Obviously the big news of the week is David Cameron's speech on Europe. The latest major poll on Independence only confirms what we all knew already.
But, just to put the boot in a bit further to the SNP, I want to make a brief point about where they stand now on Europe.
They suggest that the best chance of Scotland staying in the European Union is to vote for Independence in 2014. This is a logical absurdity.
Scotland's current exports to the EU are approximately £9bn. Our exports to the rest of the UK, £45bn.
On any view then, if we have an important single market then clearly that single market is with the rest of the UK.
And if we then vote for separation in 2014 and then in 2017 the rest of the UK votes to leave the European single market then, at that point, joining (or remaining in) the European Single Market would not be an option for us either. For we'd have to choose between an open border between the location of our overwhelmingly dominant export market or.............well actually we'd have no choice at all..
So if the rest of the UK voted in 2017 not to be part of the European Union then neither could we be part.
Only we wouldn't have had a vote in that process at all. Except for the vote in 2014 to entrust our future to others
And most ironically, had we had still had a vote in 2017 the (rest of) the UK would have been less likely to vote (for us) to leave the European Union.
Still, at least we'd have our own flag and anthem.
Even if we otherwise have virtually no control of our own affairs.
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Sunday, 20 January 2013
Timing is everything
Any accidental death is a tragedy.
As with the events of yesterday in Glencoe however there is something that strikes a particular chord with the Scots when that accidental death is in our hills or mountains.
It's difficult to explain why, but undeniable that, had four people died yesterday in a car accident or in a house fire it would not have been the universal front page news that the Glencoe deaths have proved to be.
It may simply be that the hills and mountains are such a part of the definition of Scotland that death there has a particular resonance. Virtually every person in Scotland has gone hill-walking at some time and even those who no longer do will have friends or relatives who still participate. And we're all aware that there is a degree of danger in our wilderness so that perhaps when tragedy strikes it subconsciously reflects all our deepest fears.
And there was a particular pathos about those following the news yesterday for after the initial alert it deemed for a time that things were not as bad as first feared only for them ultimately to be much worse.
But some of you will be aware that in the aftermath of the event I became involved in a bit of a twitter storm over the remarks made by the First Minister.
It was not what he said, that was on any view unobjectionable.
It was that he felt it incumbent on himself, within a very short period of the deaths being confirmed, to say anything at all.
Michael Moore did not issue an immediate,unsolicited, press statement; nor did David Cameron or indeed either the Constituency MP or MSP. Or the responsible Cabinet Minister. Only the First Minister did. Did these others not also regret the deaths? More likely they had a proper sense of decorum.
So why did Eck do that? Because he hoped that his name would be associated with any initial reporting of the event. In which, to be fair, he largely succeeded.
Now there are only two possible explanations for this.
Firstly, that those bereaved would be particularly consoled by the words of Alex Salmond. Even I don't think he believes that.
Or, secondly, that no event, no matter how tragic, was out of bounds in pursuit of the promotion of his own self importance.
For pointing this out I have been subject to the usual cybernat abuse including the interesting suggestion that I'll be deported from an Independent Scotland! And then, just as I was getting my head round that, I was faced with they yet more alarming suggestion that, come 2014 "we'll get rid of the lot of you."
Most revealing of all however was the suggestion that for attacking the Leader of the SNP I was "an affront to Scotland."
Fair enough. At least we all know where we stand. Bring it on.
Sunday, 13 January 2013
Miserable
Yesterday afternoon, in the absence of any football, I took myself off to see Les Miserables.
It was the first time I have been to the cinema on my own since I saw Polanski's Tess in, I am horrified to find on checking, 1979.
Les Miserables suffers from not featuring Nastassia Kinski. Were it not for that omission I would commend it unconditionally. It is a great, great film.
I suspect its plot is well known to most readers but I'll shy away from spoilers in respect of the fate of specific characters and instead write a little about the context of the second half of the film, the failed Paris Insurrection of 1832, for it has lessons for current Scottish politics.
In 1830, France had a minor (by French Standards) revolution when the last of the absolutist Bourbons was overthrown in favour of Louis Philippe and the institution of something vaguely approaching a Constitutional monarchy.
Now for some people this was not nearly enough change. The problem was that, keeping largely the company of the like minded, they completely lost sight of the fact that their opinions were nothing like the majority opinion, or at least the majority opinion of those politically engaged at all. So, when they took to the barricades they found themselves largely in their own company and the whole thing, years in the plotting and planning, was all over in forty-eight hours.
And at the end, while most of the plotters slunk quietly off into the night, no doubt muttering about the ingratitude of those on whose behalf they had sought to act, a few diehards determined on "liberty or death". Regrettably, most found themselves in receipt of the latter option.
Now, we are fortunate in the United Kingdom, or the mainland part of it at least, to live in more peaceful times, but the danger of talking only to those of like mind and ignoring the rest, just as did those on the 1832 barricades, seems to me to be an increasing difficulty for those who are advocates of Scottish separatism.*
Over the Christmas Holiday period a number of columnist supportive of but not engaged with the Yes Campaign wrote about the disastrous outcome of a potentially overwhelming No vote. They didn't wish for this outcome, far from it, but they recognised it as a possibility. Instead however of being given pause for thought as to why their friends might be thinking this way, most of the Nationalist diehards continued to be in complete denial about this being even conceivable.
In one of the most telling of these protestations, the nearest I saw to any concession of potential defeat was the assertion on one Nationalist website that "everybody" agreed that the losing side, whichever it was, would get at least 35% of the vote. This despite the fact that there has never been a single credible opinion poll ever which has ever given the Yes side 35% of the vote.
Now, even I think they might get that, although I think it extremely unlikely, but to get yourself into a mindset that "everybody" agrees, when patently everybody does not, shows the danger of only listening to those you want to hear.
We saw the same with the demonstration last September. I'm sure those who were there had a great time but patently the numbers were pretty unimpressive. Instead however of analysing why, the response was to make exaggerated claims as to the numbers present. That's all very well if you're engaged in a bit of propaganda but it's fatal if you come to believe it yourself.
But the most telling thing of all are the increasing attacks on Better Together for being too negative. How we fight our campaign is up to us and the only test of whether it is being successful is in how it is moving the polls. And that, on any view, has been solely in one direction. Nobody, and I mean nobody, will have their opinion changed by one campaign attacking another campaign. We'll decide our tactics aren't effective only when they cease to be effective.
That will be determined in the polls, not in the comments section of Newsnet.
Still, at least we can all console ourselves that the failed insurrectionists of 2014 will face not death but mere political ignominy. Unless of course some have already decided it might be better just to slink off into the night.
I wonder what's happened to Eck's paving bill?
*Footnote. I concede that separatist is a pejorative term and one which I have generally shied away from. But "Unionist" is also a pejorative term and one which I object to since I'm not a Unionist, I'm a Devolutionist, as indeed are the vast majority of the "Better Together" team. So, if the Nationalists want engage Nationalist against Devolutionist fair enough. But, if they want to decide, unilaterally, how we're to be described then, again, let's let the people decide which is the more accurate description of their side,
It was the first time I have been to the cinema on my own since I saw Polanski's Tess in, I am horrified to find on checking, 1979.
Les Miserables suffers from not featuring Nastassia Kinski. Were it not for that omission I would commend it unconditionally. It is a great, great film.
I suspect its plot is well known to most readers but I'll shy away from spoilers in respect of the fate of specific characters and instead write a little about the context of the second half of the film, the failed Paris Insurrection of 1832, for it has lessons for current Scottish politics.
In 1830, France had a minor (by French Standards) revolution when the last of the absolutist Bourbons was overthrown in favour of Louis Philippe and the institution of something vaguely approaching a Constitutional monarchy.
Now for some people this was not nearly enough change. The problem was that, keeping largely the company of the like minded, they completely lost sight of the fact that their opinions were nothing like the majority opinion, or at least the majority opinion of those politically engaged at all. So, when they took to the barricades they found themselves largely in their own company and the whole thing, years in the plotting and planning, was all over in forty-eight hours.
And at the end, while most of the plotters slunk quietly off into the night, no doubt muttering about the ingratitude of those on whose behalf they had sought to act, a few diehards determined on "liberty or death". Regrettably, most found themselves in receipt of the latter option.
Now, we are fortunate in the United Kingdom, or the mainland part of it at least, to live in more peaceful times, but the danger of talking only to those of like mind and ignoring the rest, just as did those on the 1832 barricades, seems to me to be an increasing difficulty for those who are advocates of Scottish separatism.*
Over the Christmas Holiday period a number of columnist supportive of but not engaged with the Yes Campaign wrote about the disastrous outcome of a potentially overwhelming No vote. They didn't wish for this outcome, far from it, but they recognised it as a possibility. Instead however of being given pause for thought as to why their friends might be thinking this way, most of the Nationalist diehards continued to be in complete denial about this being even conceivable.
In one of the most telling of these protestations, the nearest I saw to any concession of potential defeat was the assertion on one Nationalist website that "everybody" agreed that the losing side, whichever it was, would get at least 35% of the vote. This despite the fact that there has never been a single credible opinion poll ever which has ever given the Yes side 35% of the vote.
Now, even I think they might get that, although I think it extremely unlikely, but to get yourself into a mindset that "everybody" agrees, when patently everybody does not, shows the danger of only listening to those you want to hear.
We saw the same with the demonstration last September. I'm sure those who were there had a great time but patently the numbers were pretty unimpressive. Instead however of analysing why, the response was to make exaggerated claims as to the numbers present. That's all very well if you're engaged in a bit of propaganda but it's fatal if you come to believe it yourself.
But the most telling thing of all are the increasing attacks on Better Together for being too negative. How we fight our campaign is up to us and the only test of whether it is being successful is in how it is moving the polls. And that, on any view, has been solely in one direction. Nobody, and I mean nobody, will have their opinion changed by one campaign attacking another campaign. We'll decide our tactics aren't effective only when they cease to be effective.
That will be determined in the polls, not in the comments section of Newsnet.
Still, at least we can all console ourselves that the failed insurrectionists of 2014 will face not death but mere political ignominy. Unless of course some have already decided it might be better just to slink off into the night.
I wonder what's happened to Eck's paving bill?
*Footnote. I concede that separatist is a pejorative term and one which I have generally shied away from. But "Unionist" is also a pejorative term and one which I object to since I'm not a Unionist, I'm a Devolutionist, as indeed are the vast majority of the "Better Together" team. So, if the Nationalists want engage Nationalist against Devolutionist fair enough. But, if they want to decide, unilaterally, how we're to be described then, again, let's let the people decide which is the more accurate description of their side,
Monday, 7 January 2013
A Word about Taxes
Postscript
Cynics can go to the declaration of interest at the end.
A Word about Taxes
So, here is a question.
Suppose, just suppose, you were the Chancellor of the Exchequer or (since for once on this blog this is a constitutionally neutral question) the Finance Minister of an Independent Scotland. And suppose, just suppose, that you proposed to collect an additional £1752 per annum taxation from someone earning £60,000 per annum.
Who would you think could most readily meet that cost? The person without dependents or he or she with two children to support?
I defy anyone, from the far right of UKIP to the far left of the SSP not to respond that (faced with that narrow question) those without dependants would surely be more readily able to come up with the dosh.
And, for the avoidance of any doubt that group in between encompasses the leadership of all of our major political parties.
Yet the opposite outcome is precisely what has happened with the Child Benefit changes and while my own Party has been loud in our denunciation of these we have also been conspicuously reticent in making any promise to reverse them.
This is not about the taxation of the poor, for, notwithstanding some of the protestations in the Tory press, nobody earning £60,000 per annum is "poor"; it is all about fair taxation.
And it exposes a hole in our political discourse.
What would have been "fair" if one was minded to raise taxes on those earning more than £60,000 per annum (as I certainly am) would have been to increase their marginal tax rates. But any increase in blunt percentage terms of any level of direct taxation is deemed to be political anathema. So, instead, one group of reasonably well off people have been singled out for special treatment; those with children.
And thus we end up with the events of today.
In Margaret Thatcher's first Budget the basic rate of Income Tax was cut from 33% to 30%. Now, it would be easy for me to range off at this point into an attack on how her administration then successively cut that rate until by 1997, albeit under John Major, it had fallen to 23%. To blame it all on the "evil Tories". Except that in 1997, my own Party was elected on a specific pledge that this rate would not rise, and indeed then proceeded to cut it further to the 20% the Tories re-inherited in 2010.
However, my real message is not that it is wrong taxes have fallen, for in reality, under Thatcher/Major, no more than under Blair/Brown, they have not fallen. It is rather that, for reasons of political opportunism, we (all of us, for all of my readers will have some affiliation) have steadily moved away from transparent and transparently fair taxation (too high or too low is a legitimate debate) to essentially random taxation based on what the politicians believe they can get away with.
Now, to some degree, I understand the Realpolitik here. I remember 1992. And I also remember, on the other side, the shameful doing my Party handed out to the SNP in 1999 over their infamous "Penny for Scotland".
But at some point, surely, somebody has to call a halt to this madness. It cannot be the case that the public discourse proceeds on the basis that direct taxation, except on the very wealthiest (the Tories might say not even then) can only move in a steadily downward direction. And that additional or replacement revenue can only be raised by disguising it as something else (this year Child Benefit Cuts; last year removing the index linking of Tax credits; the year before.............tuition fees).
Surely at some point someone has to make the argument that a contribution to the civilised society must be returned to being on the basis of each contributing "according to their abilities" rather than by reason of accidental circumstance? Whether that accidental circumstance be by virtue of participating in higher education, or by being in need of long term care or indeed while having dependent children.
I'd like to end with a rousing call to arms but I struggle to do so for politics is politics but nothing, nothing, would cheer me up more than the Eds announcing that we'd restore universal Child Benefit but that the price would be that all those higher rate taxpayers paying 40% would now be paying 42%. They might even make a profit.
Afterword
*Declaration of Interest. I do pay some 40% tax and I don't have any weans.
Cynics can go to the declaration of interest at the end.
A Word about Taxes
So, here is a question.
Suppose, just suppose, you were the Chancellor of the Exchequer or (since for once on this blog this is a constitutionally neutral question) the Finance Minister of an Independent Scotland. And suppose, just suppose, that you proposed to collect an additional £1752 per annum taxation from someone earning £60,000 per annum.
Who would you think could most readily meet that cost? The person without dependents or he or she with two children to support?
I defy anyone, from the far right of UKIP to the far left of the SSP not to respond that (faced with that narrow question) those without dependants would surely be more readily able to come up with the dosh.
And, for the avoidance of any doubt that group in between encompasses the leadership of all of our major political parties.
Yet the opposite outcome is precisely what has happened with the Child Benefit changes and while my own Party has been loud in our denunciation of these we have also been conspicuously reticent in making any promise to reverse them.
This is not about the taxation of the poor, for, notwithstanding some of the protestations in the Tory press, nobody earning £60,000 per annum is "poor"; it is all about fair taxation.
And it exposes a hole in our political discourse.
What would have been "fair" if one was minded to raise taxes on those earning more than £60,000 per annum (as I certainly am) would have been to increase their marginal tax rates. But any increase in blunt percentage terms of any level of direct taxation is deemed to be political anathema. So, instead, one group of reasonably well off people have been singled out for special treatment; those with children.
And thus we end up with the events of today.
In Margaret Thatcher's first Budget the basic rate of Income Tax was cut from 33% to 30%. Now, it would be easy for me to range off at this point into an attack on how her administration then successively cut that rate until by 1997, albeit under John Major, it had fallen to 23%. To blame it all on the "evil Tories". Except that in 1997, my own Party was elected on a specific pledge that this rate would not rise, and indeed then proceeded to cut it further to the 20% the Tories re-inherited in 2010.
However, my real message is not that it is wrong taxes have fallen, for in reality, under Thatcher/Major, no more than under Blair/Brown, they have not fallen. It is rather that, for reasons of political opportunism, we (all of us, for all of my readers will have some affiliation) have steadily moved away from transparent and transparently fair taxation (too high or too low is a legitimate debate) to essentially random taxation based on what the politicians believe they can get away with.
Now, to some degree, I understand the Realpolitik here. I remember 1992. And I also remember, on the other side, the shameful doing my Party handed out to the SNP in 1999 over their infamous "Penny for Scotland".
But at some point, surely, somebody has to call a halt to this madness. It cannot be the case that the public discourse proceeds on the basis that direct taxation, except on the very wealthiest (the Tories might say not even then) can only move in a steadily downward direction. And that additional or replacement revenue can only be raised by disguising it as something else (this year Child Benefit Cuts; last year removing the index linking of Tax credits; the year before.............tuition fees).
Surely at some point someone has to make the argument that a contribution to the civilised society must be returned to being on the basis of each contributing "according to their abilities" rather than by reason of accidental circumstance? Whether that accidental circumstance be by virtue of participating in higher education, or by being in need of long term care or indeed while having dependent children.
I'd like to end with a rousing call to arms but I struggle to do so for politics is politics but nothing, nothing, would cheer me up more than the Eds announcing that we'd restore universal Child Benefit but that the price would be that all those higher rate taxpayers paying 40% would now be paying 42%. They might even make a profit.
Afterword
*Declaration of Interest. I do pay some 40% tax and I don't have any weans.
Sunday, 30 December 2012
The ianssmart Review of the Year
And now, the end is near.
With the exception of one week in the high Summer, personally I have not had the greatest of years but at least I've survived it.
However it is traditional at this season to announce awards due, in the opinion of the writer at least, to those of conspicuous merit.in the year almost past.
So here are the traditional, inaugural, ianssmart Scottish Political Awards for 2012. All ten of them.
Most Important Sentence of the Year
Most (indeed all) of the other awards go to human beings but this, arguably the single most important award goes simply to 29 words of the English language. They are contained in the fourth paragraph of the Edinburgh Agreement and they read this:
"The date of the poll will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine and will be set out in the Referendum Bill to be introduced by the Scottish Government." (my emphasis)
Now since I am conducting a (relatively) impartial review of the year I won't pause to gloat over how these words come to appear; they mean that there will definitely be a Referendum in the Autumn of 2014. Because the date has to be in the Primary Legislation that then once passed would require different Primary Legislation to call it off. A majority for which would be unlikely ever to be achievable even in this Scottish Parliament. To that extent one is drawn to the analogy of Marshal Zhukov on the 19th of November 1942. All that is left is to close the trap.
International Politician of the Year
Well, obviously well done to Francois Hollande although, to be honest, he seems to have been elected as the default option without many positives to commend him. And well done to Barack Obama too, although he perhaps needs to realise more that he was elected as much more than the default option.
But my award goes to the Vice-President, Joe Biden. Let's be honest, the first Presidential debate was a disaster and we suddenly panicked that despite all the arguments being on our side we might actually lose to these odd balls and lunatics. In the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden reminded us that we had all the arguments on our side. And then went on to get out our vote. Well done Sir. If you were only ten years younger you would yourself have made a great President.
Rising Star of the Year
Back to more domestic concerns. A few contenders here. Certainly Willie Rennie, although he might better be categorised as Survivor of the Year. And a few of the new Labour Group: Jenny Marra, Kez Dugdale, Drew Smith did nothing but improve their reputations. But my winner is my very own MSP, Jamie Hepburn, even though I most certainly did not vote for him to occupy that position.
To rise in any Party requires a bit of internal Party rebellion, without actual success, and then a willingness after the event to go out and defend the Party line against the "real" enemy. To that extent Jamie has played a faultless hand in 2012, effectively blowing away any of his internal contenders.
Post 2016, he will have a good chance of being the man charged with of picking up the pieces. Assuming, of course, that he is still an MSP at all.
Comeback of the Year
Again, my ultimate winner is a Nationalist, of sorts, but first a word for the other nominees. Brian Wilson is a propagandist of the very first rank and his return to the fray in his columns in the Scotsman has brought a proper heavy hitter back to the front line. He's not going away and the cybernats at some point are going to have to realise that he wont be persuaded to do so by unfocused abuse. Jim Sillars is also a man reborn and his constant, logical, demolition of the current case being made for what some still describe as "Independence", unless accommodated, will ultimately serve only the interests of the other side of the argument.
But the winner is my old comrade Dennis Canavan. If we are being honest about this, he is the one member of the Yes Scotland campaign my side truly fear. And once the utterly inept Blair Jenkins has been binned (surely soon), the danger is that Dennis will become the public face of that campaign.
But we might console ourselves with the thought that the reason Dennis is so feared on our side is that he is a man of unparalleled integrity. And that, from that position, when he was asked by Isabel Fraser back in October if he believed Alex Salmond was a man he could trust, he refused to answer. He will however, at some point, be asked again. Or maybe they'll just stick with the Yes man.
Colonist of the Year
Let's be honest, the SNP leadership would have preferred if Alasdair Gray had kept his mouth shut. Just as Nicola makes a speech (hopefully) categorising supporters into exclusively existentialist or utilitarian Nationalists, the last thing they wanted was one of their grand old men popping up to remind us of the third, anglophobic, chip on the shoulder, strand of that persuasion.
My colonist of the year however is a man who I really do not like but who shows the absurdity of the colonist categorisation.
Charles Green, I suspect, prior to eighteen months past, had spent no more than a few days of his entire life in Scotland. Today however you would think he had been born on the Copland Road and spent his formative years fostered to a family from Larkhall on condition that they enthusiastically encouraged his flute lessons.
But nobody, and I mean nobody, while readily cursing him as an orange b or or a ruthless b or even a chancing b, has ever thought for a moment to describe him as an English B. Although English he undoubtedly is. Because, outwith the world of a rather pathetic strand of nationalist opinion, that doesn't matter. Even if he does head back to Yorkshire after he has succeeded....... or failed. Just like Fergus headed back to the Bahamas.
Settler of the Year
It seems to me that one of the big, missed, stories of the year has been the renewal of the Scottish Labour Party.
Now I know there will be those who will be rolling about at this statement. We got gubbed in 2011 and, while Johann has done better than I expected, nobody seriously thinks of her as an alternative First Minister, even after the Referendum. And while we did better in the Local Government elections than expected, the best we could truly claim was a close fought score draw.
But throughout this slightly surreal period of Scottish Politics, nobody has ever disputed that in the big elections, the elections where most people actually vote. Labour remains the overwhelmingly dominant Party.
And nobody, thinking about it for a minute, doubts that if Labour wins in 2015 (and I accept that is an if) Scottish MPs are likely to be major players in any Labour Government; just as Brown, Cook, Reid, Darling and Browne were between 1997 and 2010.
And, at that level, Labour has surely renewed itself. For not only would Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy be likely to have prominent places but so also, surely, would be many of the 2010 intake: Gemma Doyle; Ian Murray; my own MP, Greg McClymont.
But the primus inter pares, for the moment at least, is surely the MP for Rutherglen, Tom Greatrex, who happens to have been born in Kent.
On any occasion he appears with Stewart Hosie to discuss Energy Policy you sense. long before the end, the unspoken demand fot "Haunners" on the Nationalist side but he's also more than up for the greater challenge presented by the Coalition. Definitely one to watch in 2013 and beyond.
Journalist of the year
A few contenders but one obvious winner here again. Robbie Dinwoodie remains the man most likely to be first to a major political exclusive. Isabel Fraser is surely on her way to being the new Kirsty Wark, the only fear being that, like Kirsty, she'll conclude that she's too large a fish for a small pond. All of the Scotland Tonight crew are also entitled to take a well deserved bow.
But the winner by a country mile is David Maddox, who wins for having his own newspaper apologise for a story he wrote that turned out to be true! Barroso did think that automatic EU membership for an independent Scotland was a non starter. And he had written a letter to that effect. Poor show on the Scotsman for temporarily backing down in the face of protestations to the contrary from people who were already established to be practised liars.
Columnist of the Year
Now, when I trailed these awards on twitter someone on "my" side suggested that this must surely be Euan McColm. And, if the category had been "Columnist I most readily agree has expressed my own ideas more succinctly" then Euan would undoubtedly be the winner.
And for those of us who read "serious" newspapers, there remain the usual other contenders: the imperious Angus McKay; the impertinent Alan Cochrane; McWhirter and Bell at the Herald; Severin Carrell, when he get the space, at the Guardian. Ian Jack, also of that organ, who. when he wants to, cuts through Scottish politics like a knife through butter.
But, in my opinion, whether by accident or otherwise, the most perceptive political columnist in Scotland is the guy who writes for Scotland's biggest selling newspaper, the Sun: Andy Nicoll.
Now, of course "nobody" reads him, meaning nobody among the twitterati. But actually, more people read what he has to say than probably all of the others above put together. And the single most incisive column I have read all year was one he wrote about why, in the aftermath of a no vote, devo max would be dead in the water. In half the words that would be allowed in a broadsheet.
So the accolade goes to him. He can add it to his "Scotland's most underrated novelist" award.
Scottish Politician of the Year
And so we come to the penultimate award, the biggie. And I'm afraid it goes to neither of the big Parties, Anas, even his opponents would concede, is a man on the rise; Nicola remains the single most impressive politician at Holyrood by something well beyond a country mile. Catherine Stihler can probably claim the single biggest political coup of the year.
But the winner, on any categorisation, is the man I myself admit having once denounced as a "numpty". Just shows I'm not always right.
Looking back on the year past the one politician who can truly claim he has achieved everything he set out to at it's start is the Secretary of State, Michael Moore
The "Edinburgh Agreement", more correctly the "Westminster Terms", have been forced on the Nationalists.
Thanks to his efforts, in Scotland at least, and despite the best efforts of Danny Alexander, some distinction remains visible between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories.
Most importantly of all, to him at least, he is established in a position from which he could be moved only of his own consent.
And not many Scottish politicians can claim that.
Scottish Role Model of the Year
And so to my final award, which isn't a political award at all, or at least not a Party political one.
There was no more telling episode about the current insular nature of Scottish politics than the debate over the political significance of the Olympics being almost entirely acted out over what it meant for the Constitutional argument.
The real political lesson however was the visible demonstration that we are hugely privileged to live now in such a diverse country. Not only racially diverse in one way obviously visible but when it came to enthusiastic support, completely invisible; but diverse also in the failure to make any distinction in support for the Olympians and the later Paralympians, And the whole thing brought to our screens by a very posh lady who also happened to be openly gay. But amidst all this, the other outstanding feature was the success of women athletes. I hesitate to name them individually for they were so many but their real achievement was almost beyond the medals in providing such positive role models for other young women that there was no need to be trapped by stereotype or outdated social convention.
And none more so than our own Katherine Grainger, finally getting her Gold Medal at the fourth attempt.
So she gets my final award. If Scotland had a few more Katherine Graingers it would surely be a better place.
See you in 2013
With the exception of one week in the high Summer, personally I have not had the greatest of years but at least I've survived it.
However it is traditional at this season to announce awards due, in the opinion of the writer at least, to those of conspicuous merit.in the year almost past.
So here are the traditional, inaugural, ianssmart Scottish Political Awards for 2012. All ten of them.
Most Important Sentence of the Year
Most (indeed all) of the other awards go to human beings but this, arguably the single most important award goes simply to 29 words of the English language. They are contained in the fourth paragraph of the Edinburgh Agreement and they read this:
"The date of the poll will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine and will be set out in the Referendum Bill to be introduced by the Scottish Government." (my emphasis)
Now since I am conducting a (relatively) impartial review of the year I won't pause to gloat over how these words come to appear; they mean that there will definitely be a Referendum in the Autumn of 2014. Because the date has to be in the Primary Legislation that then once passed would require different Primary Legislation to call it off. A majority for which would be unlikely ever to be achievable even in this Scottish Parliament. To that extent one is drawn to the analogy of Marshal Zhukov on the 19th of November 1942. All that is left is to close the trap.
International Politician of the Year
Well, obviously well done to Francois Hollande although, to be honest, he seems to have been elected as the default option without many positives to commend him. And well done to Barack Obama too, although he perhaps needs to realise more that he was elected as much more than the default option.
But my award goes to the Vice-President, Joe Biden. Let's be honest, the first Presidential debate was a disaster and we suddenly panicked that despite all the arguments being on our side we might actually lose to these odd balls and lunatics. In the Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden reminded us that we had all the arguments on our side. And then went on to get out our vote. Well done Sir. If you were only ten years younger you would yourself have made a great President.
Rising Star of the Year
Back to more domestic concerns. A few contenders here. Certainly Willie Rennie, although he might better be categorised as Survivor of the Year. And a few of the new Labour Group: Jenny Marra, Kez Dugdale, Drew Smith did nothing but improve their reputations. But my winner is my very own MSP, Jamie Hepburn, even though I most certainly did not vote for him to occupy that position.
To rise in any Party requires a bit of internal Party rebellion, without actual success, and then a willingness after the event to go out and defend the Party line against the "real" enemy. To that extent Jamie has played a faultless hand in 2012, effectively blowing away any of his internal contenders.
Post 2016, he will have a good chance of being the man charged with of picking up the pieces. Assuming, of course, that he is still an MSP at all.
Comeback of the Year
Again, my ultimate winner is a Nationalist, of sorts, but first a word for the other nominees. Brian Wilson is a propagandist of the very first rank and his return to the fray in his columns in the Scotsman has brought a proper heavy hitter back to the front line. He's not going away and the cybernats at some point are going to have to realise that he wont be persuaded to do so by unfocused abuse. Jim Sillars is also a man reborn and his constant, logical, demolition of the current case being made for what some still describe as "Independence", unless accommodated, will ultimately serve only the interests of the other side of the argument.
But the winner is my old comrade Dennis Canavan. If we are being honest about this, he is the one member of the Yes Scotland campaign my side truly fear. And once the utterly inept Blair Jenkins has been binned (surely soon), the danger is that Dennis will become the public face of that campaign.
But we might console ourselves with the thought that the reason Dennis is so feared on our side is that he is a man of unparalleled integrity. And that, from that position, when he was asked by Isabel Fraser back in October if he believed Alex Salmond was a man he could trust, he refused to answer. He will however, at some point, be asked again. Or maybe they'll just stick with the Yes man.
Colonist of the Year
Let's be honest, the SNP leadership would have preferred if Alasdair Gray had kept his mouth shut. Just as Nicola makes a speech (hopefully) categorising supporters into exclusively existentialist or utilitarian Nationalists, the last thing they wanted was one of their grand old men popping up to remind us of the third, anglophobic, chip on the shoulder, strand of that persuasion.
My colonist of the year however is a man who I really do not like but who shows the absurdity of the colonist categorisation.
Charles Green, I suspect, prior to eighteen months past, had spent no more than a few days of his entire life in Scotland. Today however you would think he had been born on the Copland Road and spent his formative years fostered to a family from Larkhall on condition that they enthusiastically encouraged his flute lessons.
But nobody, and I mean nobody, while readily cursing him as an orange b or or a ruthless b or even a chancing b, has ever thought for a moment to describe him as an English B. Although English he undoubtedly is. Because, outwith the world of a rather pathetic strand of nationalist opinion, that doesn't matter. Even if he does head back to Yorkshire after he has succeeded....... or failed. Just like Fergus headed back to the Bahamas.
Settler of the Year
It seems to me that one of the big, missed, stories of the year has been the renewal of the Scottish Labour Party.
Now I know there will be those who will be rolling about at this statement. We got gubbed in 2011 and, while Johann has done better than I expected, nobody seriously thinks of her as an alternative First Minister, even after the Referendum. And while we did better in the Local Government elections than expected, the best we could truly claim was a close fought score draw.
But throughout this slightly surreal period of Scottish Politics, nobody has ever disputed that in the big elections, the elections where most people actually vote. Labour remains the overwhelmingly dominant Party.
And nobody, thinking about it for a minute, doubts that if Labour wins in 2015 (and I accept that is an if) Scottish MPs are likely to be major players in any Labour Government; just as Brown, Cook, Reid, Darling and Browne were between 1997 and 2010.
And, at that level, Labour has surely renewed itself. For not only would Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy be likely to have prominent places but so also, surely, would be many of the 2010 intake: Gemma Doyle; Ian Murray; my own MP, Greg McClymont.
But the primus inter pares, for the moment at least, is surely the MP for Rutherglen, Tom Greatrex, who happens to have been born in Kent.
On any occasion he appears with Stewart Hosie to discuss Energy Policy you sense. long before the end, the unspoken demand fot "Haunners" on the Nationalist side but he's also more than up for the greater challenge presented by the Coalition. Definitely one to watch in 2013 and beyond.
Journalist of the year
A few contenders but one obvious winner here again. Robbie Dinwoodie remains the man most likely to be first to a major political exclusive. Isabel Fraser is surely on her way to being the new Kirsty Wark, the only fear being that, like Kirsty, she'll conclude that she's too large a fish for a small pond. All of the Scotland Tonight crew are also entitled to take a well deserved bow.
But the winner by a country mile is David Maddox, who wins for having his own newspaper apologise for a story he wrote that turned out to be true! Barroso did think that automatic EU membership for an independent Scotland was a non starter. And he had written a letter to that effect. Poor show on the Scotsman for temporarily backing down in the face of protestations to the contrary from people who were already established to be practised liars.
Columnist of the Year
Now, when I trailed these awards on twitter someone on "my" side suggested that this must surely be Euan McColm. And, if the category had been "Columnist I most readily agree has expressed my own ideas more succinctly" then Euan would undoubtedly be the winner.
And for those of us who read "serious" newspapers, there remain the usual other contenders: the imperious Angus McKay; the impertinent Alan Cochrane; McWhirter and Bell at the Herald; Severin Carrell, when he get the space, at the Guardian. Ian Jack, also of that organ, who. when he wants to, cuts through Scottish politics like a knife through butter.
But, in my opinion, whether by accident or otherwise, the most perceptive political columnist in Scotland is the guy who writes for Scotland's biggest selling newspaper, the Sun: Andy Nicoll.
Now, of course "nobody" reads him, meaning nobody among the twitterati. But actually, more people read what he has to say than probably all of the others above put together. And the single most incisive column I have read all year was one he wrote about why, in the aftermath of a no vote, devo max would be dead in the water. In half the words that would be allowed in a broadsheet.
So the accolade goes to him. He can add it to his "Scotland's most underrated novelist" award.
Scottish Politician of the Year
And so we come to the penultimate award, the biggie. And I'm afraid it goes to neither of the big Parties, Anas, even his opponents would concede, is a man on the rise; Nicola remains the single most impressive politician at Holyrood by something well beyond a country mile. Catherine Stihler can probably claim the single biggest political coup of the year.
But the winner, on any categorisation, is the man I myself admit having once denounced as a "numpty". Just shows I'm not always right.
Looking back on the year past the one politician who can truly claim he has achieved everything he set out to at it's start is the Secretary of State, Michael Moore
The "Edinburgh Agreement", more correctly the "Westminster Terms", have been forced on the Nationalists.
Thanks to his efforts, in Scotland at least, and despite the best efforts of Danny Alexander, some distinction remains visible between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories.
Most importantly of all, to him at least, he is established in a position from which he could be moved only of his own consent.
And not many Scottish politicians can claim that.
Scottish Role Model of the Year
And so to my final award, which isn't a political award at all, or at least not a Party political one.
There was no more telling episode about the current insular nature of Scottish politics than the debate over the political significance of the Olympics being almost entirely acted out over what it meant for the Constitutional argument.
The real political lesson however was the visible demonstration that we are hugely privileged to live now in such a diverse country. Not only racially diverse in one way obviously visible but when it came to enthusiastic support, completely invisible; but diverse also in the failure to make any distinction in support for the Olympians and the later Paralympians, And the whole thing brought to our screens by a very posh lady who also happened to be openly gay. But amidst all this, the other outstanding feature was the success of women athletes. I hesitate to name them individually for they were so many but their real achievement was almost beyond the medals in providing such positive role models for other young women that there was no need to be trapped by stereotype or outdated social convention.
And none more so than our own Katherine Grainger, finally getting her Gold Medal at the fourth attempt.
So she gets my final award. If Scotland had a few more Katherine Graingers it would surely be a better place.
See you in 2013
Saturday, 22 December 2012
Ten Christmas Paintings
So, it's nearly Christmas and I have therefore, in the spirit of goodwill, decided to forgo my political blogging this week in favour of a more festive topic.
I wrote some time ago about my ten favourite paintings and I thought tonight I might indulge myself with ten favourite Christmas paintings. As before, the rule has to be that they are all paintings that I have actually seen, although, as before, I actually break that rule once if only in the sense that it is not a painting I have seen, yet.
It's only right before beginning that I should say a bit about where I stand religiously.
This Summer we took a very devout friend to see Orvieto Cathedral. We had been there before many times but it was her first visit. It is in fact not my very favourite Cathedral in Italy, that distinction belongs to Trani, whose stripped Romanesque style probably still resonates with my Presbyterian upbringing, but Orvieto is only a half step behind. One of the more recent Popes observed that it would surely also be transported up to Heaven on the day of judgement.
Anyway, the late Norman Buchan, just about the most convinced of atheists I have ever known, who saw the Cathedral for the first time when fighting with the 8th Army in 1944, famously observed that you could only be sure of your atheism if you had survived seeing Orvieto Cathedral.
By Norrie's test I have failed, for I remain determinedly agnostic.
So, unlike Sister Wendy*, I commend what's follows in a sort of "make up your own mind" spirit.
*The one's who's a Nun, not the one who was former leader of the Scottish Labour Party.
Fra Angelico: The Annunciation
Diocesan Museum, Cortona (Ar)
I saw this painting as recently as August. Obviously there are a choice of Fra Angelico Annunciations and the most famous are probably in San Marco in Florence. Indeed, I could accompany them with a better anecdote for we saw them on the same day, God knows how many years ago, when we shook hands with Prime Minister John Major in the Piazza della Signoria. He was there for an Anglo-Italian summit. We were there for wee Mo's birthday. Anyway, back to Cortona, and to this painting. 1430 something, early Renaissance. The genius is not in the figures, which are far from perfect, or even in the perspective of the colonnade but rather in the way it conveys the spirituality of the subject matter. Even as I write I realise the hopelessness of the task. It's like trying to provide a written review of a live band. You really need to have been there. The good news is that on this occasion it is a permanent performance.
Perugino: The Marriage of the Virgin
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Caen
You may wonder how I might have seen this when it is Caen, where it ended up after it was pinched by Napoleon, but I saw it when it was part of the big Perugino anniversary exhibition in Perugia many years back. It was for Perugia's Cathedral that it was originally painted. Indeed, it features prominently that town's Cathedral's most spectacular relic, the wedding ring of the Virgin Mary, which I take great delight in showing off to anyone who happens upon my company there. All I can say beyond about the relic is that is that if it is indeed Her ring, Our Lady must have had very fat fingers.That nonsense aside however, the inspiration comes from St Matthew and that is truly miraculous in its language.
Let's move on.
Botticelli: The Virgin Adoring the Sleeping Christ child.
National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh
Now, if your wondering about the jump here from conception to contemplation then I would refer you to one of my earlier blogs but this being Christmas it is no time to be challenging tradition.
There are a number of reasons I have chosen this painting. The first is simply that it's a great painting in absolutely classic high Renaissance style. Google it and you're told that it is unusual to the extent that the wean is asleep. A good few new parents of my acquaintance might share that sentiment. But Our Lady wears blue and appears remarkably fit in the aftermath of childbirth (make of the word "fit" what you will) so, to that extent it is typical.
But I've also chosen it because wherever you are in Scotland (within reason) it is never more than a couple of hours away. And worth the effort to travel.
It cost a fortune to acquire this painting for Scotland. And yet if that money was to be spent on art (a wider question) then surely that money was better spent than in acquiring this than a hundred or even a thousand "Scottish" paintings on the same subject. Although that's not necessarily everybody's view.................sorry, nearly forgot my no politics promise.
Sempre avanti.
Gozzoli: The Journey of the Magi
Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, Florence
Now at this point you have to jump either to St Matthew or St Luke. For, contrary to common cultural perception, if you want the wise men and the shepherds, you cant have both, I'm going for the Tory troop first. This is just an amazing painting, spectacular in its colour, ambition and scale. But that's not the really amazing bit, that comes from the dramatis personae. For the Magi and their followers are in fact portraits of the House of Medici. We complain about the arrogance and self promotion of our current political class but even Michael Gove might have hesitated at this. The irony is that most of these people are now more famous for appearing in this painting than for anything else, although Lorenzo the Magnificent is lurking among the foot-soldiers.
Gentile da Fabriano: The Adoration of the Magi
Ufizzi, Florence
In some ways "just" another great Renaissance painting. At some point in my art blogs however I like to talk about where to have lunch and as this is the half way point I thought that might be appropriate. In some ways it is invidious to choose a restaurant in Florence, as I've never eaten badly anywhere there, but my purely anecdotal experience is that the food is slightly more "tipico" (and cheaper) on the far side of the Arno and, having dug out my old Gamberro Rozzo guide, I remember this establishment particularly fondly. Don't have the Fiorentina though. You'll never finish it.
Ghirlandaio: The Adoration of the Shepherds
Sasseti Chapel, Santa Trinita, Florence
So anyway, back to St. Luke. Regular followers of my taste might be expecting the Caravaggio at this point, for there is Caravaggio and I've seen it. It's in Messina, as far mezzo as you can go in the Mezzogiorno. But, somehow, I don't really think of Caravaggio as a Christmas painter, Easter is much more his thing. And I really didn't like Messina. It struck me as a sort of sunny Greenock and you will appreciate that for a Paisley man it is difficult to think of a greater insult. So, instead, nonetheless spoiled for choice, I have chosen a Ghirlandaio. The "problem" with Florence is that there is so much great art, indeed Stendahl found it all just too, too much. So you can easily miss this, in Santa Trinita. If you ever go however, don't. The crowning glory of a wonderful fresco cycle by a slightly neglected genius. And a wonderful subject matter.
Botticelli: The Mystical Nativity
National Gallery, London
Now, if you.ve persevered to this point, you are entitled to "the full bhuna" and here it is. I really shouldn't have a second Botticelli but nobody does it better than this. The Holy Family; the wise men; the shepherds; more angels than could ever dance on the head of a pin; even the ox and the ass. Brilliant. If your interested in the wider iconography I strongly commend this
Duccio di Buoninsegna: The Massacre of the Innocents
Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Siena
Where to start. First of all to observe that this is, properly, pre-Renaissance art, painted at the start of the 14th Century. And then to observe that it is both a work of genius and (in the proper sense of the word), a terrible painting. Some years ago I started reading a much acclaimed novel about the holocaust and in the end I had to stop because it was giving me nightmares. This painting had on me the same effect, albeit on a lesser scale. It is an evil, evil subject made all the more so by the genius with which it is brought to life. The real terror is not in the murdered children or even the anguish of their mothers but rather in the banal, almost routine, way the soldiers are going about their business. It is a reminder of how, while all this great art was being created, ordinary people at least were subject to random and mindless acts of barbarism. If only we could say that, for all our comfort in the west today, elsewhere in the world that does not too often remain the case.
Giotto: The Flight into Egypt
Scrovegni Chapel, Padua
Anyway, to cheerier things.
This is the painting I have not seen for, and here I make a shameful confession, I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO PADUA!
I love Giotto not for all the technical guff about his use of space and framing but rather because of the simplicity of his style. And this is a perfect example. I'm not quite sure who the other punters are but the principal players are instantly recognisable, even the donkey.
I have resolved that I will see this in reality at some point in 2013, then again I've said that many times before. Nonetheless, if anybody fancies a wee trip to the Veneto, they should get in touch.
Raphael: The Madonna della Sedia
Palazzo Pitti, Florence
And so to the final scene.
When it comes to Madonnas, in the end, I remain a Bellini man. To that extent I favour doctrine over scripture. For Bellini Madonnas have an ethereal, transcendental quality. Our Lady is always hovering between this world and the next and the troubles of this world seem almost secondary to Her. And sometimes that can make you gasp at their outright beauty, But this is a Raphael Madonna, a late Raphael. And it tells a different story, one that can still appeal to us mere agnostics. At the very end of his account of the Nativity, St Luke writes this (2.40).
And with that, I'm done.
It only remains for me to wish you all a very Merry Christmas (or even Buon Natale!) and to assure you that I will return to more mundane subjects after the festivities.
I wrote some time ago about my ten favourite paintings and I thought tonight I might indulge myself with ten favourite Christmas paintings. As before, the rule has to be that they are all paintings that I have actually seen, although, as before, I actually break that rule once if only in the sense that it is not a painting I have seen, yet.
It's only right before beginning that I should say a bit about where I stand religiously.
This Summer we took a very devout friend to see Orvieto Cathedral. We had been there before many times but it was her first visit. It is in fact not my very favourite Cathedral in Italy, that distinction belongs to Trani, whose stripped Romanesque style probably still resonates with my Presbyterian upbringing, but Orvieto is only a half step behind. One of the more recent Popes observed that it would surely also be transported up to Heaven on the day of judgement.
Anyway, the late Norman Buchan, just about the most convinced of atheists I have ever known, who saw the Cathedral for the first time when fighting with the 8th Army in 1944, famously observed that you could only be sure of your atheism if you had survived seeing Orvieto Cathedral.
By Norrie's test I have failed, for I remain determinedly agnostic.
So, unlike Sister Wendy*, I commend what's follows in a sort of "make up your own mind" spirit.
*The one's who's a Nun, not the one who was former leader of the Scottish Labour Party.
Fra Angelico: The Annunciation
Diocesan Museum, Cortona (Ar)
I saw this painting as recently as August. Obviously there are a choice of Fra Angelico Annunciations and the most famous are probably in San Marco in Florence. Indeed, I could accompany them with a better anecdote for we saw them on the same day, God knows how many years ago, when we shook hands with Prime Minister John Major in the Piazza della Signoria. He was there for an Anglo-Italian summit. We were there for wee Mo's birthday. Anyway, back to Cortona, and to this painting. 1430 something, early Renaissance. The genius is not in the figures, which are far from perfect, or even in the perspective of the colonnade but rather in the way it conveys the spirituality of the subject matter. Even as I write I realise the hopelessness of the task. It's like trying to provide a written review of a live band. You really need to have been there. The good news is that on this occasion it is a permanent performance.
Perugino: The Marriage of the Virgin
Musee des Beaux-Arts, Caen
You may wonder how I might have seen this when it is Caen, where it ended up after it was pinched by Napoleon, but I saw it when it was part of the big Perugino anniversary exhibition in Perugia many years back. It was for Perugia's Cathedral that it was originally painted. Indeed, it features prominently that town's Cathedral's most spectacular relic, the wedding ring of the Virgin Mary, which I take great delight in showing off to anyone who happens upon my company there. All I can say beyond about the relic is that is that if it is indeed Her ring, Our Lady must have had very fat fingers.That nonsense aside however, the inspiration comes from St Matthew and that is truly miraculous in its language.
8 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Let's move on.
Botticelli: The Virgin Adoring the Sleeping Christ child.
National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh
Now, if your wondering about the jump here from conception to contemplation then I would refer you to one of my earlier blogs but this being Christmas it is no time to be challenging tradition.
There are a number of reasons I have chosen this painting. The first is simply that it's a great painting in absolutely classic high Renaissance style. Google it and you're told that it is unusual to the extent that the wean is asleep. A good few new parents of my acquaintance might share that sentiment. But Our Lady wears blue and appears remarkably fit in the aftermath of childbirth (make of the word "fit" what you will) so, to that extent it is typical.
But I've also chosen it because wherever you are in Scotland (within reason) it is never more than a couple of hours away. And worth the effort to travel.
It cost a fortune to acquire this painting for Scotland. And yet if that money was to be spent on art (a wider question) then surely that money was better spent than in acquiring this than a hundred or even a thousand "Scottish" paintings on the same subject. Although that's not necessarily everybody's view.................sorry, nearly forgot my no politics promise.
Sempre avanti.
Gozzoli: The Journey of the Magi
Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, Florence
Now at this point you have to jump either to St Matthew or St Luke. For, contrary to common cultural perception, if you want the wise men and the shepherds, you cant have both, I'm going for the Tory troop first. This is just an amazing painting, spectacular in its colour, ambition and scale. But that's not the really amazing bit, that comes from the dramatis personae. For the Magi and their followers are in fact portraits of the House of Medici. We complain about the arrogance and self promotion of our current political class but even Michael Gove might have hesitated at this. The irony is that most of these people are now more famous for appearing in this painting than for anything else, although Lorenzo the Magnificent is lurking among the foot-soldiers.
Gentile da Fabriano: The Adoration of the Magi
Ufizzi, Florence
In some ways "just" another great Renaissance painting. At some point in my art blogs however I like to talk about where to have lunch and as this is the half way point I thought that might be appropriate. In some ways it is invidious to choose a restaurant in Florence, as I've never eaten badly anywhere there, but my purely anecdotal experience is that the food is slightly more "tipico" (and cheaper) on the far side of the Arno and, having dug out my old Gamberro Rozzo guide, I remember this establishment particularly fondly. Don't have the Fiorentina though. You'll never finish it.
Ghirlandaio: The Adoration of the Shepherds
Sasseti Chapel, Santa Trinita, Florence
So anyway, back to St. Luke. Regular followers of my taste might be expecting the Caravaggio at this point, for there is Caravaggio and I've seen it. It's in Messina, as far mezzo as you can go in the Mezzogiorno. But, somehow, I don't really think of Caravaggio as a Christmas painter, Easter is much more his thing. And I really didn't like Messina. It struck me as a sort of sunny Greenock and you will appreciate that for a Paisley man it is difficult to think of a greater insult. So, instead, nonetheless spoiled for choice, I have chosen a Ghirlandaio. The "problem" with Florence is that there is so much great art, indeed Stendahl found it all just too, too much. So you can easily miss this, in Santa Trinita. If you ever go however, don't. The crowning glory of a wonderful fresco cycle by a slightly neglected genius. And a wonderful subject matter.
Botticelli: The Mystical Nativity
National Gallery, London
Now, if you.ve persevered to this point, you are entitled to "the full bhuna" and here it is. I really shouldn't have a second Botticelli but nobody does it better than this. The Holy Family; the wise men; the shepherds; more angels than could ever dance on the head of a pin; even the ox and the ass. Brilliant. If your interested in the wider iconography I strongly commend this
Duccio di Buoninsegna: The Massacre of the Innocents
Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Siena
Where to start. First of all to observe that this is, properly, pre-Renaissance art, painted at the start of the 14th Century. And then to observe that it is both a work of genius and (in the proper sense of the word), a terrible painting. Some years ago I started reading a much acclaimed novel about the holocaust and in the end I had to stop because it was giving me nightmares. This painting had on me the same effect, albeit on a lesser scale. It is an evil, evil subject made all the more so by the genius with which it is brought to life. The real terror is not in the murdered children or even the anguish of their mothers but rather in the banal, almost routine, way the soldiers are going about their business. It is a reminder of how, while all this great art was being created, ordinary people at least were subject to random and mindless acts of barbarism. If only we could say that, for all our comfort in the west today, elsewhere in the world that does not too often remain the case.
Giotto: The Flight into Egypt
Scrovegni Chapel, Padua
Anyway, to cheerier things.
This is the painting I have not seen for, and here I make a shameful confession, I HAVE NEVER BEEN TO PADUA!
I love Giotto not for all the technical guff about his use of space and framing but rather because of the simplicity of his style. And this is a perfect example. I'm not quite sure who the other punters are but the principal players are instantly recognisable, even the donkey.
I have resolved that I will see this in reality at some point in 2013, then again I've said that many times before. Nonetheless, if anybody fancies a wee trip to the Veneto, they should get in touch.
Raphael: The Madonna della Sedia
Palazzo Pitti, Florence
And so to the final scene.
When it comes to Madonnas, in the end, I remain a Bellini man. To that extent I favour doctrine over scripture. For Bellini Madonnas have an ethereal, transcendental quality. Our Lady is always hovering between this world and the next and the troubles of this world seem almost secondary to Her. And sometimes that can make you gasp at their outright beauty, But this is a Raphael Madonna, a late Raphael. And it tells a different story, one that can still appeal to us mere agnostics. At the very end of his account of the Nativity, St Luke writes this (2.40).
For in the end, the Christmas Story is an adventure, and one, for the moment at least, with a happy ending.
But you also can't look at this painting without thinking also that the child could be any child and the mother could be any mother. The form requires that they look directly out of the picture but the intimacy is in the body language. The comfort of the mutual embrace but equally the impression that Mary is holding the child just a little too tight, perhaps reluctant to let him go out into the world. For this child, that may have been to a unique destiny but that sentiment is surely a more universal one. And never held more strongly than at Christmas.
It only remains for me to wish you all a very Merry Christmas (or even Buon Natale!) and to assure you that I will return to more mundane subjects after the festivities.
Sunday, 16 December 2012
A Debacle
Too much to do today for a long blog.
I am, as my Twitter followers will know, a devotee of Strictly Come Dancing but it was my office Christmas "do" last night so into an already hectic day I need to find time to watch last night's show before tonight's results programme. Then there is, of course, the Sports Personality of the Year, for which I would enthusiastically endorse Jessica Ennis, were that certain not to be the kiss of death. And then the penultimate episode of Homeland.
And before that I've suddenly realised that some of the people I'm meeting up with next week are likely to expect presents. Which I've not yet got.
So, were it not for a promise made, I would have forgone "the blogging" altogether.
But I did make a promise and that was to respond in some way to the new Nationalist line on Europe first articulated in .Jeff Breslin's piece in last week's "Comment is free" section of the Guardian and, as it turned out, the similar line taken by Daniel Kenealy in the Scotsman and subsequently by Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament.
They all essentially said: "Alright, we might not automatically be members of the EU in the event of a vote for Independence, but why wouldn't they let us in? We've got oil and lots of fish." Fish, for some reason, features big in this argument.
The increasingly incoherent Blair Jenkins, who must surely shortly receive the dreaded "vote of confidence" from his Board, seems to have tried to make the same argument when debating, or probably more correctly appearing with, Alistair Darling on Friday's Daily Politics. And do you know, they are probably right.
Except they are asserting a counter-position that nobody actually holds. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said Scotland would be refused entry. What they (we) have always said is that the key issue is terms and timescale of that entry.
And here is where things start, from a Nationalist perspective, to fall apart.
First of all, it is inconceivable that all the necessary negotiations could be concluded in the period October 2014 to May 2016 when it remains the position of the SNP (but interestingly not the Greens) that the first "Independence" Election will be held, particularly since most of the major players, will supposedly also be engaged in negotiating with the English over Independence and (essentially) the Americans over NATO during the same period. never mind actually running Scotland.
And the problem with that, as I've already pointed out, is that the May 2016 Elections would otherwise become a second referendum, which, if Unionist Parties won a majority would lead to the whole Independence project grinding to a halt. Some of the madder Cybernats reacted to my pointing this out on Twitter by suggesting these elections would then just have to be postponed, ignoring the fact that Countries where elections are postponed would be unlikely to be allowed into the EU on any terms.
But that's just the start of the Nationalist dilemma. For it remains their position that not only will they be in the EU, they must be in the EU. Now, that's no basis for any negotiation.
When I was drafting this blog in my head, I was intending to give some examples of that but I was beaten to it by this piece in today's Scotland on Sunday. You'll see it shares the recurring fish theme.
So I'll just give one further very obvious example. It has always been the objective of the UK Eurosceptics (as opposed to the out and out "outers") to secure a situation whereby the UK not only does not currently join the Euro but effectively secures an outcome whereby, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of the single market, it never will join. And it has always been the objective of the European integrationists to deny them that option. This is big politics, much bigger than the position of one small peripheral Country. Against that background it would be a complete non-starter for Brussels to contemplate two multinational currencies within the boundaries of the EU, not least because it might give other non-euro Countries a strategic alternative to the Euro. Yet the SNP (again not the Greens) propose that Sterling becomes precisely that!
And before anybody thinks we could just have our own currency they should consider why that has been rejected as out of the question by such a die hard Unionist as John Swinney, Standard Life anybody?
The Nationalists must know that the idea that we can not only not join the Euro but even keep Sterling while still being happily invited into the EU is nonsense, or at least surely they must know that.
But again, we are just asked to stick our fingers in our ears, and hum "Flower of Scotland" very loudly. As we are over the USA being entirely relaxed allowing into NATO a Country insistent on the closure of the strategic submarine base of their principal ally; or indeed the English continuing to enjoy a benign attitude to a Country whose departure (on a different Nationalist narrative) will remove a substantial subsidy it has been providing to them for years.
By the end of the week, the Nationalist spinners had moved on to try and portray this debacle as at least meaning more people were beginning to consider what a Yes vote for Independence might mean. In that one respect I agree with them but not in a way that would make them happy.
I am, as my Twitter followers will know, a devotee of Strictly Come Dancing but it was my office Christmas "do" last night so into an already hectic day I need to find time to watch last night's show before tonight's results programme. Then there is, of course, the Sports Personality of the Year, for which I would enthusiastically endorse Jessica Ennis, were that certain not to be the kiss of death. And then the penultimate episode of Homeland.
And before that I've suddenly realised that some of the people I'm meeting up with next week are likely to expect presents. Which I've not yet got.
So, were it not for a promise made, I would have forgone "the blogging" altogether.
But I did make a promise and that was to respond in some way to the new Nationalist line on Europe first articulated in .Jeff Breslin's piece in last week's "Comment is free" section of the Guardian and, as it turned out, the similar line taken by Daniel Kenealy in the Scotsman and subsequently by Nicola Sturgeon in the Scottish Parliament.
They all essentially said: "Alright, we might not automatically be members of the EU in the event of a vote for Independence, but why wouldn't they let us in? We've got oil and lots of fish." Fish, for some reason, features big in this argument.
The increasingly incoherent Blair Jenkins, who must surely shortly receive the dreaded "vote of confidence" from his Board, seems to have tried to make the same argument when debating, or probably more correctly appearing with, Alistair Darling on Friday's Daily Politics. And do you know, they are probably right.
Except they are asserting a counter-position that nobody actually holds. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said Scotland would be refused entry. What they (we) have always said is that the key issue is terms and timescale of that entry.
And here is where things start, from a Nationalist perspective, to fall apart.
First of all, it is inconceivable that all the necessary negotiations could be concluded in the period October 2014 to May 2016 when it remains the position of the SNP (but interestingly not the Greens) that the first "Independence" Election will be held, particularly since most of the major players, will supposedly also be engaged in negotiating with the English over Independence and (essentially) the Americans over NATO during the same period. never mind actually running Scotland.
And the problem with that, as I've already pointed out, is that the May 2016 Elections would otherwise become a second referendum, which, if Unionist Parties won a majority would lead to the whole Independence project grinding to a halt. Some of the madder Cybernats reacted to my pointing this out on Twitter by suggesting these elections would then just have to be postponed, ignoring the fact that Countries where elections are postponed would be unlikely to be allowed into the EU on any terms.
But that's just the start of the Nationalist dilemma. For it remains their position that not only will they be in the EU, they must be in the EU. Now, that's no basis for any negotiation.
When I was drafting this blog in my head, I was intending to give some examples of that but I was beaten to it by this piece in today's Scotland on Sunday. You'll see it shares the recurring fish theme.
So I'll just give one further very obvious example. It has always been the objective of the UK Eurosceptics (as opposed to the out and out "outers") to secure a situation whereby the UK not only does not currently join the Euro but effectively secures an outcome whereby, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of the single market, it never will join. And it has always been the objective of the European integrationists to deny them that option. This is big politics, much bigger than the position of one small peripheral Country. Against that background it would be a complete non-starter for Brussels to contemplate two multinational currencies within the boundaries of the EU, not least because it might give other non-euro Countries a strategic alternative to the Euro. Yet the SNP (again not the Greens) propose that Sterling becomes precisely that!
And before anybody thinks we could just have our own currency they should consider why that has been rejected as out of the question by such a die hard Unionist as John Swinney, Standard Life anybody?
The Nationalists must know that the idea that we can not only not join the Euro but even keep Sterling while still being happily invited into the EU is nonsense, or at least surely they must know that.
But again, we are just asked to stick our fingers in our ears, and hum "Flower of Scotland" very loudly. As we are over the USA being entirely relaxed allowing into NATO a Country insistent on the closure of the strategic submarine base of their principal ally; or indeed the English continuing to enjoy a benign attitude to a Country whose departure (on a different Nationalist narrative) will remove a substantial subsidy it has been providing to them for years.
By the end of the week, the Nationalist spinners had moved on to try and portray this debacle as at least meaning more people were beginning to consider what a Yes vote for Independence might mean. In that one respect I agree with them but not in a way that would make them happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)