Friday, January 27, 2017

Why Scotland will not vote for independence in a second referendum


The independence cause is now synonymous with the SNP. To a great degree it always was, but during the last referendum campaign they were joined by the Greens, the Scottish Socialist Party and lots of other organisations representing different sections of Scottish society. But these were always minor players and the aftermath of the 2014 referendum saw most of this rainbow coalition for independence collapse into the SNP. Membership grew to over 100,000. With this sort of movement you would expect support for independence to have increased, but according to the latest opinion polls the Yes vote is currently on about 40%. Even during all the upheaval over Brexit it only got to over 50% in one poll. 

By the time that any second independence referendum takes place the SNP Scottish Government will be deeply unpopular. This is the standard unpopularity of incumbent governments after a time, but that dissatisfaction with the SNP will spill over into the referendum campaign. Add to this continuing depressed oil revenue and the, still unresolved, currency issue and you have a toxic mix. It will be exceedingly difficult to get a majority for Yes second time around. Even now there are a significant group of Yes voters who have switched to No. As many as have switched the other way according to some polling organisations. It is possible that Yes would only achieve around 40% in a referendum rerun. Current polls seem to suggest this.

The problem with discussing this is that everyone seems to have their fingers in their ears while going "la-la-la I am not listening".  When I suggested this scenario on social media I got jumped on by people for whom the independence cause is a religion which cannot be questioned. They are the fundamentalists of the Scottish cause. Strong supporters of the SNP for whom independence is more important than workers rights; more important than environmental protection and, yes, more important than beating the Conservatives. Because their enemy is the Labour Party, particularly "municipal" Labour, with whom they fought many hard local election campaigns. There is no love lost between them and many in the SNP relish killing off labour as much as they do independence itself. Yet as Labour has moved to the left, the SNP has been left as the last guardians of Blairite economics, with a strong focus on private industry and profit as the key to Scotland's future, and content to be better managers of the existing system rather than trying to change it. This is something the independence fundamentalists are unable to recognise. And while the say they want to win a second referendum they are quite happy to cannibalise their own vote by refusing to engage with anyone who is sceptical because they are obviously not "true believers". Exactly the people they need to persuade in order to win a Yes vote.

Of course, this all supposes that the UK government agrees to hold a second referendum on independence. How likely is this? Well, the most likely way I can see this happening would be if the SNP gained enough seats at the next Westminster election to make a coalition with Labour the only way to keep out the Conservatives. Even if that happened would Labour be willing to make a deal? Locked in a fight to the death with the SNP in Scotland, Labour might be willing to sacrifice restricted power in Westminster in order to kill off the independence cause. In other words: don't hold your breath.

Another scenario would be if falling oil revenues stoked demands from back-bench Conservatives for the government to scrap the Barnett formula. If that was combined with greater autonomy for English regions then there may be a section of the conservative party who want to get rid of the Scottish "problem". This would be uncharted territory and might lead to a referendum with a successful Yes vote.

Alternatively, the May Conservative Government might just decide to call a referendum to call the SNP's bluff: dangerous though, given how the Brexit vote went. I can't see them really taking that risk.

The upshot of all this is that with Scottish independence looking very unlikely we need to find other ways to protect worker's rights, the environment, food standards and all the other things that are under threat from the shift to the right in British politics. This is where our energies should be rather than wishing for another referendum.


Postscript

No - I don't think Scotland is "too wee", "too poor", or "too stupid" to survive on it's own. I just don't think our future should be reliant on a referendum that is unlikely to take place and which is even less likely to be won, even though I voted Yes last time.

As always, this is an opinion piece. Please leave a comment below as I have trouble keeping track of social media.







Friday, December 2, 2016

"Post Truth" and how we got here.

The thing about "Post Truth" is that we got ourselves here. It wasn't some alien invasion or a mass mind control exercise. People willingly gave up looking for truth (or as it is sometimes known "the correct state of affairs").
There was a time when politicians, churches, campaigners would investigate a problem, put forward their own proposals for addressing it based on their moral or philosophical position, then try to get the population to support it. This was how trade unions and the Labour movement began and why they then formed the Labour Party - as a way of making that voice heard in parliament.

In 2016 it works somewhat differently. These days campaigners create a narrative, a story, which makes sense as a story, but often has little evidence behind it. They then try and get a "broad cross section of society", in reality usually a handful of spokespeople, to back it and then they lobby the government to introduce laws that force people to address the issue in question. This means that laws are passed that have very little popular support, so we should not be surprised when the public distrusts elected governments and looks for other solutions rather than being forced to comply with laws they do not agree with.

This strategy is used by political parties, campaign groups and religious bodies. It is much less about hearts and minds and much more about influencing decision makers, with little debate on what we want to influence them to do. A simple parable might be that Jesus, having become concerned about the money lenders in the temple, got up a petition to the Sanhedrin to ban the sale of sacrificial animals in the temple courts. He launched it a press conference with the leaders of a number of Jewish sects including Simon the Zealot (showing that this was not a partisan issue). Meanwhile, Peter and Paul arranged a meeting to brief Pontius Pilate on the issues and try and get him to support reform measures. Not a perfect example, but you can see where the early Christians would have been had they been led by "policy wonks".

A lot of decision making is now based on showing that you have a narrative and that people are buying into it.

Is it any wonder then that people have been so easily switched from believing one narrative to believing another? They were never convinced of, or committed to, the first. It was just the way things were being run. The alternative narrative doesn't need much evidence behind it as long as it meets people's immediate desires and concerns. As we have seen with Donald Trump, you can quickly renege on your populist campaign promises.

People now choose the narrative that best fits with their pre-existing values, tastes and prejudices. One way to describe the phenomena might be, to quote Adam Savage:

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

It is now possible to believe all sorts of crazy stuff because it fits within a narrative that is not itself outrageous.

Now to the reasons this has happened. I think it is partly to do with the increasing diversity of "opinion leaders". With mass communication open to the general public the ways that people receive information is changing. We have already seen how fake news websites have influenced people's thinking during the US presidential election. Governments have also used news management to influence behaviour, for example, during the handover of Hong Kong to China and during the Scottish independence referendum campaign. People are now as likely to trust a blogger or a YouTube channel as they are a newspaper or the BBC News. This means that the likeability of a given presenter or opinion leader is likely to be a significant factor in people buying into their narrative. Some of the main sources of these narratives are people like Alex Jones, David Icke and a plethora of "researchers" who speak well on phone in interviews. If you look at some of this "alternative news media" they are actually quite reliant on material originating with Russia Today and other government's news agencies, so they are not that alternative after all. I am not saying they are wrong about everything, but they are largely immature in their understanding of how mass communication works and how easily they can be manipulated into doing the opposite of what they think they are doing.

Another factor has been the dismissal of the scientific method as a way of obtaining the truth. Two examples of this are the adoption of young earth creationism by increasing numbers of evangelical Christians in the UK and the work done to rubbish climate change science. Science has gone from being the accepted way of finding out facts to a way of finding ideas which need to be presented alongside all the alternatives so people can choose their own truth.

These changes mean that politics is in a state of instability. Labour and Conservative used to be able to rely on about 30% of the vote and had to campaign for the other 20% to get a majority. Now, as we have seen in Scotland, people are willing to vote for alternatives. In England that might mean the end of Labour and the rise of UKIP, because one narrative the left has not really caught up with, and it is more of a verifiable truth than a narrative, is that the British population has generally moved to the right over the past five years. A bit like a tectonic plate sticking on a fault line until the pressure gets too much and it suddenly lurches forward a few feet, we could be about to witness further political changes that have not been predicted.


(If you want to look further at the issue of truth try John 18, even if you aren't a Christian you can't help being captivated by verse 37 and 38).


Wednesday, November 9, 2016

35mm Film Processing by Mail Order in 2016

One of the reasons we have fewer independent photographic shops than we used to is that many relied on the profits from developing and printing in order to survive. In the heydey of film photography, a local shop might take in 20 films a day for processing, have them collected by the lab and delivered back next day for around £2, then charge the customer £4. This doesn’t sound like a lot but £500 to £1000 a month is make or break for some small businesses, especially when the mark-up on major brands was slimmer than 5% in order to compete against companies like Dixons and Jessops. Then came the internet price wars and the rise of digital. Both were the final cut for most photographic shops. The latter killed off the mass market developing and printing industry. No more York or Bonusprint envelopes falling out of Sunday magazines, no more Colourcare vans collecting and delivering films to your local shop, no more local photo processing shops like Supasnaps and Klick.

Asda and Boots hung on longer with in-store store processing labs, but these have gradually shut down leaving your choices for getting film processed somewhat narrower. Unless you are very lucky and have a local lab then you will need to get your film processed by mail order.

At time of writing (November 2016) these are some of the companies doing 35mm film processing by mail order at the budget end of the market in the UK. The prices are for developing and scanning either to CD or for download with the negatives posted back to you. They will all provide a set of 6x4 prints for around £6.

The size of scans varies. I have tried to find the prices for medium sized scans that could be used to make digital prints to 6x4. You still have the negatives for conventional printing of enlargements. Most return the scans on a CD. Some upload them to a transfer site which means you can download them before the negatives reach you in the post. This could reduce the effective turnaround time by two days.

Colour

Photo Express
http://www.photo-express.co.uk/films-to-cd.php
Develop and medium scan £5


Filmdev
http://www.filmdev.co.uk/
Develop, medium scan (2988x1722), scans uploaded to We Transfer, negatives by post,  £6


Truprint
Need special mailers, available on request from this web page
https://support.truprint.co.uk/hc/en-us/articles/226531388-Film-processing
Price unknown.


Max Spielman
https://www.maxphoto.co.uk/services/film-processing
They closed a lot of shops after being bought by Timpson in 2008. Some branches of Timpson will take a film in for processing and send it to their central lab with around seven days turnaround. They also offer a mail order service. Scans are thought to be quite low resolution, but you do get a set of prints.
Develop, print, scan to CD £8.50


Fotostation
http://www.fotostation.co.uk/page/mail_order_forms
Develop, medium scan to CD, £9


DS Colour Labs
http://dscolourlabs.co.uk/about/Colour_Film_Processing_C41
Develop, Medium scan to CD, £10


Lomolab
https://shop.lomography.com/en/services/lomolab-services-uk/standard-development-develop-scan-uk
Develop and Scan, to Dropbox, negatives by post,  £11


Black and White

If you shoot black and white you have a few budget options too. It may be cheaper to get prints rather than scans.


AG Photolab
http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk/bw-process-only-35mm120-optional-scan-1606-p.asp
Develop and medium scan £8.99


DS Color Labs
http://dscolourlabs.co.uk/about/Black_White_Film_Processing
Develop and medium scan to CD £14
(compared to Develop and print to 6x4 £10)


Ilford
https://www.ilfordlab.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm
Develop and high res scan to CD £18.75


Higher Quality Options

If you are looking for higher quality, professional standard, processing then I would recommend Peak Imaging (who I have used for 35mm and 120 films). The Darkroom UK also has a very good reputation, although I have not used them, as does Karen Willson.


The Darkroom UK
http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk
Develop and medium scan to cd £18


Peak Imaging
http://www.peak-imaging.com
Develop and medium scan to cd £20.85


Karen Willson
http://www.kwfilmprocessing.co.uk/
Develop and print to 6x4 £19.85