1. We are asked whether we want to be an independent country. Someone from the Conservative Party says we’d be better with the UK’s “safety net”. He likes being safe and is very worried about all that... stuff out there. Like bewildering trapezes, perhaps. Really, how you vote may depend on how scared you feel. But the safety net is mythological. There is no real safety net.
2. It’s interesting to hear that some Conservatives appear to support a dependency culture when it comes to Scotland. They complain about subsidies we are supposedly being given and then do everything in their power to keep us, to make sure we keep receiving them. What’s the logic in that?
3. Actually Scotland isn’t being subsidised at all and the extent of currently untapped oil reserves are unclear. That could be one reason why the main British parties are keen to resist separation. Oil! Who would have thought?
4. Many friendly people from England say “Don’t go. Stay with us.” But we are with you. We’re not actually going anywhere.
5. One English person was saying, “But what about us if you become independent?” Well, that is up to you and the people of England and I hope you make positive choices. Some people have suggested the entire population of the UK should have had a vote in this referendum as it affects everyone. I presume they also believe that every citizen in the whole of Europe should have a vote in the proposed referendum to decide whether the UK should stay in the EU?
6. I am not a nationalist and dislike flag waving. I describe myself, when asked, as “Scottish” rather than “British”. It annoys me when people on TV talk about British culture when referring to aspects of English culture. It happens very often! But I do not “love” my country: neither Scotland nor the UK. Anyone like David Cameron, who feels “heartbroken” over a change in a country’s constitutional affairs, needs a psychiatrist.
7. I was watching that awful Better Together video with the patronising BT lady and then watching one of the versions with subtitles inserted by very witty, creative people from the Yes campaign. And I thought, “Who would I most like to have a pint of good Belgian lager with? The makers of the video or the makers of the subtitles?” The answer is easy.
8. Some people might think it rather glib that I'd consider voting Yes because of a campaign video, but I don’t think it is glib. It’s to do with vision. The people I’d like to hang about with are the people most likely to want to build the kind of nation I’d want to build. They get my vote.
9. The Yes campaign has been characterised by wit, creativity, artistic flair and positive vision. The No campaign has been negative, scaremongering and gloomy. It basically says, "We love Scotland. But we can't make decisions for ourselves." I find it depressing even to think about it.
10. Sometimes Yes propaganda has gone over the top. I don’t really believe we’re going to create this new society founded on peace, justice and solidarity, complete with unfathomable riches. But the alternative is the terrified, doom-laden purveyors of No, and, to that I say, No thanks!
11. Apparently we are the 14th or the 49th richest country in the world, depending on how you calculate it. Needless to say, a Yes supporter calculated 14 and a No supporter calculated 49, roughly equal to Ireland. That sounds OK to me, either way.
12. Supporters of the status quo are often concerned for what they might personally lose. They are especially worried about their property. I heard today of one couple who made an offer on a house but had a clause inserted in the contract that they could back out if there is a Yes majority on Thursday. What do they think is going to happen? Is Scotland due to slide into the sea?
13. Think of your pension, I am told. Think of your savings. What currency are you going to use anyway? Well I certainly don’t trust the UK Government to protect my pension or non-existent savings and anyone who does, post-financial-crisis, is a prize idiot. And I’ll use whatever currency we end up deciding on.
14. And that reminds me – Standard Life? Are you reading this? My pension scheme is with you. It’s not going to be with you for much longer. Cheers!
15. Various businesses and banks threaten to leave Scotland in the event of a Yes vote. Some No voters get hysterical and actually argue this as a reason to vote No. I have never witnessed such pathetic capitulation before power in my life. For goodness sake, let's show an ounce of courage here! An ounce of moral fibre, even! People who use threats clearly do not have the interests of Scotland, or you, at heart. In the unlikely event that they do move out, I’m sure someone will move in and take over all their customers.
16. “Vote Yes and get away from the Tories!” some urge. That has appeal, but wouldn’t swing it for me. The problem for me is that in the UK there is no visionary alternative. The Lib Dems have lost all credibility. The Labour Party in Westminster doesn’t stand for anything worthwhile. And then there’s UKIP whose racist, nationalist agenda I really find disturbing. I much prefer the Scottish Parliament. Even some of the Tories there don’t come over as horrible, obnoxious, uncaring people, unlike the entire Westminster cabinet. A recovery by the Tories in Scotland, which might even happen in an independent country, would be a good thing for democracy. Strong oppositions are always a useful check on those in charge.
17. I am still waiting for any serious political party to tackle the issue that 432 people own half the land in Scotland. However, as unlikely as anyone having the courage to tackle it might be, it’s more likely to happen within an independent Scotland than from the corrupt London parliamentary elite.
18. Why does anyone want to stay with a Parliament that lied to us to justify an illegal war at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of pounds; that stands accused of covering up an organised paedophile network within its own ranks; that fiddled ridiculous levels of expenses at our expense; that gives itself a 9% pay rise during a period of austerity and then tells us that “we’re all in this together”?
19. “Don’t build walls! Break them down!” say some of the more persuasive supporters of No. They are good, liberal people who believe in sticking together for the good of all. I see their point and it does make some sense. But there are walls all over British society and they are becoming higher every day. In an independent Scotland I hope we might at least have a shot at breaking down some of those.
20. Ed Miliband had an idea. He thought (very mistakenly) that it would really appeal to the Scottish electorate to have a Saltire flag hoisted above 10 Downing Street, currently the home of an extreme right-wing Conservative prime minister. The Saltire had other ideas. I’m with the Saltire.
21. What it comes down to: if you have the choice between making decisions for your life or allowing other people to make decisions for you, often not in your interest and often against your will, what do you choose? It’s not rocket science! At least if we as Scottish people make bad decisions on our own behalf, we’ll be able to blame ourselves rather than the English. Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Monday, September 15, 2014
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Happy Burns Day 2011
It is Burns Day, and I’ll be tucking into haggis, neeps and tatties tonight. Always a good thing when a duty is so pleasurable. My haggis will be of the normal variety. I have tasted vegetarian haggis and it wasn’t so bad but, nevertheless, Alexander Hutchison’s poem, Surprise Surprise!, written in 1984, always makes me laugh every time I read it. It’s from his outstanding New & Selected Poems, Scales Dog, which would have been a massive bestseller in a better world.
I have a vague hope of making it to the Burns flashmob at 1pm today outside St Giles Cathedral, where anyone can join in an improvised rendition of A Man’s a Man for A’ That, but time may be against me. Peggy, from the Scottish Poetry Library, shows you how it’s done below.
I have a vague hope of making it to the Burns flashmob at 1pm today outside St Giles Cathedral, where anyone can join in an improvised rendition of A Man’s a Man for A’ That, but time may be against me. Peggy, from the Scottish Poetry Library, shows you how it’s done below.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Publication Routes, First Lines and Literary Identity
Apologies for the relative lack of activity here for the last week or so, but that’s partly because I’ve been writing on other blogs. Firstly, an article on my route to publication for Mairi Sharratt’s blog, A Lump in the Throat. The article has a part 1 and a part 2. Secondly, I conducted an experiment on first lines and continuations over at the Magma blog. And thirdly, this morning, I wrote a long comment (sorry about the length) for a fine article by Claire Askew on literary identity. My comment is currently awaiting moderation, but the article and comments made so far are well worth reading.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
New Writing Scotland
Well, there’s so much doom and gloom around whenever anyone mentions poetry that anything upbeat doesn’t have to fight for my attention, and I was pleased to read a positive comment on contemporary Scottish poetry from prose and theatre writer Alan Bissett in this year’s intro to New Writing Scotland, 28. Alan writes:
So, I suppose we have to balance up the positive opportunities for poetry with the negative effect of marketing imperatives on prose. And yet, for poetry publishing houses to survive and thrive, they need to carve out a larger share of the market – without sacrificing quality. Quite a dilemma.
As a footnote, here are the submission guidelines for next year’s NWS (deadline 30 September 2010). I noticed one dramatic change:
Now, I’m sure no names have previously been allowed on individual works. Everything was anonymous, but that’s no longer the case. There are positive and negative aspects to reading ‘blind’ just as there are for reading with a name attached. It will be interesting to see whether it has any effect on next year’s issue and whether the editors prefer this new system over the old.
“What was most noticeable to the editors this year was the higher quality of poetry than of prose. Many of the poems sang, while relatively few of the stories did. Perhaps mass-market imperatives and the lack of opportunity for prose writers have led to an inevitable blunting of short fiction.”
So, I suppose we have to balance up the positive opportunities for poetry with the negative effect of marketing imperatives on prose. And yet, for poetry publishing houses to survive and thrive, they need to carve out a larger share of the market – without sacrificing quality. Quite a dilemma.
As a footnote, here are the submission guidelines for next year’s NWS (deadline 30 September 2010). I noticed one dramatic change:
“You should provide a covering letter, clearly marked with your name and address. Please also put your name on the individual works.”
Now, I’m sure no names have previously been allowed on individual works. Everything was anonymous, but that’s no longer the case. There are positive and negative aspects to reading ‘blind’ just as there are for reading with a name attached. It will be interesting to see whether it has any effect on next year’s issue and whether the editors prefer this new system over the old.
Monday, December 21, 2009
TLS Review and New Scottish Fashion
Great to see Carrie Etter’s review of The Opposite of Cabbage in the Christmas double-issue of the Times Literary Supplement. It’s only on paper, not online (unless you’re a TLS subscriber), but it’s a very positive review and focuses both on the collection’s recurring themes and on the detail of individual poems. A few snippets:
Rob A Mackenzie’s first full collection inhabits present-day Scotland in all its liveliness, banality and bad weather… Mackenzie’s vigorous urban language, often employed in declarative sentences, vivifies it all.
One of Mackenzie’s stylistic hallmarks is paradox tinged with irony, as when a man ‘loses with a symbolic victory secured’… These apparently oxymoronic statements that pepper the volume suggest that people negotiate such contradictions as part of the difficulty of living, at the same time as they contribute to the book’s conception of the zeitgeist.
The Opposite of Cabbage impresses with its distinctive style and energetic exploration of ‘the way we live now’.
Anyway, a nice Christmas present for me.
Another Salt book, Mark Waldron’s The Brand New Dark is also reviewed, on the same page, by Ben Wilkinson. I haven’t read this book yet but it does sound like a collection I‘m liable to like. Ben says that:
The success of the book, however, stems from the way in which Waldron handles the sinister, noirish aspects of contemporary life… Waldron’s gift is to approach these subjects from oblique angles, often with a tone that is more implicating than accusatory.
I like the image Ben quotes straight afterwards, from a poem called ‘The Sausage Factory’, in which the meat is figured as “wee circus elephants, /gripping the tail of the one that goes before, /marching uncertainly away from death” (and for once, of course, I've been glad to set out poetry in sausage-quotes).
I’ve read three collections recently - Don Paterson’s Rain (Faber), Brian McCabe’s Zero (Polygon) and John Glenday’s Grain (Picador). Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Three recent Scottish poetry collections all with single-word titles. Is it a new fashion? I suppose you could add Richard Price’s Rays too. Probably just coincidence although, as George MacLeod (late leader of the Iona Community) said, “If you believe in coincidence, I wish you a very dull life.” They are all good books in very different ways.
Rob A Mackenzie’s first full collection inhabits present-day Scotland in all its liveliness, banality and bad weather… Mackenzie’s vigorous urban language, often employed in declarative sentences, vivifies it all.
One of Mackenzie’s stylistic hallmarks is paradox tinged with irony, as when a man ‘loses with a symbolic victory secured’… These apparently oxymoronic statements that pepper the volume suggest that people negotiate such contradictions as part of the difficulty of living, at the same time as they contribute to the book’s conception of the zeitgeist.
The Opposite of Cabbage impresses with its distinctive style and energetic exploration of ‘the way we live now’.
Anyway, a nice Christmas present for me.
Another Salt book, Mark Waldron’s The Brand New Dark is also reviewed, on the same page, by Ben Wilkinson. I haven’t read this book yet but it does sound like a collection I‘m liable to like. Ben says that:
The success of the book, however, stems from the way in which Waldron handles the sinister, noirish aspects of contemporary life… Waldron’s gift is to approach these subjects from oblique angles, often with a tone that is more implicating than accusatory.
I like the image Ben quotes straight afterwards, from a poem called ‘The Sausage Factory’, in which the meat is figured as “wee circus elephants, /gripping the tail of the one that goes before, /marching uncertainly away from death” (and for once, of course, I've been glad to set out poetry in sausage-quotes).
I’ve read three collections recently - Don Paterson’s Rain (Faber), Brian McCabe’s Zero (Polygon) and John Glenday’s Grain (Picador). Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Three recent Scottish poetry collections all with single-word titles. Is it a new fashion? I suppose you could add Richard Price’s Rays too. Probably just coincidence although, as George MacLeod (late leader of the Iona Community) said, “If you believe in coincidence, I wish you a very dull life.” They are all good books in very different ways.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Three Posts
Some great blogging going on in the last few days...
At Gists & Piths, there’s a really interesting and provocative essay on reviewing titled A Reviewer’s Manifesto.
Over at the Scottish Poetry Library blog, Kona Macphee has a great post in praise of writing habits.
And at Mairi Sharratt’s new blog, A Lump in the Throat, Sally Evans explains how she selects poems for Poetry Scotland.
At Gists & Piths, there’s a really interesting and provocative essay on reviewing titled A Reviewer’s Manifesto.
Over at the Scottish Poetry Library blog, Kona Macphee has a great post in praise of writing habits.
And at Mairi Sharratt’s new blog, A Lump in the Throat, Sally Evans explains how she selects poems for Poetry Scotland.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Magma and The Herald on Poetry Books
At the Magma blog, we’ve been asking whether or not too many poetry books are being published. It’s not so much that I’ve decided either way on the issue myself – I’m more making public an argument being waged inside my own head.
Coincidentally, I was directed to Saturday’s issue of The Herald newspaper for Lesley McDowell’s article, ‘Dawn of a New Age’ (not online as far as I can tell). She writes on the current state of Scottish poetry, which she regards as very healthy, especially given the large number of prizes Scottish poets have won over the last few years (the question arises as to whether that's an accurate measurement of health). But the topic of whether there are too many poetry books surfaces there too, also whether there are too many bad ones, whether editors and publishers are 'gatekeeping' effectively, what the future might hold for Scottish poetry, and the effect of the Internet. I really need separate posts spaced out over the next week or two to do justice to the article, which is very stimulating – and good on Lesley McDowell for managing to get a two-page article on poetry in a national newspaper!
I did also find what I was originally looking for in the article:
“This is certainly a very fertile period for Scottish poetry,” Robert Alan Jamieson says. “And there is a new generation coming through – Jen Hadfield of course, but also Andrew Philip, Rob A. Mackenzie and Jane McKie (the latter won the Saltire* First Book award with her poetry) – serious writers, as opposed to hobbyists.”
*(actually, it wasn’t the Saltire Award that Jane won, but the Sundial/SAC Award for Best First Book)
Coincidentally, I was directed to Saturday’s issue of The Herald newspaper for Lesley McDowell’s article, ‘Dawn of a New Age’ (not online as far as I can tell). She writes on the current state of Scottish poetry, which she regards as very healthy, especially given the large number of prizes Scottish poets have won over the last few years (the question arises as to whether that's an accurate measurement of health). But the topic of whether there are too many poetry books surfaces there too, also whether there are too many bad ones, whether editors and publishers are 'gatekeeping' effectively, what the future might hold for Scottish poetry, and the effect of the Internet. I really need separate posts spaced out over the next week or two to do justice to the article, which is very stimulating – and good on Lesley McDowell for managing to get a two-page article on poetry in a national newspaper!
I did also find what I was originally looking for in the article:
“This is certainly a very fertile period for Scottish poetry,” Robert Alan Jamieson says. “And there is a new generation coming through – Jen Hadfield of course, but also Andrew Philip, Rob A. Mackenzie and Jane McKie (the latter won the Saltire* First Book award with her poetry) – serious writers, as opposed to hobbyists.”
*(actually, it wasn’t the Saltire Award that Jane won, but the Sundial/SAC Award for Best First Book)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Gutter Magazine On Anonymous Submissions
Some of you may remember my recent post on anonymous reviews. Well, here’s the second controversial topic from the editorial of Gutter magazine (I’m saving the third topic for the Magma blog sometime over the next few weeks, as it seems more relevant for there).
The editorial says:
“We thank those who sent us work, and we reassure you that all pieces were assessed ‘blind’. We aren’t interested in encouraging literary cliques.”
Anonymous submission, then. The upside of that is made clear in the editorial. No favouritism. It’s about good poems, not names. The downside is that the very big names an ambitious magazine might hope to attract may not submit because of the anonymous submission element.
Gutter took a poem by me for their first issue, so I’ve no personal grievance with the process. Anonymous submission sounds like a great idea. Surely it means readers will get to read the best poems, not just those submitted by known names, but magazines like Anon and New Writing Scotland, while high quality publications, don’t seem inherently better (or worse) than other magazines to me. I suspect they would publish pretty much the same pieces even if the submissions had names attached. But might they get more submissions from the top writers?
Also, isn’t a better way of keeping literary cliques at bay simply to accept the best work and turn down work from friends that’s substandard? What, exactly, is wrong with literary cliques anyway? What might seem like a clique to one person will be seen as an exciting movement by another. Magazines often spearhead new shifts and movements. If what they spearhead is genuinely fresh and exciting, so much the better, but it’s harder to do with an anonymous submission procedure. If some people feel excluded from the ‘clique’, well, they can always start a new magazine for what they feel is vital.
Interesting times though – three important Scottish-based print magazines (those named above) use anonymous submission procedures. Most UK print magazines don’t. That’s intriguing in itself that Scottish magazines sense a need for anonymity.
The editorial says:
“We thank those who sent us work, and we reassure you that all pieces were assessed ‘blind’. We aren’t interested in encouraging literary cliques.”
Anonymous submission, then. The upside of that is made clear in the editorial. No favouritism. It’s about good poems, not names. The downside is that the very big names an ambitious magazine might hope to attract may not submit because of the anonymous submission element.
Gutter took a poem by me for their first issue, so I’ve no personal grievance with the process. Anonymous submission sounds like a great idea. Surely it means readers will get to read the best poems, not just those submitted by known names, but magazines like Anon and New Writing Scotland, while high quality publications, don’t seem inherently better (or worse) than other magazines to me. I suspect they would publish pretty much the same pieces even if the submissions had names attached. But might they get more submissions from the top writers?
Also, isn’t a better way of keeping literary cliques at bay simply to accept the best work and turn down work from friends that’s substandard? What, exactly, is wrong with literary cliques anyway? What might seem like a clique to one person will be seen as an exciting movement by another. Magazines often spearhead new shifts and movements. If what they spearhead is genuinely fresh and exciting, so much the better, but it’s harder to do with an anonymous submission procedure. If some people feel excluded from the ‘clique’, well, they can always start a new magazine for what they feel is vital.
Interesting times though – three important Scottish-based print magazines (those named above) use anonymous submission procedures. Most UK print magazines don’t. That’s intriguing in itself that Scottish magazines sense a need for anonymity.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Megrahi And The UK's 'Overwhelming Interests'
When I wrote my post on Megrahi’s release, I didn’t think things would move quite so fast. Ten days ago, I wrote:
“‘UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband …rejected suggestions the UK pushed for Megrahi's release to improve relations as ‘a slur on both myself and the government’.”
Today we hear Jack Straw, negotiating with Libya in 2007, wrote to Scottish Justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, on the terms of the Prison Transfer Agreement with Libya:
“I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion. The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the UK, I have agreed that in this instance the [PTA] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Straw is now suggesting that this agreement had nothing to do with Megrahi and that the PTA agreement is “academic” in any case, given that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds. I don’t think it’s “academic” at all. Megrahi was the only Libyan prisoner in a British jail. And the reason there was no exclusion was because of the “overwhelming interests for the UK.”
So the slur on Miliband and the Government sticks. Or, rather, it doesn’t. A slur involves degrading someone in the eyes of others, it means casting serious doubt on someone’s good reputation. This Government of liars, spinners and cover-ups have no such reputation to lose. The new revelations are simply par for the course.
“‘UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband …rejected suggestions the UK pushed for Megrahi's release to improve relations as ‘a slur on both myself and the government’.”
Today we hear Jack Straw, negotiating with Libya in 2007, wrote to Scottish Justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, on the terms of the Prison Transfer Agreement with Libya:
“I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion. The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the UK, I have agreed that in this instance the [PTA] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual."
Straw is now suggesting that this agreement had nothing to do with Megrahi and that the PTA agreement is “academic” in any case, given that Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds. I don’t think it’s “academic” at all. Megrahi was the only Libyan prisoner in a British jail. And the reason there was no exclusion was because of the “overwhelming interests for the UK.”
So the slur on Miliband and the Government sticks. Or, rather, it doesn’t. A slur involves degrading someone in the eyes of others, it means casting serious doubt on someone’s good reputation. This Government of liars, spinners and cover-ups have no such reputation to lose. The new revelations are simply par for the course.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Kelman On Scottish Literary Culture
At the Edinburgh Book Festival, the Guardian have extracted a few salvos from James Kelman on Scottish literary culture.
“…it's always been an indication of that Anglocentric nature of what's at the heart of the Scottish literary establishment, that they will not see the tremendous art of a writer like Tom Leonard for example, and how they will praise the mediocre.”
I’m not quite clear who Kelman’s target is here. Who or what makes up the Scottish literary establishment? If we’re talking about those who hand out prizes, then these often go to literary novels. Talk of “praise” suggests critics and perhaps funders. Maybe he means the whole package – administrators, boffins, prize givers, funders, critics, newspapers, publishers – the lot. But perhaps it’s more a gesture of frustration that so little publicity is given to Scottish writers who are pushing literature forward compared to those who sell loads of books. If that’s the case, it’s the same all over the UK, not just in Scotland.
“…it's always been an indication of that Anglocentric nature of what's at the heart of the Scottish literary establishment, that they will not see the tremendous art of a writer like Tom Leonard for example, and how they will praise the mediocre.”
I’m not quite clear who Kelman’s target is here. Who or what makes up the Scottish literary establishment? If we’re talking about those who hand out prizes, then these often go to literary novels. Talk of “praise” suggests critics and perhaps funders. Maybe he means the whole package – administrators, boffins, prize givers, funders, critics, newspapers, publishers – the lot. But perhaps it’s more a gesture of frustration that so little publicity is given to Scottish writers who are pushing literature forward compared to those who sell loads of books. If that’s the case, it’s the same all over the UK, not just in Scotland.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Scottish Literature Working Group
I was having a quick read through Product magazine the other day (summer 2009 issue) – good, stimulating stuff. I came to an opinion piece (written by someone on the editorial board, I guess) on the new Literature Working Group set up to examine “the future of literature and publishing in Scotland.” This section in particular caught my eye:
Scottish “publishing” and “literature” are not a seamless garment. Scottish publishing can make money pretty well without literature. Scottish literature is thriving – with London publishers. At present the Arts Council invests in writers (primarily through bursaries), publishers (primarily through grants), and publicity (primarily through projects and prizes).
It’s a matter of some concern that this sometimes translates into paying an author to write a book, paying the publisher to publish it, and then giving it an award at the end.
Well, put like that, it does sound somewhat absurd, doesn’t it? But it’s less easy to decide how public money should be used to benefit Scottish literature. I’ve just noticed that public response to the Working Group needs to be in by the end of this month (email address at the link). I suspect it would be good for people who don’t normally have input into such consultations to make a few points. Perhaps someone will take notice?
Scottish “publishing” and “literature” are not a seamless garment. Scottish publishing can make money pretty well without literature. Scottish literature is thriving – with London publishers. At present the Arts Council invests in writers (primarily through bursaries), publishers (primarily through grants), and publicity (primarily through projects and prizes).
It’s a matter of some concern that this sometimes translates into paying an author to write a book, paying the publisher to publish it, and then giving it an award at the end.
Well, put like that, it does sound somewhat absurd, doesn’t it? But it’s less easy to decide how public money should be used to benefit Scottish literature. I’ve just noticed that public response to the Working Group needs to be in by the end of this month (email address at the link). I suspect it would be good for people who don’t normally have input into such consultations to make a few points. Perhaps someone will take notice?
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Megrahi Release
How should one react to the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi? Not easy.
Well, for some, it’s simple. For those waiting for him at the airport in Tripoli, the reaction appeared to be jubilation. Reports suggest he will be feted as a hero by many Libyans in the last few months of his life. For some of those who lost a loved one on Pam Am flight 103, the reaction is outrage and talk of ‘compassion’ sticks in their throats. I can certainly understand this latter reaction. The airport jubilation is harder to fathom. Some Libyans, bizarrely, waved Scottish flags to welcome home a man convicted of killing a number of Scottish people (189 of the 259 people of board the plane were American. I don’t have an exact figure for Scottish deaths, but there were some, both on the plane and in Lockerbie itself). You may wave our flag, folks, but you’re crazy if you think that went down well here.
Still, complexity abounds. Jim Swire reiterated what seems to be the predominant view of those in Scotland who lost loved ones when the plane tore through Lockerbie: that Megrahi was stitched up, that whatever his involvement, he wasn’t the mastermind behind the bomb. Senior members of the Scottish Government have spoken of the need to show compassion, even though Megrahi showed none himself, even if it means him serving only eight years in prison for the indiscriminate murder of 270 people. He is going to die very soon, of course, but dying in Greenock prison is a very different death than dying among his family as a national icon.
The moral issues at the heart of this affair are hard to deal with. I was leaning to the side of compassion. The guy is dying, after all. Is there anything to be gained from being hard-hearted? But those scenes of triumph at Tripoli airport test the limits of compassion. They shouldn’t make any difference, and yet they do. We expect a more muted entry from someone who killed 270 people and has been granted unexpected freedom on compassionate grounds. And if he was innocent and really deeply regretted the deaths caused by the bomb, we’d expect a more muted entry still.
He wouldn’t be free if he hadn’t contracted terminal cancer. Those who say he should have died in prison – is this a ‘let him rot in hell’ position, or a genuine sense that justice would have been served? I guess that will vary from person to person. And what about compassion? I heard two quotes yesterday from relatives of people who had died: one said that there was no reason to extend compassion towards someone who had shown none; the other said that if human beings lose their sense of compassion, even in such circumstances, what remains? What hope is there?
Interesting to see how politicians have reacted. The UK Government in Westminster needs to come under scrutiny. The USA claims that assurances were given by the UK Government that Megrahi would never be released, but the UK declined to make representations to the Scottish Government’s committee considering Megrahi’s release – other than to assert that there was no legal barrier to the release and to deny that assurances had been given to the USA. Libya have oil and gas, let’s not forget that.
Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice minister, backed the release on compassionate grounds. Previously, a Prison-Transfer-Agreement had been agreed between Libya and the UK Government in Westminster. Given that Britain’s jails only housed one Libyan prisoner (guess who!), you can see what that Agreement was aiming for. The USA claim they were given assurances by the UK that Megrahi would finish his sentence in Scotland, but the UK deny these assurances were ever given. However, it seems clear that the UK Government were looking for ways to shift Megrahi from UK soil. Why? Couldn’t be the oil, could it?
Kenny MacAskill may well have felt bound to release Megrahi – either due to compassion (the public face), or due to pressure from Westminster (the private reality), or by a combination of those. Commentators seem to have interpreted Kenny MacAskill’s somewhat religious language as an attempt to appeal to the USA. Well, maybe. I see it differently. I don’t know if he really wanted to release Megrahi at all and his appeal to a ‘higher power’ to give out justice may be a coded way to suggest his own dissatisfaction at being forced into making the decision. MacAskill followed up his ‘higher power’ statement by saying, ‘He is going to die’, leaving open to interpretation whether he was suggesting God would judge him in the after-life, or that Death was a higher and more final power than any human court or politician. He chose his words very carefully, I think.
There has been heavy pressure from the USA not to release Megrahi. The Labour Government has refused to make a public statement (other than to say that it’s been a matter for the Scottish administration to decide on) because, presumably, they want to open up greater trade with Libya without upsetting the USA. Only Conservative opposition leader, David Cameron, has been opportunistic enough to side with the USA (to cement that so-called ‘special relationship’ for when he becomes Prime Minister, no doubt) and to criticize the Scottish Government publicly. Well, at least we now know, if we didn’t before, where his priorities lie.
A website has appeared urging you to Boycott Scotland! Ah yes, boycott our evil regime… You know, some people are just plain idiots. Yes, boycott us, but carry on trading with China and other regimes which destroy human rights on a daily basis. Duh…
We may never know what happened on Pam Am flight 103, but this case has opened up wounds that have never truly healed. It also asks serious moral questions on the limits of compassion. It could, and probably should, open a can of worms on how such decisions may really have less to do with morality and more with political and financial expediency.
[edit, 22.8.09: from the BBC News - "The Lockerbie bomber's release was raised at trade talks between the UK and Libya, Colonel Gaddafi's son reportedly tells Libyan TV." It's that 'reportedly' that gets me. Either he did tell Libyan TV or he didn't, surely.
OK, getting to grips with this tangent now - Gadaffi’s son is Seif al-Islam: "In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table," Mr Islam said told Libya's Al Mutawassit channel.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "No deal has been made between the UK government and the Libyan government in relation to Megrahi and any commercial interests in the country."
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband earlier rejected suggestions the UK pushed for Megrahi's release to improve relations as "a slur on both myself and the government".
Notice one thing – neither the Foreign Office nor Miliband actually deny al-Islam’s claim. The FO say ‘no deal has been made’ (not that it wasn’t on the table at negotiations – they are hardly likely to put such a thing in writing, are they?) and Miliband simply says that the accusation, if factual, is a slur (and so it would be if this Government had any reputation left to discredit). But he doesn’t directly deny the accusation.]
Well, for some, it’s simple. For those waiting for him at the airport in Tripoli, the reaction appeared to be jubilation. Reports suggest he will be feted as a hero by many Libyans in the last few months of his life. For some of those who lost a loved one on Pam Am flight 103, the reaction is outrage and talk of ‘compassion’ sticks in their throats. I can certainly understand this latter reaction. The airport jubilation is harder to fathom. Some Libyans, bizarrely, waved Scottish flags to welcome home a man convicted of killing a number of Scottish people (189 of the 259 people of board the plane were American. I don’t have an exact figure for Scottish deaths, but there were some, both on the plane and in Lockerbie itself). You may wave our flag, folks, but you’re crazy if you think that went down well here.
Still, complexity abounds. Jim Swire reiterated what seems to be the predominant view of those in Scotland who lost loved ones when the plane tore through Lockerbie: that Megrahi was stitched up, that whatever his involvement, he wasn’t the mastermind behind the bomb. Senior members of the Scottish Government have spoken of the need to show compassion, even though Megrahi showed none himself, even if it means him serving only eight years in prison for the indiscriminate murder of 270 people. He is going to die very soon, of course, but dying in Greenock prison is a very different death than dying among his family as a national icon.
The moral issues at the heart of this affair are hard to deal with. I was leaning to the side of compassion. The guy is dying, after all. Is there anything to be gained from being hard-hearted? But those scenes of triumph at Tripoli airport test the limits of compassion. They shouldn’t make any difference, and yet they do. We expect a more muted entry from someone who killed 270 people and has been granted unexpected freedom on compassionate grounds. And if he was innocent and really deeply regretted the deaths caused by the bomb, we’d expect a more muted entry still.
He wouldn’t be free if he hadn’t contracted terminal cancer. Those who say he should have died in prison – is this a ‘let him rot in hell’ position, or a genuine sense that justice would have been served? I guess that will vary from person to person. And what about compassion? I heard two quotes yesterday from relatives of people who had died: one said that there was no reason to extend compassion towards someone who had shown none; the other said that if human beings lose their sense of compassion, even in such circumstances, what remains? What hope is there?
Interesting to see how politicians have reacted. The UK Government in Westminster needs to come under scrutiny. The USA claims that assurances were given by the UK Government that Megrahi would never be released, but the UK declined to make representations to the Scottish Government’s committee considering Megrahi’s release – other than to assert that there was no legal barrier to the release and to deny that assurances had been given to the USA. Libya have oil and gas, let’s not forget that.
Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice minister, backed the release on compassionate grounds. Previously, a Prison-Transfer-Agreement had been agreed between Libya and the UK Government in Westminster. Given that Britain’s jails only housed one Libyan prisoner (guess who!), you can see what that Agreement was aiming for. The USA claim they were given assurances by the UK that Megrahi would finish his sentence in Scotland, but the UK deny these assurances were ever given. However, it seems clear that the UK Government were looking for ways to shift Megrahi from UK soil. Why? Couldn’t be the oil, could it?
Kenny MacAskill may well have felt bound to release Megrahi – either due to compassion (the public face), or due to pressure from Westminster (the private reality), or by a combination of those. Commentators seem to have interpreted Kenny MacAskill’s somewhat religious language as an attempt to appeal to the USA. Well, maybe. I see it differently. I don’t know if he really wanted to release Megrahi at all and his appeal to a ‘higher power’ to give out justice may be a coded way to suggest his own dissatisfaction at being forced into making the decision. MacAskill followed up his ‘higher power’ statement by saying, ‘He is going to die’, leaving open to interpretation whether he was suggesting God would judge him in the after-life, or that Death was a higher and more final power than any human court or politician. He chose his words very carefully, I think.
There has been heavy pressure from the USA not to release Megrahi. The Labour Government has refused to make a public statement (other than to say that it’s been a matter for the Scottish administration to decide on) because, presumably, they want to open up greater trade with Libya without upsetting the USA. Only Conservative opposition leader, David Cameron, has been opportunistic enough to side with the USA (to cement that so-called ‘special relationship’ for when he becomes Prime Minister, no doubt) and to criticize the Scottish Government publicly. Well, at least we now know, if we didn’t before, where his priorities lie.
A website has appeared urging you to Boycott Scotland! Ah yes, boycott our evil regime… You know, some people are just plain idiots. Yes, boycott us, but carry on trading with China and other regimes which destroy human rights on a daily basis. Duh…
We may never know what happened on Pam Am flight 103, but this case has opened up wounds that have never truly healed. It also asks serious moral questions on the limits of compassion. It could, and probably should, open a can of worms on how such decisions may really have less to do with morality and more with political and financial expediency.
[edit, 22.8.09: from the BBC News - "The Lockerbie bomber's release was raised at trade talks between the UK and Libya, Colonel Gaddafi's son reportedly tells Libyan TV." It's that 'reportedly' that gets me. Either he did tell Libyan TV or he didn't, surely.
OK, getting to grips with this tangent now - Gadaffi’s son is Seif al-Islam: "In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table," Mr Islam said told Libya's Al Mutawassit channel.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: "No deal has been made between the UK government and the Libyan government in relation to Megrahi and any commercial interests in the country."
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband earlier rejected suggestions the UK pushed for Megrahi's release to improve relations as "a slur on both myself and the government".
Notice one thing – neither the Foreign Office nor Miliband actually deny al-Islam’s claim. The FO say ‘no deal has been made’ (not that it wasn’t on the table at negotiations – they are hardly likely to put such a thing in writing, are they?) and Miliband simply says that the accusation, if factual, is a slur (and so it would be if this Government had any reputation left to discredit). But he doesn’t directly deny the accusation.]
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Gutter Magazine And Anonymous Reviews
A couple of weeks ago, the first issue of Gutter arrived. It’s a new magazine of Scottish writing and much of what I’ve read in it so far has been very good. A new quality Scottish lit mag is much needed for all kinds of reasons.
The editorial contains two controversial items on anonymity. Here’s the first (the second will come on a later date!), from the editorial, concerning the magazine’s review section:
“These are written anonymously by practising writers – not through wilful obfuscation but to allow for more candid opinions.”
The reviews certainly are candid. They are generally well written and provocative. Some are very positive, some highly negative, some in between. But the reviews are all anonymous. Now, the subtext here is that reviewers can write what they really think without having to worry about the writer’s reaction – either of the ‘hate mail’ type or of a well known writer threatening to destroy their careers etc
I sympathise, to an extent, and the reviews in Gutter do seem more candid than in many magazines. None of them appear to me to have abused their anonymity by trashing books and I don’t get the impression that any were fawning blurbs written by an author’s best friend. I’ve read several bizarre blog posts saying that people should only review books they like, but they obviously don’t understand how the reviewing process works. Usually, an editor sends you books and asks you to review them. You don’t choose the books and, even if you did, you wouldn’t know whether you liked them until after you’d agreed to review them and had read them. You simply have to do as good a job as you can. That might entail making some critical points.
On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with anonymity, and I’m not alone in asking questions about it. I don’t even like anonymous comments on my blog (posting under ‘anonymous’ is fine if you include your name in the comments box), especially if they are negative about someone’s poetry or are personal attacks. I’ve always felt that if people have something to say, they should be prepared to put their name to it. Anything less smacks of cowardice.
But perhaps anonymity does have an advantage. As long as an editor tries to ensure that books aren’t handed out for review to a writer’s close friends or enemies, then anonymous reviews prevent personal poetry wars. A writer could run into a reviewer who had anonymously torn his/her work to shreds and fists wouldn’t fly. No ‘revenge reviews’ would be written. It keeps the peace.
Of course, writers shouldn’t publish books or should expressly tell their publisher not to send books for review if they’re not prepared for negative reviews. Some reviewers are awful, some want to make their name by trashing books, some have an ideological agenda that your book doesn’t fit, some reviews are badly written compared to the book under review. On the other hand, your book might be praised to the skies by someone who equally doesn’t know what they’re talking about, so these things tend to balance themselves out. But is it actually better not to know who has praised or trashed your book?
The editorial contains two controversial items on anonymity. Here’s the first (the second will come on a later date!), from the editorial, concerning the magazine’s review section:
“These are written anonymously by practising writers – not through wilful obfuscation but to allow for more candid opinions.”
The reviews certainly are candid. They are generally well written and provocative. Some are very positive, some highly negative, some in between. But the reviews are all anonymous. Now, the subtext here is that reviewers can write what they really think without having to worry about the writer’s reaction – either of the ‘hate mail’ type or of a well known writer threatening to destroy their careers etc
I sympathise, to an extent, and the reviews in Gutter do seem more candid than in many magazines. None of them appear to me to have abused their anonymity by trashing books and I don’t get the impression that any were fawning blurbs written by an author’s best friend. I’ve read several bizarre blog posts saying that people should only review books they like, but they obviously don’t understand how the reviewing process works. Usually, an editor sends you books and asks you to review them. You don’t choose the books and, even if you did, you wouldn’t know whether you liked them until after you’d agreed to review them and had read them. You simply have to do as good a job as you can. That might entail making some critical points.
On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with anonymity, and I’m not alone in asking questions about it. I don’t even like anonymous comments on my blog (posting under ‘anonymous’ is fine if you include your name in the comments box), especially if they are negative about someone’s poetry or are personal attacks. I’ve always felt that if people have something to say, they should be prepared to put their name to it. Anything less smacks of cowardice.
But perhaps anonymity does have an advantage. As long as an editor tries to ensure that books aren’t handed out for review to a writer’s close friends or enemies, then anonymous reviews prevent personal poetry wars. A writer could run into a reviewer who had anonymously torn his/her work to shreds and fists wouldn’t fly. No ‘revenge reviews’ would be written. It keeps the peace.
Of course, writers shouldn’t publish books or should expressly tell their publisher not to send books for review if they’re not prepared for negative reviews. Some reviewers are awful, some want to make their name by trashing books, some have an ideological agenda that your book doesn’t fit, some reviews are badly written compared to the book under review. On the other hand, your book might be praised to the skies by someone who equally doesn’t know what they’re talking about, so these things tend to balance themselves out. But is it actually better not to know who has praised or trashed your book?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Michael Marks Awards - Result Tonight
Tonight, the result of the inaugural Michael Marks Awards for poetry pamphlet publishing will be announced. For obvious reasons, I hope HappenStance win, but the shortlist (Oystercatcher, Templar, and tall-lighthouse) is very strong. Any of them would make deserving winners.
It is good to see a Scottish-based publishing house on a UK shortlist (another barren year for young Scottish poets at the Eric Gregory Awards, I’m afraid). It’s a shame HappenStance hasn’t been given more recognition within Scotland in this kind of way – by shortlists and awards, by the SAC, and so on. Isn’t it slightly ironic that a new UK-wide award with a prize-giving ceremony in London has immediately picked up on the worth of what HappenStance has been doing?
*
Early this morning I drafted an article asking where power lies in the Scottish poetry world, but it’s not quite right yet, especially given how controversial such a subject might prove to be. However, I will post it when it’s ready, which might not be until mid-July.
It is good to see a Scottish-based publishing house on a UK shortlist (another barren year for young Scottish poets at the Eric Gregory Awards, I’m afraid). It’s a shame HappenStance hasn’t been given more recognition within Scotland in this kind of way – by shortlists and awards, by the SAC, and so on. Isn’t it slightly ironic that a new UK-wide award with a prize-giving ceremony in London has immediately picked up on the worth of what HappenStance has been doing?
*
Early this morning I drafted an article asking where power lies in the Scottish poetry world, but it’s not quite right yet, especially given how controversial such a subject might prove to be. However, I will post it when it’s ready, which might not be until mid-July.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Project:2
I guess a Christian-based Arts Festival may not strike every reader of this blog as something they’d want to rush out and go to. Well, fair enough! But this one will be high quality, inclusive, and no doubt inspiring for anyone interested in contemporary spirituality.
Introducing - The Project:2. It’s the first event in working towards something even bigger, although the programme, spanning three venues on one day, is ambitious and intriguing.
It’s happening this Saturday, 20th June in Edinburgh. Andrew Philip and I will be performing poems at 2-2.30pm (at ‘The Lot’, Grassmarket, Edinburgh) and then at the Pleasance Cabaret Bar from 7.30-8pm. There is a huge amount going on all around us. Tickets can be booked for the afternoon, evening, or both. Word is that they are disappearing fast, so don't hang about.
Introducing - The Project:2. It’s the first event in working towards something even bigger, although the programme, spanning three venues on one day, is ambitious and intriguing.
It’s happening this Saturday, 20th June in Edinburgh. Andrew Philip and I will be performing poems at 2-2.30pm (at ‘The Lot’, Grassmarket, Edinburgh) and then at the Pleasance Cabaret Bar from 7.30-8pm. There is a huge amount going on all around us. Tickets can be booked for the afternoon, evening, or both. Word is that they are disappearing fast, so don't hang about.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Scott Rennie Case
I took a bus into Edinburgh’s city centre and managed to get in to see the debate over Scott Rennie live at the General Assembly. The public gallery and the video-link hall were both packed full. The debate lasted four hours and was (mostly) of a high standard, I thought. It was a court case carried out without public broadcasting cameras, so I don't want to go into detail on speeches. Kirk votes to back gay minister, says the BBC headline – and it did, by 326 votes to 267. Scott Rennie’s call to Queen’s Cross Church and the ratification by Aberdeen Presbytery have been upheld. I don’t know Scott, but I’m glad for him and wish him well. It was the right decision.
But the motion passed was more complex than the BBC make it appear. The motion recognised that the church has not yet expressed a clear-cut view on matters of homosexuality and ministry, and the decision on Scott Rennie was expressly stated not to prejudice that debate, which was originally to take place afterwards tonight in terms of the motion issued by Lochcarron & Skye Presbytery:
“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, readmit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”
However, due to the initial court case taking so long, it’s been postponed until Monday at 4pm.
In other words, the Church of Scotland General Assembly has decided that, under existing church legislation, the Presbytery of Aberdeen acted properly in upholding Scott Rennie’s call to Queen’s Cross Church. However, if the Overture issued by Lochcarron & Skye is passed on Monday, people engaged in sexual relationships, outside marriage between a man and woman, won’t be allowed to take up office as church ministers (in the future). So more or less everything is still at stake.
But the motion passed was more complex than the BBC make it appear. The motion recognised that the church has not yet expressed a clear-cut view on matters of homosexuality and ministry, and the decision on Scott Rennie was expressly stated not to prejudice that debate, which was originally to take place afterwards tonight in terms of the motion issued by Lochcarron & Skye Presbytery:
“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, readmit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”
However, due to the initial court case taking so long, it’s been postponed until Monday at 4pm.
In other words, the Church of Scotland General Assembly has decided that, under existing church legislation, the Presbytery of Aberdeen acted properly in upholding Scott Rennie’s call to Queen’s Cross Church. However, if the Overture issued by Lochcarron & Skye is passed on Monday, people engaged in sexual relationships, outside marriage between a man and woman, won’t be allowed to take up office as church ministers (in the future). So more or less everything is still at stake.
Live From The General Assembly
Those interested in following the Scott Rennie case at the Church of Scotland General Assembly (whether he, as a practising gay man, can retain his post as minister of Queen’s Cross Church) and the subsequent debate on sexuality, can watch it live from just after 6.30pm tonight. Whether it will be an edifying spectacle remains to be seen…
The BBC Report at the link states that "more than 400 Kirk ministers and almost 5,000 Church of Scotland members are said to have signed an online petition opposing the appointment." That 400 includes many retired ministers, and the 5,000 members belong to a Church denomination of over 600,000 members.
*
Hmmm. I just read in today's Scotsman newspaper that the Church has chosen not to show this particular debate on its live stream because "the Assembly is meeting as a court." Well it's true that, in Scotland, the proceedings of a court can't be televised. I can see the reasons why court proceedings ought to be held in private.
*
Latest news from the Church of Scotland website:
"Referred case: On Saturday evening the General Assembly will be exercising judicial functions, and like other British courts do not broadcast these publicly. Therefore there will be no webcast or Twitter updates of the Referred Case.
The webcast broadcast will re-commence with the beginning of the Overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye. The timing of this event will be dependant on the length of the preceding material. We will annouce the re-starting of the webcast on Twitter on the General Assembly Updates page."
I guess this might read like double-dutch. Basically, the 'referred case' is a complaint made by certain individuals from the Presbytery of Aberdeen who feel that the Presbytery acted improperly in allowing Queens Cross Church to call Scott Rennie to be their minister. This is the court case, and will be in private.
However, the Lochcarron-Skye overture will debate the issue of whether churches will be able to call ministers in a gay relationship (or indeed in any sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage). The overture states:
“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, readmit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”
That debate will be live on the stream, using the link above. I suspect the outcome will be to delay having to make a decision for a few years...
The BBC Report at the link states that "more than 400 Kirk ministers and almost 5,000 Church of Scotland members are said to have signed an online petition opposing the appointment." That 400 includes many retired ministers, and the 5,000 members belong to a Church denomination of over 600,000 members.
*
Hmmm. I just read in today's Scotsman newspaper that the Church has chosen not to show this particular debate on its live stream because "the Assembly is meeting as a court." Well it's true that, in Scotland, the proceedings of a court can't be televised. I can see the reasons why court proceedings ought to be held in private.
*
Latest news from the Church of Scotland website:
"Referred case: On Saturday evening the General Assembly will be exercising judicial functions, and like other British courts do not broadcast these publicly. Therefore there will be no webcast or Twitter updates of the Referred Case.
The webcast broadcast will re-commence with the beginning of the Overture from the Presbytery of Lochcarron-Skye. The timing of this event will be dependant on the length of the preceding material. We will annouce the re-starting of the webcast on Twitter on the General Assembly Updates page."
I guess this might read like double-dutch. Basically, the 'referred case' is a complaint made by certain individuals from the Presbytery of Aberdeen who feel that the Presbytery acted improperly in allowing Queens Cross Church to call Scott Rennie to be their minister. This is the court case, and will be in private.
However, the Lochcarron-Skye overture will debate the issue of whether churches will be able to call ministers in a gay relationship (or indeed in any sexual relationship outside of heterosexual marriage). The overture states:
“That this Church shall not accept for training, ordain, admit, readmit, induct or introduce to any ministry of the Church anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.”
That debate will be live on the stream, using the link above. I suspect the outcome will be to delay having to make a decision for a few years...
Friday, May 08, 2009
Gay Clergy
There’s a fair bit of concern over the latest controversy to hit the Church of Scotland – the issue whether Scott Rennie, an openly gay minister, should be allowed to take up his new post at Queens Cross Parish Church in Aberdeen. Will it split the church? The Scottish Kirk, while it has made mistakes in the past (who hasn’t?), has generally been fairly liberal and inclusive. The identity of that church is up for grabs. Those who want the church to operate on a narrow theological basis and exclude those who commit specific sins they particularly disapprove of are making their push. On Saturday 23rd May, the Church’s General Assembly (top decision-making body) will debate the matter.
But more than that, this controversy is about a person. Scott Rennie was minister of Brechin Cathedral for nine years. For several of these years, he has been in an openly gay relationship, and no one thought to protest. By all accounts, he was good at his job and well liked by everyone. He applied for the post at Queen’s Cross and was accepted in a vote by a healthy 86% of the congregation there. The Presbytery of Aberdeen sustained the appointment by 60 votes to 24. The petition to the General Assembly seeks to overturn these decisions. If carried, it will, in effect, exclude gay clergy from applying for church-minister posts. They will either have to conceal their relationships and live a lie, remain celibate for their entire lives, or give up their vocation.
The stress Scott already has gone through must have been considerable. If the petition to the General Assembly is passed, it will leave him not only without a job but with the sense that he, as an individual, has been rejected by the very organisation he has given so much of his life to. The human cost of all this appears irrelevant to those opposing him. Truth, they say, is more important than any sense of compassion for a human being. They mean their sense of truth, of course, their prejudices and fears, their opinions. They claim the Bible is ‘clear on these matters’ but it is clear only to them. The Bible suggests that menstruating women should be placed outside the camp for a number of days. It also says that people should not eat meat with blood in it. I presume that people who profess to take the Bible literally take those commands to heart as well!
The passages that are often cited from the New Testament concerning sexual practice are deeply ambiguous. Their exact meaning is unclear and the context even less clear. In some cases, it’s unlikely that they refer to homosexuality at all. In other cases, they certainly don’t refer to committed, loving relationships. Rather than living with ambiguity, fundamentalists always want to nail things down, which always means (somewhat ironically) nailing down anyone who gets in their way.
It’s intriguing, to say the least, that Jesus himself had nothing to say on the matter. Clearly, he didn’t consider the issue important enough to pronounce on, which simply begs the question why the matter has become of such central importance for the conservative wing of the church. Why this ’sin’ as opposed to all the others? The fundamentalist wing of the church seems strangely obsessed with it. Why? And why get so hot and bothered over what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms and, simultaneously, remain virtually silent on the fact that two-thirds of the world’s population live in poverty, that millions of children die every year of easily cured diseases like diarrhoea? Aren’t these sins more worth getting obsessed about?
The truth is that, while fundamentalists claim their liberal colleagues are ‘selective’ over which verses of the Bible they choose to take account of, the fundamentalists are every bit as selective, if not more so. The difference is that they are blind to their own prejudices. They don’t even realise it. That’s what makes them impossible to argue with. I only hope the General Assembly sees sense on 23rd May and allows Scott Rennie to take up his post and – in doing that – stands up for an inclusive church and an inclusive Scotland. I have a degree of confidence that they will indeed do that and I hope my confidence is not misplaced.
There is a Facebook Cause Group which you can join in support of Scott Rennie.
And this is an interesting and personal reflection by Stephen Glenn on the subject of church and sexuality.
But more than that, this controversy is about a person. Scott Rennie was minister of Brechin Cathedral for nine years. For several of these years, he has been in an openly gay relationship, and no one thought to protest. By all accounts, he was good at his job and well liked by everyone. He applied for the post at Queen’s Cross and was accepted in a vote by a healthy 86% of the congregation there. The Presbytery of Aberdeen sustained the appointment by 60 votes to 24. The petition to the General Assembly seeks to overturn these decisions. If carried, it will, in effect, exclude gay clergy from applying for church-minister posts. They will either have to conceal their relationships and live a lie, remain celibate for their entire lives, or give up their vocation.
The stress Scott already has gone through must have been considerable. If the petition to the General Assembly is passed, it will leave him not only without a job but with the sense that he, as an individual, has been rejected by the very organisation he has given so much of his life to. The human cost of all this appears irrelevant to those opposing him. Truth, they say, is more important than any sense of compassion for a human being. They mean their sense of truth, of course, their prejudices and fears, their opinions. They claim the Bible is ‘clear on these matters’ but it is clear only to them. The Bible suggests that menstruating women should be placed outside the camp for a number of days. It also says that people should not eat meat with blood in it. I presume that people who profess to take the Bible literally take those commands to heart as well!
The passages that are often cited from the New Testament concerning sexual practice are deeply ambiguous. Their exact meaning is unclear and the context even less clear. In some cases, it’s unlikely that they refer to homosexuality at all. In other cases, they certainly don’t refer to committed, loving relationships. Rather than living with ambiguity, fundamentalists always want to nail things down, which always means (somewhat ironically) nailing down anyone who gets in their way.
It’s intriguing, to say the least, that Jesus himself had nothing to say on the matter. Clearly, he didn’t consider the issue important enough to pronounce on, which simply begs the question why the matter has become of such central importance for the conservative wing of the church. Why this ’sin’ as opposed to all the others? The fundamentalist wing of the church seems strangely obsessed with it. Why? And why get so hot and bothered over what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms and, simultaneously, remain virtually silent on the fact that two-thirds of the world’s population live in poverty, that millions of children die every year of easily cured diseases like diarrhoea? Aren’t these sins more worth getting obsessed about?
The truth is that, while fundamentalists claim their liberal colleagues are ‘selective’ over which verses of the Bible they choose to take account of, the fundamentalists are every bit as selective, if not more so. The difference is that they are blind to their own prejudices. They don’t even realise it. That’s what makes them impossible to argue with. I only hope the General Assembly sees sense on 23rd May and allows Scott Rennie to take up his post and – in doing that – stands up for an inclusive church and an inclusive Scotland. I have a degree of confidence that they will indeed do that and I hope my confidence is not misplaced.
There is a Facebook Cause Group which you can join in support of Scott Rennie.
And this is an interesting and personal reflection by Stephen Glenn on the subject of church and sexuality.
Monday, April 06, 2009
More On Young Poets
I’ve been commenting, no doubt at more length than necessary, on the ongoing young Scottish poets debate over at One Night Stanzas.
My main points are – high quality will be key to the success of any young poets pamphlet series in Scotland; there are no “right people to know” other than people you sense an affinity with in any case; if you want to be part of a local poetry scene, you have to make an effort to join in. The ball is in your court; publishers and editors always want new talent, but simply aren’t going to scour the internet to find it; there’s a huge amount of goodwill out there towards young and emerging poets; if people do all the self-publicity stuff and the poetry isn’t good enough, it will mean nothing.
It could be that I'm not quite right on some of these matters, but I thought I'd throw out a few ideas.
My main points are – high quality will be key to the success of any young poets pamphlet series in Scotland; there are no “right people to know” other than people you sense an affinity with in any case; if you want to be part of a local poetry scene, you have to make an effort to join in. The ball is in your court; publishers and editors always want new talent, but simply aren’t going to scour the internet to find it; there’s a huge amount of goodwill out there towards young and emerging poets; if people do all the self-publicity stuff and the poetry isn’t good enough, it will mean nothing.
It could be that I'm not quite right on some of these matters, but I thought I'd throw out a few ideas.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Lost Thomson Poem Found
Amazing! A lost poem from cult Scottish iconoclast and poet, R.D. Thomson (1923-67), has been recovered from a torn A5 sheet of paper stuck between the covers of an old housewives’ manual on a Edinburgh charity shop bookshelf. A customer was leafing through the book and discovered the yellowing manuscript.
It would have marked a radical new direction for Thomson who abandoned poetry in 1953 to concentrate on his cardboard-abstract installations, which he exhibited to coincide with heavy rainfall, that way ensuring a necessary transience. The poem is dated 1967 and could have been written shortly before Thomson’s suicide that year. The author’s favoured themes are all present – liquid, late capitalism and latent violence – but the writing, while avant-garde for its time, is more compressed and less centred on himself than Thomson’s earlier experiments with the onomastic school.
Here is the poem, which is, as you would expect, without title:
steel gothick, penthouse lagging, this means
bones cooking on the stove beans to sludge
ex tempore coercion the hour of pinafore
off colour shotgun aimless and fragile
spend drift water spill banks of mount caramel
halfway between hubris and superego
trickle down the blossoming weed and root
cannibals kill for scrapings from sugar planes
pink depression a working pipe immaterial
hey mac shoot me shoot me in a frame baby
self consciousness becomes you takes flight
clear case of towelling institutional hidrosis
It seems that a certain Barbara G. McCreadie of the Scottish Literature Project has already condemned the poem as “obscure, pointless and enough to put any child off reading poetry for life.” She’s obviously missed the playfully ironic switches of tone and register, the subtle connections and echoes between the fragmented images and, most of all, the searing relevance the poem has in these days of recession, protest and credit crunch. And the final line is a killer.
It would have marked a radical new direction for Thomson who abandoned poetry in 1953 to concentrate on his cardboard-abstract installations, which he exhibited to coincide with heavy rainfall, that way ensuring a necessary transience. The poem is dated 1967 and could have been written shortly before Thomson’s suicide that year. The author’s favoured themes are all present – liquid, late capitalism and latent violence – but the writing, while avant-garde for its time, is more compressed and less centred on himself than Thomson’s earlier experiments with the onomastic school.
Here is the poem, which is, as you would expect, without title:
steel gothick, penthouse lagging, this means
bones cooking on the stove beans to sludge
ex tempore coercion the hour of pinafore
off colour shotgun aimless and fragile
spend drift water spill banks of mount caramel
halfway between hubris and superego
trickle down the blossoming weed and root
cannibals kill for scrapings from sugar planes
pink depression a working pipe immaterial
hey mac shoot me shoot me in a frame baby
self consciousness becomes you takes flight
clear case of towelling institutional hidrosis
It seems that a certain Barbara G. McCreadie of the Scottish Literature Project has already condemned the poem as “obscure, pointless and enough to put any child off reading poetry for life.” She’s obviously missed the playfully ironic switches of tone and register, the subtle connections and echoes between the fragmented images and, most of all, the searing relevance the poem has in these days of recession, protest and credit crunch. And the final line is a killer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)