - that employers need to put more in their employees' pension pots.

Some form of guarantees for workers' pensions may be important but getting employers to pay more is vital.

We can accept that pensions must be paid by a combination of employer and employee.

We can accept that the risk taken by employers should be reduced and that there can be fewer guarantees (which cost and are hard to deliver)

What we shouldn't accept is employers paying a quarter of what they used to into workers' pensions.

All power to Steve Webb.  He is proving to be an outstanding minister.  Auto-enrolment is great and will bring a lot of workers, previously unpensioned, into the fold.  But lets do this work at finding a decent replacement for final salary schemes for larger companies who have always offered pensions, to offer in the 21st century.

This is the real fight for pensions that the unions - and others - should be fighting.