Every day a collection of sharp wordsmiths analyse the issues affecting Scotland and file a selection of opinion pieces to amuse, inform and entertain. Here are a few of our articles - the full archive is here: www.scotspolitics.com
Complaining about Council Houses and benefits? YOU'RE the problem
I never intended to watch How to Get a Council House on Channel 4. I wanted to gambol, free and happy around the internet for an evening. But then some comments appeared on Twitter, led by right-wing rent-a-gob Katie Hopkins, pouring derision and insults from all corners of the UK. 140 characters isnât enough to answer all these hateful, ill-informed slices of spite, so read on, gentle friend, and Iâll show you what a poverty-bashing piece of classism it was.
Firstly, some indignation is well founded, but the assumption that those receiving benefits have life handed to them on a plate is far from the truth. But I have a policy of never criticising something before Iâve seen it, so to 4oD I went and, despite the obviously provocative title, I gave the programme a chance.
â17% of their rent. Diddums. Can I get my mortgage paid for by the state then?â
This reminds me of late Glasgow councillor Madge OâNeill who, when confronted by a constituent angry about people who âgot their house paid for themâ, asked if theyâd like to swap places with them on the same conditions. The man quickly backed down.
âBut if you canât afford the rent move house. Move to the private-sector and donât live off the state!â
Iâd be almost tempted to agree⌠were public sector housing not stretched to its limits, and private-rented accommodation two to three times more expensive. Itâs not a realistic option for many of the worst off, and only increases the âIf I can do itâŚâ attitude of those who can afford to pay those nigh-on exploitative rates.
âBut you have to agree, people shouldnât just be able to sit on their arses and live off my hard-earned money!?âÂ
This is perhaps the most damaging and poisonous benefits myth. The idea that you can claim the dole and then sit about for two weeks until they have to sign-on for next fortnightâs money is just plain wrong. As part of the governmentâs welfare reforms, all claimants (or âcustomersâ as the DWP call them â which is concerning in itself) must sign a commitment to do all they can to find work. If they donât, or canât, they lose the money the rely on for up to 156 weeks â or three years as everyone else would say when not trying to hide the unnecessarily severe nature of the punishment.
This includes when a computer-illiterate 50-year-old is told to use a computer to find work, but despite being on an âIntro to Computersâ course, is sanctioned for not doing enough. It also includes when you have found work due to start in a month, so (quite reasonably) donât look for a job in that timeâŚand therefore are sanctioned and must somehow survive for four weeks with no money.
My point is itâs easy to say âbloody scroungersâ. Itâs simple to dismiss people as just lazy. Itâs good politics, even, to say that we are âwinning the war on benefitsâ as if the most-deprived are the new enemy within. But benefit claimants arenât some bogeyman from the depths of your TV set or tabloid; theyâre real, decent, hardworking people who have found themselves out of work. When almost 1,000,000 people are turning to foodbanks to survive, shouldnât we be asking why we fail these people in the first place?
The independence campaign is a new pinnacle for women and politics
Oh, BBC Scotland, you were doing so well. In last weekâs âWhat Women Wantâ, Jackie Bird strode around Scotland and asked women what they thought about the IndyRef. Since both sides have been gearing up like sweaty Casanovas to seduce women voters in the wake of the latest Scottish Social Attitudes Survey showing a marked division in voting intention along gender lines, the time is ripe for a serious, thoughtful analysis of women and the indyref.
Thatâs not to say only the opinions of women who work are worthwhile; just that this kind of positioning implies that ordinary women donât. Scottish comedienne Kim Griffin summed it up when she drawled âwomen are only wired to 50% think of the next generation, or weans as theyâre called⌠[Men and women are] noâ even the same species, Jackie â weâre too busy thinking about weans. Iâm going to sit back and knit something and have a wean. The next generation.â
Nobodyâs blaming Jackie Bird here. We love Jackie over here. In fact, should Scotland vote Yes in 2014, weâre going to kidnap Kirsty Wark and make her and Jackie joint Glorious Leaders of the Alba Media Empire. Because we recognise them as sharp, talented people at the very top of their game, we wouldnât relegate them to reporting on the latest trends in bridal wear or the weekâs top recipe tips. And weâre not alone here.
Women in Scotland are at the forefront of the IndyRef, particularly on the Yes side. The irritable, angry old men of the 1980s and the keyboard-and-irrational-air-of-victimhood-wielding CyberNats are yesterdayâs news. The real faces of the Yes campaign are people like Miriam Brett, Kate Higgins, and the cross-party members ofWomen For Independence. The IndyRef is a genuinely vibrant political campaign; instead of identikit men in suits mouthing party platitudes, itâs full people who wouldnât usually be involved in politics. The Yes campaign has genuine momentum because people are seeing it as a way to effect change instead of giving careerists a leg-up into the system. You might not be political but when youâve been terrified by welfare reform, hit with draconian benefit sanctions or forced to accept foodbank donations so you can feed your children, the idea of getting rid of a government that seems only to care about rich Londoners and Tory-voting Home Counties folk is very appealing.
House of Commons Speaker John Bercow recently spoke out against the culture of intimidation against female MPs, who face jeering, boob-gestures and other forms of juvenile behaviour utterly unbecoming of middle-aged backbench MPs with second mortgages and ponds to consider. Westminster boasts a whopping, er, 22% while Holyrood storms ahead with 34%; itâs still not great but that does include two party leaders and the deputy First Minister.
Really, it seems fair to say that what women really want from the IndyRef is to be included and respected in the political process, to have their opinions valued and for female  MSPs and high-profile campaigners to be fairly standard instead of an anomaly. When it comes to women and the Indyref, Scotland is doing exceptionally well right now. It just would be great to see more of that reflected in the media.
Read more online at http://scotspolitics.com/entertainment/what-women-want-is-representation-in-the-indyref
Tomorrowâs launch of the SNPâs white paper could be the break that the pro-independence campaign needs, or it could ruin any hopes of a Yes vote on 18 September next year.
This video is going viral right now. It shows a bunch of lads from Stirling chanting about miscarriage, casual racism and yer bog-standard sexism. Harmless drunken banter or symptom of insidious misogyny?Â
I am a feminist. I havenât always been though. In fact, looking back I think I might have been a misogynist. I am sad to say that I definitely was. I went to Stirling University and I can remember singing songs on the bus. I donât think any of them were as vile as this, but they might have been. It didnât even faze me at the time. They were just words and I was just having a good time. I wonder now, how many women did I make uncomfortable. I wonder how many women Iâve leered at unconsciously in nightclubs. I have never pinched any bums or called them names but I have made women feel stupid just for bringing up feminism.
The singing on the bus is a disgrace. There is no justifying it. It is disgusting and anti-social behaviour. The only come back is simply âwe were having fun.â This isnât a free speech thing; this is about people taking responsibility for being foul-mouthed and tasteless. You want to talk about manning up? Man the f*ck up and show some restraint, youâre on public transport, not some Magaluf bar where some other throwback like you is being paid to make you feel good about your tiny penis by pouring cheep booze down your neck. You made people feel uncomfortable, so deal with it and apologize. Stand your ground and you will be flattened by the consequences.
I looked on the YouTube video and read some of the comments. I was stuck by how eloquent the men and women condemning the singing was and by how coarse and sinister the defendants were. At first I was shocked, then I got very angry. I wanted to comment too, but I didnât as every point I wanted to make had already been made far better that I think I could have done. After a few minutes of reading the vile sludge of the defendants I became a little calmer. Eventually I was totally Zen with the whole thing. All the comments that spouted the hate and rage at women were from anonymous accounts. People with names like âJohn Doeâ; you know, real cowards. They are scared. They are worried about the reprisals. These weak and feeble voices who shout at women with such gusto are really consumed by their backward believes. Iâm not sure what kind of weird kick they get from it but it must be pretty base.
If you were on that bus and singing songs or if you are just a guy who thinks he might be a little misogynistic, go and take a long look at yourself. Youâre going to have two voices inside you. One is saying, âhmmm, I feel a little guilty. I think I may be a bit of a cock sometimesâ, the other is saying âfuck those fat feminazi whores, letâs go write some of these zingers down on the internet.â I have come to terms with my misogyny. My apologises to women will never be enough, nor do I expect them to be. I can only hope to be kinder and listen more, anything else wouldnât be very gentlemanly.
Your hurt feelings are nothing compared to my liklihood of being raped
Hey young people, have you heard of Underhanding? Itâs the hip new craze thatâs sweeping Britainâs clubs. The aim is to loom up behind a girl and shove your fingers inside her. If you succeed, you get to swagger back to your dudebro pals with the knowledge that youâve just sexually assaulted another human being.
I was about to say âthankfully I live in Stirling, where the bouncers make sure creepy guys leave you alone in the clubsâ but then this surfaced. Itâs a video of some UniLads on the 63 bus chanting about miscarriage, assault and casual racism while other passengers look increasingly uncomfortable. Itâs just gone viral and the University has creaked into action, saying something about internal disciplinaries and awareness training.
Remember when that guy from N-Dubz was done for harrassment and felt victimised? Who can forget his epoch-shattering statement of âTell me how many people could have been convicted for squeezing a girlâs arse, nearly every guy could be up for that.â
Guys, we need you to help here. Youâre the dominant power force; youâre the ones who tacitly condone and normalise behaviour like this when youâre at a party, a fellow man says something rotten about women and you donât call him out on it.
The frustrating bit is that whenever a discussion about this happens, you will always always always get some Mensâ Rights Activist who pops up and whines that women have it easy, at least they donât get beaten up as often as guys do, why are you acting like itâs always the guys assaulting girls, what about the Loose Women cackling and leering over their male guests, and so on. Or the guy who says âbut Iâm not like thatâ and will solemnly told you that he doesnât like feminists âbecause they hate men.â
Well, guess what? This isnât about you! If a woman has to be constantly on her guard whenever she goes out in public, gets verbal abuse, is belittled because sheâs female, has to get home before dark, etc, then sheâs perfectly within her rights to distrust men as a group. Your hurt feelings are chickenfeed compared to the very real threat that I will be raped at some point in my life. Especially when men who âarenât like thatâ are too busy telling us that theyâre ânot like thatâ to actually get out there and tell other guys to give it a rest, or who try to make us feel bad for speaking out against it.
Weâve been conditioned to not be a bitch, to not hurt guysâ feelings, to not make a fuss. Somehow itâs our fault; we shouldnât have worn that dress, we shouldnât have spoken to that guy, we shouldnât have accepted that drink. Stop acting like sexual assault and harrassment are facts of life! Misogyny isnât a force of nature!
The Stirling bus story raises some heavy questions. Why didnât the bus driver stop and kick them out? Why did the lads think this was okay? Is the University going to do something about it or will it let them away with sensitivity training? Most importantly, why are there people still defending this with âboys will be boysâ and âit was only a jokeâ?
Revolutions are never successful until you get the support of the dominant class, be it the bourgeoisie in the 1956 Hungarian Revolution or white people taking their beatings along with the other riders on the freedom buses. And this is a case where merely not actively oppressing us isnât enough; dudes, you need to be out there and helping us.
By attacking Ed Miliband's links with the trade unions, Britain's columnists are showing their unique brand of hypocrisy.
The knives were out for Uniteâs General Secretary Len McCluskey last week as the shockwaves from Grangemouth refused to die away. Columnists condemned both the actions of Unite and McCluskey, while Andrew Neil dedicated a chunk of yesterdayâs Sunday Politics to bellowing âthe day was only saved by your total capitulation and humiliationâ as McCluskey protested the unionâs innocence.
Popular opinion suggests that Ed Miliband needs to stamp down on McCluskey in order to assert his authority and sever the ties to the union. The âRed Edâ moniker has plagued him since his election as Labour leader and was used to dismiss him before heâd even begun his new role. Screeds of print have claimed that, should Ed fail to give the unions the boot, public confidence in him will be undermined and David Cameron will have more ammunition for PMQs while the unions grow fat on power.
This isnât a piece on Grangemouth â with the details so contentious and murky, Iâm loath to claim any kind of knowledge of it. What am I interested in is the question of why Ed Miliband should be running from his association with the trade unions.
The Labour Party in Britain is unique because it was founded by the trade unions instead of vice-versa. You know why I donât care if Labour are bankrolled by the unions? Because anyone can join a union. Even if youâre unemployed, youâve got a voice. John Prescott failed the 11+ and, through the unions, went on to graduate from Ruskin, Oxford â a university which specialised in courses for union officials. He then held the Labour Party together whenever Blair and Brown had one of their handbag-swinging sessions. Without trade unions, you wouldnât have eight-hour working days, maternity leave or occupational health and safety, amongst other things.
The unions have already been muzzled by Miliband. His controversial overhaul of Labour funding means union members will have to make a conscious decision to opt into the levy instead of the union affiliating them automatically â a move union insiders estimated could cost Labour ÂŁ5million in lost funding. Miliband also capped union donations at a respectable ÂŁ10,000; the intention was to make the party-union link âa modern relationship with individual working peopleâ instead of union chiefs. Now columnists are calling for him to somehow oust McCluskey â a man who was re-elected in 2013 with almost twice the amount of votes as his rival, Jerry Hicks.
Ed Miliband is an intelligent man. He regularly flusters Cameron at PMQs, however often Cameron tries to blame âthe previous governmentâ for everything from food banks to the Westminster bogs not flushing properly (come on, man â youâve been in power since 2010. Time to put on your big boy trousers and accept some responsibility). In July, whenCameron brayed that the unions âowned you lock, stock and block vote,â Miliband cooly retorted âIâm proud we have links with ordinary working people. Heâs bankrolled by a few millionaires.â Itâs unlikely heâs going to be the puppet of any union paymaster.
But Iâll go one further. I want a Labour party to be influenced by the trade unions. I want a Labour leader who listens to my trade union and speaks up for me when the Tories try to screw me over. In short, if the choice is between unions, bankers or a transportation magnate who campaigned to retain Section 28, Iâll pick the party of the unions every time.
November 3rd 2013 shall forever be known as Honeygate. Damn you, Bin Laden. Damn you and your cunning plan to keep us from the one unspoilable foodstuff.Â
âI still think awards are stupid. But theyâd be less stupid if they went to the right people.â â Ron Swanson
When I read the news that Russian President Vladimir Putin had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, I did a spectacular comedy double-take. I was scrolling through Twitter on my phone, not paying much attention to what I was seeing, but something about that headline struck me as being odd.
No, I hadnât misread it; Vladimir Putin has indeed been named as a candidate for the award. The same Vladimir Putin who has been furnishing Bashar al-Assadâs regime with weapons to be used against the Syrian people. The same Vladimir Putin who appears to be leading a war against the forces of homosexuality. That Vladimir Putin is the one who apparently deserves an award for his gargantuan contribution to world peace.
Putin is not the first, nor will he be the last, controversial nominee for an award such as this. Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, a decision met with much criticism, partly because Obama hadnât (and still hasnât) closed Guantanamo Bay, among other objections to his presidency. Considering that previous winners have included Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa and Yasser Arafat, itâs fair to say that the criteria have changed somewhat. Similarly, the title of Time magazineâs âPerson of the Yearâ (previously âMan of the Yearâ) has been won by George W. Bush, Josef Stalin (twice), Adolf Hitler, and â of course â Vladimir Putin.
One only has to look at the public reaction to the Emmys last week to see that there will always be disagreement on who and what should win awards, and that often being nominated (or sometimes not being nominated) generates more publicity than winning. If Putin were to win the peace prize, it would render the award pretty meaningless, given some of his actions. The fact that he is even being considered, particularly in the current political climate, is enough to get peopleâs blood boiling, and rightly so. If awards are going to retain or regain any real credibility, it is important that they go to the right people. Vladimir Putin is far from being the right person for this award.
