The Role of the Scots Language and its place in Education

Whether Scots is even a language, rather than a dialect of English, remains controversial. According to a 2010 study commissioned by the Scottish government suggested “for most adults in Scotland, Scots is not considered a language.” The study found that 64% of people felt that Scots was either not a language, or merely a dialect of English, compared to a minority of 29% who considered Scots to be a language. However simply because it is not widely considered a language by the majority of the population, does not necessarily mean it is not a language. The biggest difficulty in determining the status of Scots is the lack of clear criteria as to what makes something a language rather than a dialect. Scots is clearly similar to English, yet there are distinct differences that separate it from the English language. Both are West Germanic languages that developed simultaneously and due to similar immigration patterns to Scotland as to England, they developed in similar ways. Arguments in favour of Scots being a legitimate language largely fall into two types, the first compares Scots with other languages and the second looks into the history of the Scots language. Scots was used by law-makers and officials in Scotland prior to the Union of Crowns in 1603. Noblemen, officials and even the Kings of Scotland spoke in the Scots language. ‘The Kingis Quair’, widely thought to have been written by James I of Scotland is written in Middle Scots, an older form of the language. These two lines from ‘The Kingis Quair’ are a good example of Middle Scots: “Of this and that, can I noght say quharfore,/Bot slepe for craft in erth myght I no more.” This languages has similarities with middle english (‘y’ replacing ‘i’ in ‘myght’ for example), yet has its own distinct set of grammatical rules that seperate it from English. The ‘quh’ before ‘quharfore’ is one such distinctly Scots example. ‘Quh’ was used as an alternative to ‘wh’ in middle Scots and is utilised as such throughout the quair. This rule can be further observed in the poetry of Alexander Montgomerie. Montgomerie was writing in the late 16th century, but the ‘quh’ rather than ‘wh’ is still utilised by the poet. “Quhen with a quhisk sho quhirlis about hir quheill” Middle Scots continued as a language for far longer than Middle English did. It was not until the Act of Union that Middle Scots shifted to modern Scots.

Proponents of the argument that Scots is a language, such as the Scottish government’s education website, point out the similarity between Norwegian and Danish. ‘Scots Online’ a website dedicated to the promotion of the Scots language, provide an example sentence in Norwegian and in Danish. First in Danish: “Kan ikke brukes i forbindelse med dimme utstyr eller elektronisk av og på mekanismer. Ikke egnet til bruk i helt lukkede armaturer.” Compared with Norwegian: “Kan ikke bruges i forbindelse med lysdæmper og elektronisk tænd-sluk-ur. Ikke egnet til helt lukkede armaturer” Norwegian and Danish are as similar as Scots is to English, if not more so, yet, as Scots language proponents establish, Danish and Norwegian are considered distinct and separate languages. Danes and Norwegains can understand each other, with little difficulty. The same cannot always be said for native Scots speakers and some English speakers. Scots occasionally have to modify their speech to be understood by those with little knowledge of Scots. According to proponents of Scots being a language, this implies that if Danish and Norwegian are legitimately separate languages, then so to are Scots and English. Yet this still does not conclusively prove that Scots is a language. Denmark and Norway are separate countries from one another, and each use their respective languages exclusively at official level. Both languages have standardised dictionaries and grammatical rules, neither face the problems created by a lack of defined standardisation that Scots faces.

Both the argument from history, and the comparison with other languages provide compelling arguments in favour of Scots being a language, but they are by no means conclusive. When compared to other regional variations of English, e.g. the traditional Yorkshire dialect, there does not appear to be any difference. The traditional Yorkshire dialect (that is now sadly almost non- existent) was as distinct from English as Scots is, if not more-so, yet few would argue that Yorkshire is a language. Similarly the language spoken in the North-East of England shares as much with Scots as it does with English, and has an entirely unique set of linguistic rules and words, again ‘Geordie’ is considered a dialect, not a language. The one difference between these dialects and Scots is that Scotland is considered a nation. Historically it was a separate country entirely, and many proponents of the Scots language argue that as Scotland is still a separate nation (albeit one in a Union with the rest of the UK), Scots is therefore separate on a political level. Whether the status of Scotland as a nation, and Yorkshire as merely a region, affects whether the respective dialects are languages or not is unclear. Without a specific definition as to what makes something a dialect and makes something a language it is difficult to determine. Whether or not it is a language is unclear, however it is currently recognised as a language by both the Scottish and British governments, so for the rest of this essay I will be working on the assumption that Scots is, indeed, a language. However even if it is not a language, the case for it being historically significant is sufficient evidence to its place in schools. Scots has clearly been significant in both the history and culture of Scotland, and it would be a case of double standards to omit the learning of Scots merely because of the inconclusive nature as to its status. Whilst 64% of Scots, according to the study mentioned above, may not believe Scots is ‘really’ a language, 55% of Scots believe the language/dialect should be taught in schools.

It is worth questioning whether there is a political agenda behind the increasing role Scots is taking in education. It is not a coincidence that this increase in cultural nationalism in education is occurring under a nationalist government. This is clearly the case. Whether this is occurring due to a genuine belief that cultural nationalism is important, or due to a notion that increased cultural nationalism will lead to increased political nationalism and thus help the current government win support for their core philosophy, is less clear. Anne Sobey, in her essay, establishes that: “It is recognised in Scottish nationalist circles that, without an increased sense of ‘Scottishness’ which would allow cultural separation from England, political independence would be difficult to achieve.” This begs the question, is the increased role of Scots (and other aspects of Scottish culture) in schools an attempt to create cultural separation from England? It is worth comparing Scots with the other non-English language of Scotland: Gaelic. Gaelic Medium Education in Scotland is being increasingly promoted by the Scottish Government, to the extent that last year they published their intention of setting up Gaelic education in every state primary school in the country. This may be a case of the government’s nationalist agenda being used to foster a cultural separation between Scotland and England. Unlike Scots, which is legitimately spoken across the country, Gaelic is confined to very small, sparsely populated parts of Scotland. Gaelic has not been spoken in lowland Scotland for centuries, and parts of Scotland have never spoken Gaelic. Encouraging Gaelic medium education in areas of the country that are predominantly Gaelic speaking should be encouraged, and every effort should be put into helping the survival of the language in these areas. Yet Scots is a different matter.

Nationalism for political benefit is potentially the driving force behind increasing the teaching of both Scots and Gaelic in schools. For Gaelic this creates the problem of an unimportant language being taught to people who have no background or cultural ties to the language, yet Scots is clearly different. Scots is spoken across the country, and 85% of people in Scotland speak Scots to some extent. Unlike Gaelic, Scots is clearly a language that has practical use and is utilised by most Scottish pupils on a day to day basis. Although nationalism for the sake of nationalism in education (and generally for society) is a negative thing, if it helps deliver education in the language that many Scots feel more familiar with, then (in this case) it is clearly beneficial. Anne Sobey notes this in her essay: “A huge gap exists between the Scottish experience and the English language”. Without the use of Scots there is a fear of creating a two-tier linguistic system for pupils, who are forced to learn in a language that is not, necessarily, their first language. There has been little research done looking into the impact of conducting lessons in Scots to pupils who speak Scots as their first language, however what little there has been has wielded positive results. One study by Matthew Fitt and Cathrin Howells, which looked into the impact of Scots being taught at a Glebelands Primary School in 2005 showed an improvement in the behaviour of pupils Scots speaking with low attainment levels. It is clear that teaching children in the language that is more familiar, or native to them, is beneficial.

Although there are clear benefits to teaching Scots, there are practical difficulties associated with the language. The biggest of which is the lack of standardisation. Unlike English, which went through a continued process of standardisation, dating back to Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language, Scots has had no real standardisation. Dictionaries have been created and compiled over the last few years in an attempt to remedy this problem, however Scots still lacks a complete formal code that other languages have. The most comprehensive dictionary in Scots, the Dictionary of the Scots Language, contains Older Scots, Middle Scots and Modern Scots words, yet includes words from every dialect of Scots. This provides another problem. Scots is made up of many regional dialects, which differ considerably from one another. The Doric dialect of the North East of Scotland, for example, is distinct and separate from the Glaswegian dialect. Take the English word ‘child’ for example, in Glaswegian the correct term would be ‘wean’, yet in Doric it is ‘bairn’. Similarly words such as ‘loun’, ‘quine’, ‘muckle’, ‘fit’, and ‘ken’, all commonly used in the Doric dialect, are not understood by native Glaswegian speakers. All exist within the Dictionary of the Scots Language, however. This is problematic as there becomes no clear distinction between one form of Scots and another, rather the collection of Scots words is a collection of different dialects that are not heard together. The sentence ‘The wean is a quine’ is a sentence using Scots words included in the dictionary, yet it is a sentence that would be heard neither in Glasgow (due to the word ‘quine’) nor Banffshire (due to the word ‘wean’). Teaching Scots one must be careful to ensure that the Scots language being taught is one that is local and makes sense to the pupils in the local area. The benefit of learning Scots in a school in Keith would be lost if the Scots taught was one resembling Glaswegian, rather than the local Doric dialect.

Another significant problem faced with teaching Scots, is linked to the lack of standardisation, and that is how to write in Scots. Scots has not been a written language in any meaningful way for centuries. Although poets have written their poems down in Scots, there are huge discrepancies and differences in how it is written. ‘To a Haggis’ by Burns provides one example of written Scots: ‘Fai fa’ your honest sonsie face’. Burns makes use of the apostrophe in “fa”, something which modern poets or Scots writers would not do. The government education website advises “An apostrophe tells us that something is missing, but in Scots words like greetin, daein, lowpin, snawin etc, there is no missing letter g”. Tom Leonard makes use of the lack of standardised form of Scots by writing in a completely different way: ‘iz coz yi/widny wahnt/mi ti talk/aboot thi/truuth wia/voice lik/wanna yoo/scruff.” These examples are both legitimately Scots, yet entirely different from one another. Teaching Scots, without firm grammatical rules or standardised spelling, is difficult. Yet standardising spelling and creating one correct form of the language is something that linguists are unwilling or unprepared to do. There is a risk that much of the fluidity or natural flow of the language could be lost if certain ways of writing or spellings of words are declared incorrect. Education Scotland are aware of the difficulties presented in writing in a language with few fixed rules, and simply advise consistency. There is a potential problem with teaching pupils to write in a language which does not have any rules, and there is a fear it may have a negative impact on their English writing, a language with a fixed orthography. Interestingly though, according to a study by Celia Craig, conducted in Westhill Academy in Aberdeenshire, the use of Scots actually helped pupils grasp linguistic concepts. She claims “Scots clearly emerges as an enhancing element in pupil acquisition of language and linguistic concepts.”

A further practical difficulty with Scots is pupil’s difficulties in differentiating between Scots and slang. According to the study mentioned above, conducted by Celia Craig: “The S5/6 response at the focus Secondary School featured pupil inclusion of what might be termed teenage jargon words (e.g. “stonkin”, “mingin”) as Scots.” It is therefore crucial to begin lessons in Scots at an earlier age, in order for pupils to be aware of what constitutes Scots, and what is merely Scots sounding slang. These are difficulties associated with a non-standardised language. Without specific rules it can be difficult to determine whether a word is a legitimate part of the language, or if it is slang. ‘Mingin’, the example used by Craig, is included in some Scots dictionaries as a legitimate word. ‘Mingin’ is derived from the Scots ‘ming’ (meaning smell) and is legitimately used as a Scots word in certain regional Scots dialects. Yet clearly there is difficulty in determining whether it actually is a real Scots word, or merely an example of slang. When it is unclear due to the lack of standardisation, it is difficult to accurately teach children correctly. One teacher may consider it a legitimate word, whilst another may not. Reasonable guidelines must be put in place, but must be done so whilst being mindful of the region one is in.

The GUU Misogyny Row: Why the Leftists Must Take a Back Seat

In the final of the Glasgow Ancients debate, held at the GUU, two female debaters were allegedly subject to sexist abuse by some board members of the Glasgow University Union. You can read about the abuse Rebecca Meredith and Marlena Velles were subject to here.

Much of the student body at Glasgow University have reacted angrily to the stories of misogyny and petitions and facebook pages condemning the actions of these GUU board members sprung up quickly. Many societies have dissafiliated with the GUU in the wake of the allegations, including the Feminist Society, Labour Club and Scottish Nationalists. Anger has spread across the political spectrum and the comments have been widely condemned by most in the student body. Even those who are generally apolitical have found a voice and have reacted to these allegations.

Glasgow University has a problem, however. That is the extreme leftists. There are large swathes of far-left groups, and people affiliated with the extremist UK Anti-Cut group (who claim to be opposed to all forms of government cuts). Recently they have been very active in ensuring far left candidates have prevailed at SRC (Student Representative Council) elections, similar to the leftist control over the University of Edinburgh's EUSA.

Unfortunately these leftists destroy any chance of reasonable political discourse at the university. Nationalist far-leftists heckled and booed Jackie Baille of the Better Together campaign during the recent mock referendum held at the Uni, causing anger from both Nationalists and Unionists. Anything resembling a protest at Glasgow University has turned into an easily targetted farce as soon as the leftists take control. These leftists took direct action to illegally occupy the Hetherington building only two years ago. Having a wide range of political opinions and groups is healthy for a university, but the far-left craving for absolute power over political proceedings has been detrimental to student politics, and more aptly, to genuinely important protests and political issues.

Students across the UK took part in protests against the rise in tuition fees, myself included. However in Glasgow, as was the case in Edinburgh, the leftists took control and forced their anti-cut agenda upon the protest. As someone who is not on the extreme left, I felt angry that the protest had been hijacked by the far-left and that those of us who are moderate, but still felt we wanted to protest against raising tuition fees, were suddenly associated and involved in those with extremist politics.

We cannot let this happen in the protest against misogyny at the GUU.

If the leftists take control I believe nothing will be acheived in our fight to reform the student union. The GUU board will be able to dismiss the campaign as being another one perpetuated by the loony left brigade, and not one which has support of us moderates, and even those who take little interest in student politics.

So far the campaign is reasoned, and a single issue campaign. I applaud this, but it must remain the same.

Reading a blog this morning by Tarzan Girl I worry that the far left are already trying to stamp their agenda on proceedings. The GUU is largely a traditional, conservative union frequented by the middle classes, as opposed to the more liberal Queen Margaret Union. This makes the GUU the antithesis to the ideals of the leftists on campus. Tarzan Girl's blog is a call to arms amongst the far-left against the GUU as a whole, not simply a call for something to be done about the recent case of misogyny. I am concerned that people who have an agenda against the GUU are using this as an excuse, and aim to use this scandal to further their own, biased, agenda.

Tarzan Girl's criticisms of the GUU are enlightening. She dislikes Chris Sibbald for going on a 'Zionist Rant'. This implies that there is some sort of problem with Zionism, or perhaps a belief that pro-Israeli views are somehow associated with misogyny. This is nothing short of a rallying cry for leftists, who are passionately anti-Israel. It emphasises the true problem the far-left have with the GUU. Tarzan Girl complains about the GUU stealing a banner from the illegal occupation of the Hetherington Building, before displaying their trophy on the turret of the GUU. She is carrying bitterness over a student joke and using this as ammunition against the Union as a whole. To really get the leftists angry she has posted a picture of Chris Sibbald wearing a dinner jacket, smoking a cigar. Evidently she believes class prejudice is a valid reason to dislike an institution.

Misogyny is wrong. The misogyny that occured at the GUU is wrong. The GUU as a whole is not. It is a proud institution which needs aspects of it, reformed. This will not occur if the far-left control the protest. We in the student body, whether left-wing, right-wing or apolitical, need to unite to ensure this remains a single issue campaign. That is the only way we can reform the misogynistic nature of some in the GUU board. 

The Strange Case of Digby Bamford

15th of March 1964 a school boy in New South Wales, Australia, committed suicide, shortly after being expelled from school. His name was Digby Bamford, he was 13 years old. Bamford was expelled from school after it emerged he had been involved in 'promiscuity' with another pupil, there was an uproar in the local community and both Bamford and his girlfriend were expelled. Digby Bamford was found dead the following morning.

19th July 2011 was the day Rupert Murdoch claimed was the most humbling of his life. He was sitting before a parliamentary committee who where asking him questions with regards to the phone hacking scandal that shocked much of the nation. Murdoch claimed he was shocked that his publications and people in his employ were guilty of such a heinous crime. Both he and his son, James, claimed to disapprove of the phone hacking scandal.

The revelations concerning Digby Bamford emerged on the 12th of March 1964 on the front page of the Sydney Daily Mirror, a paper that was acquired by Murdoch earlier that year. Bamford and his girlfriend where subject to a local scandal when the information emerged, information that was acquired from the secret diary of Bamford's girlfriend. Journalists under Murdoch's direct employ had discovered the information about these school children which not only led to the expulsion of the two children, but ultimately to the suicide of a 13 year old boy.

Rupert Murdoch has been embroiled fully in the phone hacking scandal and has seen politicians which once went to great lengths to court his favour, now reject him. He went from being as popular as Gary Glitter in 1977 to being as popular as Gary Glitter in 2007. Murdoch claimed to have made mistakes, ones in which he had no direct involvement, ones which where the fault of employees he had no contact with, ones which he disapproved of, ones which he would never have done.

It would be trite of me to claim that Murdoch's involvement in the suicide of Digby Bamford was anything more than an unfortunate mistake. Rupert did not know that Bamford would commit suicide over the scandal and perhaps it was due to his memories of the Bamford situation that he felt so appalled with the phone hacking. One suicide, at the very start of his media career, is not reason enough to suspect him of wrongdoing. No, in all likelihood Murdoch felt deeply about Bamford's suicide, and (after an extensive cover up which lasted until the mid-seventies) vowed never to make such a mistake again.

Samantha MacAlpine may disagree with me. Well perhaps she would do if she where still alive. In 1977 MacAlpine was embroiled in a sex scandal involving BBC employees which was revealed by our favourite paper; The News of the World. Samantha was 15 years old. The News of the World revealed details of Top of the Pops presenters having sex with the young music fans, revelations which emerged from the secret diary of Samantha MacAlpine. The very next day Samantha committed suicide. A post-mortem revealed MacAlpine, who's name had been dragged through the mud, to be a virgin. A police enquiry lay the full blame for the suicide on Murdoch's News of the World. Both of these pieces of information where hidden by Murdoch after he curried favour with rival papers to prevent these revelations from emerging. Let us learn from our mistakes.

The Naked Truth: A Clothes Optional Blog

Steven Gough, better known as 'The Naked Rambler', was today jailed for almost two more years for once again being naked in public here in Scotland. You can read the BBC article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14649394

Here is some background on Steven Gough. He set off from Lands End in 2005 in an attempt to walk from there, across the country, until he would finally reach John O'Groats. It took him two short months to get to Scotland, still in 2005, and that is when his attempt stalled. Scottish law is very strict on public nudity and he has been arrested, re-arrested and sentenced to months on end in prison. Each time he has been released, each time he has stripped off to continue his journey and each time our finest boys in blue have re-arrested him and charged him. Today's sentence is only the latest in the past six years which has seen Mr. Gough in Scottish prison for the majority of the past decade.

I have a few problems with this, but most importantly, how is it in the public interest to keep Steven Gough in prison? Looking at a wrinkly naked body may not be the nicest thing to do in the world, but does that justify him spending seven years in prison? I generally dislike comparing prison sentences, but any Daily Mail reader will tell you that murders and rapists are getting lighter sentences. The crime that Mr. Gough is perpetually guilty of is 'breach of the peace' and 'contempt of court'. To be honest, putting someone in jail for so long for such minuscule crimes seems ridiculous.

There have been remarkably few complaints about Mr. Gough's nudity and far more messages sent to the Scottish authorities in support of him. I do not understand why this man should have to spend so much time locked up for being in the most natural state of dress there is. It is not as if he is breaking any sexual law or frightening or hurting anyone. He is a man who is sticking to his principles, and good on him. If someone wants to walk from Lands End to John O'Groats then good on them! This highlights how petty aspects of our legal system can be, and how little common sense the Scottish authorities seem to have.

It is common sense that the English authorities retained, never arresting him and never charging him when he walked the longest distance in his journey. I support Steven Gough, the Naked Rambler, and hope that eventually our authorities realise how pathetic and silly they are being. Nudity is not considered to be a serious problem amongst most of the public, yet it seems to be a huge problem in our legal system. Next time you are naked, whether it is in the shower tomorrow morning, or if you are about to start your own walk from Lands End to John O'Groats, spare a thought for a man who will eventually spend at least seven years in prison for daring to be natural. Free the Naked Rambler!

Morality in Film

There is a powerful scene in Batman: The Dark Knight, in which the Joker devises a moral experiment. Two ships are leaving Gotham, to escape the terrorism their city is being subject to. One of these ships is full of innocent civilians who are fleeing the city through their own free will, the other ship is filled with the inmates of Gotham's prison. Unbeknownst to them however, the two ships have been filled to the rafters with explosives (not something worth checking during a period of extended terrorism evidently), but crucially each ship has also been given a detonator.

"Why would they give us a detonator to our own bomb?" one of the crew members aboard one of the ships asks.

Fortunately the Joker fills us in. It was he who filled the two ships with explosives, and he is about to conduct a social experiment. The detonator in the possession of the first ship is the one which will explode the second ship, and the detonator which will explode the first ship is in the possession of the second. The Joker explains that they have one hour to make a decision. One ship must blow up the other one, by the end of that hour, or the Joker will explode both ships. Effectively the only way to ensure survival is to destroy the other ship.

This poses a few moral questions. First of all, is it acceptable to kill others if it is to save yourself? Secondly, is it more acceptable to kill those who are on the prison ship, as they are convicts unlike the innocent people on the other ship? Thirdly, will the 'immoral' prisoners blow up the other ship to survive as they have no moral problem with letting others die?

In the film neither ship detonates the other, although all three questions are explored. Eventually Batman prevents the Joker from destroying either ship, and all live to tell the tale. Those on the civilian ship decide that even though the other ship is full of criminals, it is still immoral to blow them up. On the prison ship it is a large, tattooed man is the one who does the moral thing, and throws the detonator off the ship. Human spirit and morality prevails. More necessarily, a fairly liberal idea of what is right and what is wrong prevails.

I realised that the reason this is surprising is not because it is unrealistic (though I fear it may be), but because it is uncommon for this theme to be explored like that on film. It seems more common for these moral dilemmas to justify immoral actions, and for the situation to resolve itself with no immoral act taking place is quite surprising.

Take the immensely popular 24 for example. In this scenario the terribly exciting Jack Bauer is fighting to prevent a terrorist from detonating a Nuclear bomb. He finds the man who he is sure is responsible (incidentally this man is both clothed in traditional Muslim clothing and he is found in a Mosque) and thus Bauer decides he must extract information. Unfortunately though there is only a few hours before this bomb is due to explode, and our terrorist has decided to be a little difficult and is refusing to answer Mr. Bauer's questions.

Jack Bauer procedes to torture the terrorist.

This is known in philosophy as the 'Ticking Time Bomb' scenario. It is used, occasionally, in an attempt to show that torture can be justified. If torture is going to prevent the detonation of a bomb, which will kill innocent people, then surely it is acceptable to torture a terrorist. It plays to a utilitarian idea. It is better to hurt one person in order to save many, than to let this man go torture free but let innocent people die.

It is quite a powerful argument, but one which is flawed. Unfortunately torture does not work. Torture makes people more angry and even less likely to divulge crucial information. It does not achieve anything.

So when Jack tortures the terrorist with extremely upsetting and disturbing psychological torture, the terrorist would clearly get angry and refuse to help the Counter-Terrorist Unit find the bomb...well not quite. Quite oddly the torture works (not only does it work, it works really quickly, and really effectively), the terrorist tells Jack Bauer the information he needs and eventually Jack saves the day and looks bloody cool doing it.

The scary thing about this episode is it aired at a time when the American government was coming under pressure and criticism over 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. America was torturing people in Guantanamo Bay and torturing prisoners of War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Legal documents where created to make torture effectively illegal, wording was produced so that international law would not prohibit the use of torture and the ticking time bomb case was used to justify American foreign policy.

Perhaps I am seeing something that was not there, but is it just possible that the idea of making a difficult decision in a moral dilemma is being used in film to justify the politics and foreign policy of America? I wonder.

The Nationalists

This is an old blog post I wrote on another blog I used to use. Given the Holyrood election results I thought I may as well post it here. Enjoy.

I was struck by something an SNP activist told me earlier today, he said ‘I feel sorry for people in England, if I lived there I wouldn’t know who to vote for.’ He, knowing I am a member of the Labour party, was probably trying to get a rise out of me. An attempt at fishing to try and get into the debate SNP supporters love so much about whether any of the three ‘London parties’ are in fact different at all. Rather than go down this tedious route I told him ‘That is because your social cleavage is your nationality.’ He decided not to continue talking about that and instead canvassed me about the renewal of Trident.

It made me think though, about how SNP voters view politics. I believe that supporters of the three main UK parties look at politics based on an ideology of sorts. Be it conservative, liberal, social liberal, libertarian, socialist or otherwise. Based on that ideology we perhaps find the party we feel best fits that ideology or the one which has the most policies that fall into our chosen category. I am unsure if this is the way the Nats view their political beliefs. The nationalist who spoke to me this morning was wearing a Scotland soccer shirt for instance, and spoke in a very broad Scottish accent (one I cynically felt he was over-emphasising for effect). Although he spoke to me about policy I felt it was his Scottishness that defined his politics, something so alien to me. This man was a Scottish person therefore his politics needed to be Scottish. I am a social democrat, therefore my politics need to be social democratic. I am also Scottish and happy to be so, but mixing national pride with politics is something frightening to me but I am beginning to think that is perhaps how the Nationalists view the political landscape.

Where Next for Scottish Labour

Scotland is now firmly in the hands of the nationalists. After a resounding defeat Labour are left licking their wounds and we now have to wonder what to do next and figure out where it all went wrong.

This was Labour's failure and Labour's election to lose. They just did not get the message across.

I had a look at my constituency which was an SNP gain from Labour. The Labour Candidate (Sarah Boyack) actually increased the number of votes and increased her share of the vote compared to the last election. Last time she won with a fairly sizeable majority, a full 2,000 votes ahead of the SNP candidate.

This year was a different story. Although more people in this constituency voted for Ms Boyack she lost.

The loss came from the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dem candidate lost 3,000 votes compared to this time four years ago, the majority of which went straight to the SNP candidate, leaving the SNP winning the seats by just 250 seats.

It is clear from this that the Labour losses didn't come from Labour supporters, but came from dissatisfied Liberal Democrat voters turning the back on the unionist parties and voting for the Nats.

But why?

Quite simply it is because Scottish Labour gave them no reason to vote for them. Labour's manifesto was dire, it was left of center but not particularly progressive. It promised certain policies, like keeping tuition fees free, that would entice Lib Dem supporters, but crucially they where policies the SNP also supported.

Labour need to become the liberal-left force in Scotland.

I voted for Ed Miliband as leader because he was the progressive candidate. Not the left-wing candidate, but the candidate best suited to put forward left-liberal policies. Socially liberal ideas with a left leaning stance.

That is what Scotland needs and that is what Britain needs.

Scottish Labour need to show they are the progressive party that they are becoming down south, other wise they risk never getting back their key Scottish support base.

Weirdest Policies We've Passed

Earlier today Conservative fear figure Nadine Dorries tabled a ten minute rule motion which would require girls between 13-16 to be educated on the 'benefits of abstinence'. As with most ten minute motion's it passed, albeit by a tiny margin, and as with most ten minute motions it has not got a snowball's chance in hell (or a Tory candidate's chance in Scotland) of getting through. There is nothing surprising about any of this really, but today Twitter went crazy as if the policy had passed and this will become law. It won't. It did get me to thinking, what are the wackiest ideas and policies to ever go through our parliament?

Here are my top five.

Passports for Pets

The idea of giving animals passports as well as humans was first proposed by the humorous Monster Raving Loony Party, but in 2001 the Labour government actually put this into place. Technically it is an internationally recognised document which shows they have no diseases and is an attempt at curtailing any spread of rabies, and it has been adopted by countries all across the world. However, this party was originally the fantasy of Screaming Lord Sutch and his Monster Raving Looney colleagues.

Suicide Punishable By Death

In 1845 there was briefly a law which passed through the UK parliament which made the crime for breaking the law the death penalty. It was quickly repealed but for a short period of time those who attempted to take one's own life but failed would have the state for back up. In the 1800's the punishment really did fit the crime.

No Celebrations this Christmas

During the brief years we did not have a monarchy, we also did not have a Christmas to celebrate. In 1644 Oliver Cromwell passed an act of parliament banning us from celebrating Christmas. Although Christmas itself was still marked we were not allowed to celebrate it due to the new puritan nature of the government. No doubt back then abstinence was taught to more than just 13-16 year old girls.

Keep It Down

There is a proviso in the current UK copyright law which prevents us from playing music too loud. Technically if any music that you own is played loud enough for anyone other than yourself to hear then you are breaking the law. That means if you have your iPod on too loud on the tram and someone working for the 'Performing Rights Society' they technically have the right to take you to court and claim royalties. Where it gets really bizarre is according to the same law if they hear music on the radio emitting from your house or earphones the same law is broken, even though it is legal for the radio to play the music themselves.

No Booze on a Sunday

Until as recently as two years ago you could not buy alcohol on a Sunday morning in Scotland. It was a law which had existed in the UK for centuries, but the English, Welsh and Northern Irish had the good sense to change it. In Scotland however, the country which not only has the least amount of Christians anywhere in the UK but also has the most drinkers, you could not buy alcohol on a Sunday at all until a couple of decades ago and until two years ago could not buy it until 12:30. When the law did change we where allowed to purchase alcohol at any time on any day between 10am and 10pm on every day except... a Sunday. On a Sunday you must buy your alcohol before 8pm.

All in all although Nadine Dorries may be trying to push through a draconian and pointless law, it won't be for the first time. We have had odd laws, weird laws, scary laws and funny laws in the past, and no doubt we will have them in the future.

Thanks Again Nick Clegg

One day before the Scottish election it is already clear that the SNP will remain the largest party in Holyrood. Some opinion polls put the Nationalists almost 10 points ahead of Labour in the race for the Scottish Parliament. This, considering how far ahead Labour where in polls just a few months ago, seems surprising.

The frustrating thing is, it all seems to have happened because of the coalition government in Westminster. By that I do not mean voters decided that the best way to deal with a Tory-led government is by having a spew of nationalism, but due to the complete capitulation of the Liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrat supporters down south may be satisfied with the government, and may not mind that they are cosying up to the political equivalent of Lex Luthar, but up here they do. The same polls which suggest the SNP are so far ahead are showing the Liberal Democrats in fourth, and sometimes fifth place. Liberal democrat voters, it seems, are jumping ship, and where are they going? The Nationalists.

Don't get me wrong, if Labour had campaigned properly then perhaps the fall-out of Lib Dem voters would be swallowed up by Labour instead of the SNP, but had the Liberal Democrats not gone into power with the Tories down south then Labour would probably still be ahead in the polls.

It is frustrating to see a country which does not want independence from England (Poll results show less than a third of voters do) is going to be led by a government who want nothing but independence.

Unfortunately for Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats the best politicians our country produces decide to go to Westminster. Instead of going to our mickey mouse parliament which is full of sound-bites and the constant use of the word 'Scottish' to describe anything they are trying to get done, they have gone to the real parliament.

I would do the same. If I where planning on becoming a politician (don't worry, I'm not), I would be Labour in Westminster.

The same cannot be said for the Nats, because they actually care about the Scottish parliament more than the real parliament. To the extent that it is not longer the Scottish Executive that leads the country, but now it is the Scottish 'Government'. All the best Nationalists, the most charismatic, clever and vote-winning, remain up here in our parliament.

All in all Labour's campaign was doomed, and had we better Labour politicians remain in Holyrood maybe we could have picked up the Liberal Democrat disillusioned voters.

Although part of me would love to see the Lib Dems decimated, I hope they have a resurgence and take back some of these votes which have strayed to the Nationalists. The last thing this country needs is a government who spend half the time pursuing separatism.

Are you with the Bride or Groom?

You may not know who Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa is. If you lived in Bahrain however you probably would. Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa (we will call him Salman for short) is considered responsible for quashing the uprising of pro-democracy protestors in Bahrain earlier this year. He directly ordered the destruction of the poetically named focal point, Pearl Roundabout and is regularly criticised by Human Rights group Amnesty International. Possibly the most shocking thing on his recent resume is the charge that he may have directly ordered the army to destroy a hospital full of civilians.

Yes, by all accounts a lovely bloke.

Unfortunately for most of us civilised folk, Salman is a prince, not only any prince but the heir apparent of Bahrain. This, unfortunately, makes him eligible for an invitation to the wedding of William and Kate.

Now despite this being protocol there is nothing to gain by inviting a murderous prince to our country to celebrate the Royal Wedding. He is a man who has wide-spread international condemnation and the Foreign Secretary William Hague has personally singled him out for criticism.

However not only has Prince Salman been invited to the wedding, he has accepted the invitation and will be on our shores next week. Yes, a man responsible for crushing pro-democracy rebellions, upholding a dictatorship and murdering innocent people is the type of person we have decided to invite to our country to celebrate with us.

The Right to Protest

On the 29th of April Prince William and Kate Middleton will be getting married in London. What is likely to be a grand occasion will undoubtedly be met by a range of different reactions from the British public. Some will be jubilant in celebration, whilst others apathetic and some outright opposed to the notion of their marriage even being televised.

There is one group, however, who want to hold a protest outside Westminster Abby. This protest, one which by all accounts is expected to be peaceful and outside the direct line of the wedding and extremely unlikely to disrupt the wedding itself, has been blocked by the police.

Under UK law to protest it is a legal requirement to gain permission from the police. In all likelihood the police will grant permission and the protest will go as planned, however in certain situations the police can deny permission, as they have done on Royal Wedding Day.

My question is, is it just for the police to prevent members of the British public from protesting simply because of an overpriced wedding?

Delving deeper into the issue it is perhaps prudent to divulge what the protest is actually about. The proposed demonstration is organised by a group called 'Muslims against Crusades'. They are Islamist extremists who believe that the Royal Wedding is an affront to all the Muslims around the world suffering due to British colonialism. They believe that Prince William is a representation of the British army, an army which they feel is a destructive force towards Islam and Muslim countries. They are extremists, and there website is illuminating if rather extreme reading. For anyone interested here it is: http://www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com/

If you think you might have heard of them before they are the group famous for burning poppies on Armistice day.

Another thing worth noting is when Muslims against Crusades announced their intentions to protest, the right-wing extremist group the English Defence League (EDL) announced they planned to organise a counter-demonstration. The EDL are a group of people who claim to be opposed to extremist Islam but are considered to be a far-right, racist group who oppose all Islam and Muslim immigration.

This counter-protest organised by the EDL has also been refused permission.

Unless you are an extremist Muslim or a far-right lunatic then I am assuming that you, like me, have absolutely no time for either group. The EDL are a nasty piece of work and Muslims Against Crusades seem deluded and represent an aspect of Islam which is offensive and potentially dangerous.

But is that reason enough to deny them permission to protest? I am not sure. On the one hand I think the right to protest and the further right to freedom of speech, are very important. Yet at the same time it seems that nothing positive can be gained from these protests. Perhaps the harm to the British public we experience from not being allowed to protest at any given time at any given place is less harmful than the offense caused by these two extremist groups. Perhaps not.

I am apathetic towards the Royal Wedding, but is it fair that two people should have their wedding hijacked by opportunist, extremist groups?

Who's liberty is more important?

My Second Preference Is Yes

I am voting 'No' to AV, simply because I cannot understand why we would adopt a system like the alternative vote.

Given all the options of voting system where would you rank the Alternative Vote? For me it would be 7, above out-right dictatorship, below a system where the winner of Britain's Got Talent automatically inherits the empire. The difficulty is both those who want a more proportional system and people who want to keep the status quo don't want AV. Yet the idea of AV is gaining traction amongst the former group due to this myth that the voting system needs to be changed and any change is good change.

Any change is not good change.

There seems to be this myth that the current voting system is 'outdated' or inherently wrong, but I cannot see how this is the case. Quite simply had the most recent election been held under AV instead of FPTP I would have voted for the same candidate as my first choice...and that is it. This is known as a bullet vote, where a voter only votes for one candidate.

I would bullet vote, as I think would most people who have a strong political conviction. But what would happen to this conviction?

There is one thing and one thing only I want to change about the current political situation in the UK, and that is the Labour party. I wish they where more left wing. Under Ed Miliband I think Labour are taking a slight turn to the left, but under AV they would take another leap to the middle. They would have to. Instead of Labour going for their core voters they would go out of their way to prove to non-traditional Labour voters that they are an electable party, they would do this by becoming more middle-way. As would the Tories.

Views of conviction would disappear and we will be left with groups of parties clamouring towards the middle ground with the middle ground party picking up the secondary support of those of us who actually have the balls to have a political conviction. Having a political system where we have the choice of a centrist party, a centrist party with a slight left-leaning tradition or a centrist party with a slight right-wing ideology is not a better system than we currently have.

No wonder the Liberal Democrats love the idea so much.

What Frightens Me

There has been a lot written recently about the proposed rise in tuition fees at English universities so I am going to write only a few short points on my view.

There are three things that particularly scare me about this proposed change.

1. Education for those with money -

Poorer students will find it harder to get into university. Whilst there will be safeguards in place it will be students with rich parents who will be able to afford a higher education and not those with lower middle-class or working class families. University educations are no longer the preserve of the elite, they are becoming increasingly essential in an ever-competative job market. I fear it will be the case that people from poorer families will suffer not only due to having a lack of opportunity for further education, but suffer in the job market as well.

2. They can charge what they decide -

This frightens me. Whilst I there will surely be an upper limit in place not all universities will charge the full amount possible, it would be unviable. Universities will still need to attract enough students to pay for the courses. But what is to stop the top universities from charging the full amount possible? It would lead to Oxbridge and universities of its ilk being able to charge a considerably higher amount than less popular universities as they know that no matter what they charge there will still be students queuing up to study at their establishments. This will naturally lead to those better off going to the better universities. I fear this particularly as not only will it be more difficult for a less well off prospective student to be able to afford a university education, it will also be more difficult for them to afford choice in their establishment and potentially a better education. Do we really want a situation where richer people are better educated?

3. We have been lied to -

By 'we' I mean students. There was a huge push by the Liberal Democrats about abolition of tuition fees in the election campaign and it convinced a lot of progressive students to vote Lib Dem. They abolished them in Scotland and they claimed they intended to do the same in England. However it now appears not only have they rescinded this promise now that they are in government, but they are actually going in the other direction. Vince Cable can claim that they 'need' to do it due to the debt they have 'inherited' from Labour, but the simple truth is that they don't. The coalition is hell-bent on cutting quickly and ruthlessly. Cuts do need to be made, but not to the extent that they currently are. Our credit rating is good, we do not need to balance the books. Remember John Keynes? He was the one who showed that the books do not need to stay constantly balanced. Blame him if you like for the debt, but do not forget that Keynes was not Labour, he was a Liberal Democrat.

All in all it is frightening. English students, come up to Scotland.

The Coalition Broke My Promise

It is the perfect situation to be in. You spend months on the campaign trail promising the British public what you will do if you are elected. Even more importantly you make promises about what you will not do if elected.

Often these promises are about taxes. 'I will not raise taxes' a prospective governing party may bellow to the people. Or perhaps they are about keeping benefits. 'Child benefits will not be cut!' That ought to please the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on the Child Benefit system, and the wider demographic of people who believe protection of children to be paramount in any modern democracy.

And it works. Well it sort of works, you poll relatively well and manage to get a fair share of representation in parliament. You cosy up to one of the other parties and you are part of that magical political term; a coalition government.

This may sound familiar, after-all both Australia and the United Kingdom are currently testing this new-found style of democracy. This will sound particularly familiar to voters in the United Kingdom. Myself and the rest of the electorate of this country sat and listened to the Liberal Democrats stressing the importance of keeping child benefits. Not cutting them. Not changing them. Not even making them means-tested. So imagine the dismay Liberal voters will have when they woke up today (October 4th 2010) to discover the coalition government is planning on stopping child benefits for anyone who are earning more than £44,000 a year.

Surely this will be damaging, breaking a promise a mere six months into government. But it isn't. This is the magic of the word 'coalition'. 'Oh it isn't us', protest the promise breakers, 'It is our dear coalition partners who want to implement this policy.' Magic isn't it?

How long will this work for? How long can the government break promises, and make unpopular decisions whilst coming out blameless just because they can hide behind 'coalition'?

The truth is neither party need give up the word, they can allow for the other party to imply they are to blame for certain policies so long as that other party allow the first party to blame them. I urge you to not allow the 'coalition' aspect of the government to forgive the government for breaking promises or establishing policies governments normally wouldn't get away with. Coalition does not give them the right to break promises.

A Drinking Man's Socialist

I am struck with a disillusion in politics that comes from a lack of any true socialist voice or figure in the UK in 2010 politics. With Labour a fully established centre-left/Thatcherite/New Deal/Third Way (or whatever the hell you want to call it) party where does one look for socialism?

It seems the new 'right on' attitude is that of Liberalism, but I see myself almost as opposed to Liberal thought as I am to Conservative thought. I am inherently not a Liberal. Now to qualify that statement there are certainly aspects of Liberalism that are key to my political thought, but without exception these are liberal theories that are to the compliment of equality as a justice, rather than to the detriment. Yet amongst my peers the current buzz-word is 'progressive', and according to this defined progressive politics Liberalism is at the forefront. Ironically the party which proclaims to be Liberal is the one currently propping up a Conservative government. A progressive conservative government is a paradox too far.

But I am not a Liberal and I am not a conservative. I am a socialist.

Who do I look to? Really I have the Scottish Socialists (or whatever Tommy Sheridan is calling his current sex club) or George Galloway. Both of them bigoted Scottish arseholes (in my opinion). It seems that in the media and mainstream politics there are certain criteria one must fit to be considered a pigeon holed 'right on' socialist in Scotland. They are as follows:

1. You Must be Opposed to the Iraq War.

2. You Must wish for an Independent Scotland

3. You Must not Drink.

I'll take this point by point beginning with point 1. As it happens I am not wholly in favour of the Iraq War (lets rephrase that and call it the 'Iraq Intervention' from now on). I think we went into it under false pretences and I am not entirely convinced we were told the God's honest truth by the government when we went in. However I think going in was the correct decision at the time, and I believe more good has come from it than bad. However as a Socialist I cannot say that. I have to be opposed to this 'Illegal War' caused by that dirty 'War Mongerer' Tony Blair.

Why? Using our army to dismantle a pseudo-fascist religious dictatorship is surely right up the street of political socialism? No? We must be pacifists now must we? It's understandable, that great Socialist Stalin was far more heroic when he was making pacts with Hitler than when he was liberating Poland wasn't he?

Now on to point number 2. This one I truly don't understand but Scottish Nationalism seems to be key to Scottish Socialism. I'm not going to dwell on this topic too much, but how many of you really think National Socialism is a good idea?

And with great fanfare I bring you to the final point, you cannot drink. This may sound ridiculous but socialists don't seem to drink anymore. Not only that but they criticise people who do drink. Despite the great socialist drinkers of the past now alcohol is demonised (along with cigarettes might I add). The biggest culprit for this is Mr. Galloway who has layed into the likes of Christopher Hitchens, the entire House of Commons, the entire House of Lords and the entire apathetic electorate at one time or another for drinking.

Really George, go back to your teetotal dining club with Saddam and just let us be lefties who enjoy a bloody drink.

Anyway, rant over, there is no socialist I can admire. Perhaps I will make do with Labour. After-all, they at least manage a some-what decent manifesto without sounding like preachy, whiney, arseholes.

A Futuristic History

Welcome to the campaign trail for the 2048 UK General Election. Make sure you register to vote by May the 6th so you can take part in the election on the 24th of this month.

Of course it doesn't really matter who you vote for, the election is already a foregone conclusion. Some call it an elected dictatorship, we call it representative democracy. Come May the 24th the Social Democrat party will once again be given the keys to 10 Downing Street and be allowed to further our progressive country and government, running full steam ahead into the second half of the century.

As you will all remember from Modern History lessons the Social Democrat party were formed from a coalition of the existing two progressive parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in 2018. Prior to that they competed with one another for the progressive vote, with Labour gaining the vote of the socialists, the workers and those to the left of the current Social Democrat party. The Liberal Democrats attracted the votes of the middle-class, idealistic type of person who wanted social change on a more obviously progressive level. This left progressive voters with competing options.

Unfortunately this did not bode well for progressivism. Then, like now, the Conservative party existed, who represented archaic conservative values. Although they never polled more than 40% of the vote, it was quite common to find them in power, there to roll back the progressive values and achievements of the Labour party. It is hard to believe that as recently as 2010 the Conservative power came to victory! Despite only receiving 35% of the vote, they became the largest party. This happened as the progressive parties were split. Even though 60% of people voted for the progressive parties (29% Labour 31% Liberal Democrat) they were not the same party, meaning the Conservative party won, rather than a party representing progressivism.

This happened again in 2015, at the next general election. Despite being hugely unpopular, they were voted in. This is when the two progressive parties decided they needed to come together, to pool the working class socialist progressivism with the middle class liberal progressivism. The result was the Social Democrats. As we all know they won with a landslide in 2020, and for the past 28 years have ruled with massive support and created a permanent progressive government, voted in by the majority progressive electorate.

But I am rambling. On the 24th of May, you, my progressive friend, have the chance to vote in the Social Democrats, to continue this grand tradition of progressive, united politics. It's a great day for democracy, and a great day for progress.

The Media Are Always Right

A little under a year ago the media decided who was going to win this election. They unanimously decided that Cameron's Tories were going to beat Labour. Then something happened, Cameron's popularity waned, Brown's improved and the Clegg-Factor came into effect.

All of a sudden opinion polls were suggesting rather than a Tory win, it would be a hung parliament, or even a Labour majority! This will not do. Not because they hate Labour, not even because they love the Conservatives. No, simply because they predicted Cameron would win, so he must win.

The right-wing press has gone into overdrive to disrupt Labour's campaign trail and paint Cameron in that glorious holier than holy light of change. Everything that Gordon Brown does is met by instant scrutiny and pounced upon by the media. Oh how they licked there lips earlier on today when Gordon Brown called a woman who opposes immigration a 'bigot' in private. Unfortunately for Brown he had forgotten to remove his microphone.

For those of you who have not heard it, he criticised his colleagues for allowing her to ask him questions about immigration, saying the whole thing from a P.R. point of view was a 'disaster'. When asked who she was, he stated she was a 'Bigot'.

Not great to talk about someone behind their back, but really, who hasn't? She criticised immigration from a bigotted point of view. Brown, in the privacy of his own car, mentioned that she was a bigot, and expressed frustration as to how the situation played out.

Oh how the media went wild. Initially the bigot in question was a 'Woman', half an hour later she was a 'pensioner', now every time she is mentioned she is a 'grandmother'. Coupled with this increasingly emotive language comes the interview the Murdoch press did with Gillian Duffy in which she sounds hurt and genuinely saddened.

Gordon Brown as it happened apologised and mentioned that it was said in the heat of the moment when he was frustrated with the situation not going as was planned. But do the media care? No, the media need Labour to lose. This natural, human slip of dignity is about to 'Lose Labour the Election'.

Personally I think the media need to get off their moral high horse.

It Was The Tweets Wot Won It

An outsider to the British political system would be forgiven for thinking the editors of each of our national newspapers attended different events last night. From The Mail to the Guardian the headlines pronounced different men as having 'won' a debate. A certain Mr. Cameron romped one of these debates according to the Express, but a Mr. Clegg apparently edged above his competitors in whatever debate the Guardian attended. Quite clearly the Independent attended the same debate as the Guardian did, and the Mail and Times decided to pop along to the debate with the Express. God knows what debate The Mirror decided to attend; some bloke called Dave was apparently thrashed into submission by Mr. Brown.

If our outsider decided to pick up the papers and discover that all papers had in fact attended the same debate I'm not sure how he would react. How can one debate have three different winners? Why do the polls quoted in these papers differ so drastically? Surely simple bias isn't enough to dictate who won each debate?

Unfortunately that seems to be the case. There has always been bias in our papers, the Sun is famous for its headlines surrounding the 1992 General Election: "Will the Last Person to Leave The Country Please Turn Out The Lights", they exclaimed as a stark warning of letting Labour's Neil Kinnock win the election. Kinnock did indeed lose only for the Sun to take full credit for John Major's election win "It's the Sun Wot Won It!" The 1992 election campaign was a particularly close one and The Sun is justified in claiming to have won the election for the Tories.

Now we are in 2010, this is Gordon Brown's 1992. An unelected leader, like Major. Unpopular within the Westminster bubble, like Major. Leading the party after a decade of power, like Major. It is also the first election which is genuinely difficult to predict since 1992. The Labour Party really should have won in 1992, they were a popular alternative to an unpopular government, and if it weren't for the petty right-wing press they almost certainly would have won it. Right now the Tories really should be much more popular than they are. A year ago they were streaks ahead in the polls and the forthcoming election seemed like a certain Tory win, but they have faltered, the Labour party are coming into their own and a genuinely close and tight battle is being fought.

Now is the time for the Media. Like 1992 they will come in with their huge biases, creating horror stories about the opposition (Nick Clegg ate my hamster!) and telling the gullible electorate who they should vote for.

But it isn't working.

The old guard of newspaper reporting to tell the electorate who they should vote for has been replaced by a new medium; Social Networking Sites. During the election debates twitter went crazy, and facebook got in on the act as well. Tweets were coming in thick and fast about what people were saying, who everyone thought was coming off stronger and who was faltering. Had there been Prime Ministerial debates in 1992 we would have to wait until the following day to find out who won. In 2010 however we are in control, we decide who was stronger and we decide who will lead our country after May the 6th.