Immediate musings post #ric2014

It was jolly good.  Some general thoughts in brief:

Attendees

There were an awful lot of people who aren't just the usual suspects.  This gives me hope that we really are keeping a lot of folk who were activated by the referendum active.  The age profile in particular was wonderful to see.

Participation

The top table format isn't perfect for most things, but this was effectively a mega rally with a far better attempt than most left summits at ensuring a diverse range of voices were given space, both in the main bits and the workshops.

Labour

I'm not a Labour party member, and am unlikely ever to be one, with little faith in the party as a whole, but strong sympathies with a few inside.

With the exceptions of that few, I think Labour positioned itself poorly on the referendum, that those I like and/or love within the party have compromised too much, that they hate the SNP far more than is rational, and frequently put party interests ahead of what is right.  (this last criticism I apply to most parties).

That disclaimer aside, I worry that hatred of Labour is more important for some who were on my side in the referendum and who were there today than the world we want to see - that crushing labour is more of an objective than resisting rampant capitalism (of which I acknowledge Labour are a part), and that it distracts a lot of folk who might be open to our political message from that message.

Future

I'm not overly excited by Westminster 2015 from a Scottish perspective - it strikes me that having said Scottish politics is more about Holyrood than Westminster, focusing too much on Westminster is a mistake - creating the conditions for a fairer Scotland in a fairer world will not be achieved there, and I advocate a targeted push in the local authority elections, to demonstrate what can happen when people with ideas rather than managerial ambition are elected.

Aye, that's about it for now.  There was some very good chat on the road home on how to mount a campaign for the Dundee City Council elections, which I may write a bit about at some point.

Aye, so there is this...

I think I probably have ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity* Disorder).

A week ago, I didn't have any thoughts on the matter.  I had a lot of symptoms, but of what, I didn't know.

The primary manifestation, of which I have been acutely conscious over the past few years, has been that my concentration regularly lapses.  This had been a source of significant worry, and led me to my GP, who in the first instance suggested a course of Prozac.

That had the initial benefit of me waking up far more alert in the morning, but had no significant effect upon my mood, or, more significantly, my short term memory and concentration - A locum went with my GP's backup plan of a referral to a psychologist, but, maybe because the locum didn't really know me, the referral was met with a letter suggesting that for someone in my age group, counselling would be the sensible route.

The counselling, at Insight in Dundee, was a fascinating experience, but while it may have made me more familiar with the concept of thought errors (automatic thoughts that we are all guilty of at times, contributing to exacerbation of stress), it didn't help my concentration, really.  It may have helped my overall mood a bit, but I always felt that my low moods were more likely to follow concentration dips than vice versa, and so after a twelve week run with the very nice counsellor, we shook hands and parted ways.

The concentration problems have stayed with me, but a summer of things happening (one manifestation of ADHD would appear to be over-committing) meant that worry for myself went on the back burner as I threw myself into a variety of Union campaigns, the Yes campaign, organising a reunion of my old theatre company and a Christening.

So it was only this week past that I finally woke up in time to request an appointment with my GP to say that the problems were still there.

The appointment, which was twenty minutes late starting, ran on for about twenty-five minutes - I really like my GP, and talking to him is never a bad thing, but I do feel guilty for those who were waiting for their appointments, already delayed.

It was actually quite late on that he suggested ADHD as a possibility, although he made clear that I would need to be referred to a specialist for a diagnosis - I said that I would be keen to explore anything that might help, and he is referring me.

I came out of the appointment a little surprised, went into the office and had a wee chat with my manager to bring him up to speed - when I got home, after finishing my work for the day, I spent the evening reading up on adult ADHD, and did a couple of (not Facebook) online self assessments, which indicated that I am likely to have moderate to severe ADHD.

Amongst those things about me that I have always just thought were me being me, but which may rather coincide with ADHD symptoms are the following:

• A tendency to fidget terribly, bouncing my legs;

• Eating too much;

• Drinking too much;

• Talking too much (this one potentially cost me a really awesome job - the feedback was that I over-answered every question in my shotgun style and they had to struggle to pick out the key points);

• Impulsive spending;

• Impulsiveness in general;
• Impulsive romantic behaviour (OK, the psychology site said sexual, and that is true, but I'm blogging for a general, if small, audience, possibly including my family and probably including women who have been on the receiving end of this);

• A tendency to put off boring work till the very last minute;

• The aforementioned gaps in concentration/tendency to daydream;

• Starting too many projects in a blaze of activity, then losing steam;

• Depression following successes;

• Difficulty following instructions;

• Accumulation of "stuff";

• Insomnia (this is terrible for me);

• Difficulty waking up (even worse than the not being able to get to sleep);

• Addiction (so tempted to make a heroin joke here, but nah, just the cigs);

• Short term memory problems, and;

• Hyperfocus on things that engage me, not always positively.

This last one, for example, explains why I will read some books in one sitting, and some over six months or longer.  It also explains the six months of my life in 2003 that I wisely invested in Tony Hawks' Pro Skater 2...

Basically, none of this excuses any of my more, erm, esoteric behaviour, but it may go some way towards explaining some of it.

It will probably take a while for an assessment to be arranged, and in the meantime, for the short term, I am going to have to think long and hard (something that apparently ADHD makes you try and avoid often) about what to do in the short term, until hopefully I get a positive diagnosis and treatment starts.

I've forced myself to be relatively decent at coping with waiting, and have moderated a lot of my more explosive tendencies, but I am really hopeful that if I do get the diagnosis and treatment, I may end up on a more even keel.

Part of me resents that this wasn't picked up earlier - the way my GP put it was that if you're bright enough to, despite any impairments caused by ADHD, get through school without terrible difficulty, then you're unlikely to be picked up - self taught coping strategies can actually hinder your diagnosis.

When I think back to my "academic" period, I can't help but wonder if I might have done a lot better had I been diagnosed and on an effective course of treatment then, but life has actually been pretty wonderfully kind to me since, and if I'd done really well and got a far better paid job, while the money might be nice, I wouldn't have met all the wonderful people that I am proud to call friends that I have met along the way.

Basically, what I am getting at is that I am probably going to need to make some changes in my life in the short term, and I hope you will all be with me while I do so.

If any of the above list, which is in my own words, seems a little too familiar (and hopefully nobody will be so awful as to say "well we all have problems getting out of bed in the morning" and think that proves anything other than that they are a bad person) then please do look into it for yourself, and maybe think about seeing your own GP.  There is an awful lot to read online...

*Anybody thinking "But Hamish is a lazy so-and-so" here, the hyperactivity is my racing brain, not my rather adipose body.  Actually, there is a suggested link between undiagnosed ADHD and obesity.  And anyway, if you watch my legs when sitting still you will see them bouncing ridiculously after a while, no matter where I am.  This annoys people in the cinema.  And other places.

Aye, so that happened

Scotland voted.

Scotland voted No, to be precise.

With a ten per cent margin, 55:45, Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Do you see what I did there?  I accepted the result.

I could list the actual turnout, and so on, I could break it down by each individual count, but I accept that this was the vote.

I am disappointed, as are many (a little over 1.6 milllion, not to mention all those who weren't allowed to vote for reason of residence or age) by the result, but because at least some readers will, by the end of this short piece, probably be trying to label me as in denial, I will reiterate one more time:  More people, by a substantial number, voted for Scotland to remain in the UK than voted for it to be Independent.  I do not deny this, and, indeed, predicate much of what follows on this fact (possibly the third time that the word fact has been used to mean a fact rather than a nebulous possibility that the writer places hopein in Scottish political discourse since 2012).

I have seen some people asserting that the count or the vote themselves were in some way rigged.  Having had friends at the Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee counts that I trust implicitly, none of whom have suggested any foul play, I am happy to accept the result as stands.

The referendum is a snapshot of public opinion and will at a given moment in time.  Up until the tail end of 2013, I was formally undecided, with a preponderance towards a No vote, my movement away from which I have detailed previously.  People change their minds.

The binary nature of the Referendum question posed polarised the campaign massively, and the idiot fringes of both sides did much to try and drag the debate into the dirt.  From my perspective, the Scottish Secretary and a few other BT high heid yins were rather terrible for presenting gendered hate speech directed towards JK Rowling as being official Yes campaign policy, while the many sins carried out in their name without their request or support, Yes were less likely to attribute to BT.

The majority of the debate wasn't abusive, wasn't aggressive, and was in fact an exposition of just how much everybody cares about Scotland.

And people will go on caring about Scotland.  A good number will believe that Scotland and her people would best be looked after through Independence.  I don't think, and never have thought, that Independence is the only way the poor people of Scotland could attain better lives - that is palpably not true - but I worry that the triangulation of politics towards the interests of a minority of the population in swing seats in England means that it will be harder for this to happen than if we were independent.

In the tail stages of the Campaign, Better Together received a boost when the leaders of the three main Unionist parties made a vow to offer faster, better change (or some similar form of words) in the event of a no vote.

What this means is still foggy, but implied in it was massively increased fiscal control for Scotland, whilst retaining the Barnett formula.  A change which could, if also applied to Wales, be massively to their detriment  possibly, given their differing economy.

The referendum, in which a majority of people voted No (still not denying it, notice) took place after this vow was made.  We are now seeing Westminster frantically trying to work out what fater better change is and how it is delivered.

If it is not delivered, won't some No voters feel very aggrieved?  And wouldn't it be understandable for yes voters to feel like they possibly lost as a result of a lie?

In such an event, if a party, or coalition of parties, were to present themselves to the Scottish Electorate with a priority manifesto commitment towards running a further referendum in light of that failure to deliver, would that really be denying the previous result?  I would argue not.

H

Bob

I was going to say that I didn't know Bob Crow personally,  that I knew him in a comradely but distant way ("professional" is so much a bosses' word that I could never say it here,  but it was in our working lives that we met).

But then I thought about it,  and I knew as much about him personally as I needed to know.

As a 24 year old first time delegate to the TUC,  at an evening Reception that I had not exactly been invited to,  the best known General Secretary in the Trade Union movement broke off a chat he was having with someone I didn't know to tell me how much he had enjoyed my maiden speech to Congress.

He spoke to me about what I had said,  and told me that I had said it well.

That means a lot. He was in his own time,  I wasn't part of his Union,  but he felt it was important to talk to me. That is all I will ever need to know to know that Bob was special.

In an era where the media decry trade unions as an archaic irrelevance, they could never say that about Bob. His force of character and strength of belief,  backed up by an amazing membership who understand solidarity like no other made him the target of opprobrium, yes,  but never accusations of insignificance.

Bob and the RMT had a symbiotic relationship, each strengthening the other,  and in an age when few Trade Unionists are household names,  Bob was a brand of his own,  the conscience of a class and a nation, unassailable and erudite without softening his diction or doffing his bunnet.

We still have fine leaders in the movement,  and Bob,  who was never one to steal the limelight in my experience, would say that he was only who he was because of the organisation behind him,  but the loss of the one household name in the movement will leave a gap.

RIP,  Brother Crow.  You fought the good fight.

From Yes (before the question was being asked) to No and back again

To put in context my attitude to the referendum on Scottish Independence later this year, you really have to understand my life as a nine year old.

That year, my primary school class undertook a project on the Scottish Wars of Independence, and I met my first English person of an age with me.  We didn't get on.  At all.

The combination of these two things, and a trip to the old Bannockburn visitors centre, at which I emphatically took brass rubbings and felt massively ripped off by a statue of Robert the Bruce that looked nothing like as impressive as he should have done, and a 1987 election in which Scotland's votes yet again were not reflected in the UK Government we got, fed into a very xenophobic, anti-English form of Nationalism, which it took me some time to overcome.

For all that my mother will tell you otherwise, I was a pretty horrible child.  Well, certainly to the girl who would grow to become Dr Catherine Birchmore.

It took me a while to grow out of that.  Not just the being mean to Cathy thing, the general sense of grievance.

I identified firmly on the left from my mid teens, but didn't really question my Nationalist notions, even as I grew fonder of Cathy, and it wasn't until my early twenties that I really started to think a bit more about concepts of Nation and identity.

I developed at that time an aversion to borders - selectively permeable membranes dividing working people while allowing the rich to pass through at their leisure, and like most who consider themselves leftists, came to realise that those who struggle to keep a roof over their heads the world over have more in common with each other than they do with those who rent them that roof at exorbitant price.

I felt this to be incompatible with my previous desire for an Independent Scotland - that by seceding from the Union we would be (if not necessarily in physical practice - I wasn't that gullible, even as a Unionist) creating a new border, and separating ourselves further still from working people elsewhere.

From a position of ideological purity, I still adamantly dislike borders - were I to be handed the keys to the world and told I'm driving tomorrow, the world would move to a planned economy based upon need, with adequate resource shared the world over obviating the "need" under capitalism for border control.  If people wherever they are have what they need, people would not feel the pressing need to migrate for any of the reasons that currently compel economic migration and encourage workers to be set against each other in a  race to the bottom.

I'm entirely open to being handed those keys, but just in case that doesn't happen, I've had to think about how things might be made better for others using what limited power my individual vote gives me, and quite frankly, an individual vote in an independent Scotland would be proportionately more powerful than an individual vote in the UK currently is.

One individual vote is still a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of votes cast, but it is still a bigger fraction than my vote in a Westminster election, and that amplifies when you consider the effect of engaging with friends and colleagues on issues of importance - the small circles we move in are suddenly proportionately ten times or more bigger in their clout than they are in a UK context.

I want a fairer world.  I don't think an Independent Scotland will instantly result in that, but I do think it will be easier to make Scotland fairer.

There are no facts about what WILL happen if Scotland votes Yes, other than that negotiations on what happens next will commence, and they won't be easy.  If you think that we'll be living in a land of free heavy beer and pie suppers in the sky the minute we vote yes, you're an idealist whose naivete I can honestly say I envy.  We can speak of probabilities, but the one hard fact is that if we vote yes and become an independent Nation, the votes of Westminster constituencies outwith Scotland will not directly determine the party make-up of the Government with responsibility for all those matters currently reserved to Westminster.

But likewise, anybody convinced that there are more facts about what WILL happen if Scotland becomes Independent is just as naive - there are probabilities, just as there are probabilities if we vote Yes.  But what WILL happen, we don't know now - there could be a thermonuclear war two days after a No vote (not as a result of one - correlation does not imply causation) that wipes us all out.  Improbable, but not impossible.  We could stay in the EU, we could secede from that Union.  We could go to war, the banks could collapse again, the NHS could be sold off lock, stock and barrel to the highest bidder.

There's a lot more I could say, but I want to keep it short.

I'm voting yes, because much as I respect many of my friends and comrades who advocate a No vote, I see the probability that the very best we can hope for if we vote no is an ongoing cycle of Westminster being marginally less evil and marginally more evil.

I'm voting yes, because I have hope for an independent Scotland that I don't have for the UK as it currently stands or is likely to stand.