Suspending disbelief.

I have a pal, he has an odd relationship with his mobile phone. When he got a text (and he got lots of those), his phone became the living embodiment of the person sending it. Indeed, the person his phone became, took precedence over the people he was actually with - to be fair - usually because his phone had become his wife. 

He's younger than me, so not familiar with the concept of an old house phone. Did anyone ever look at their old landline and think, 'I'm going to behave as if anyone who has my number is here already'.

I bet you didn't.

The number of times we'd be chatting away - he'd say something, and I might say something in reply. I then turn to elaborate further - as is my want - and he wouldn't be there. He'd be twenty paces back looking a bit dopy while peering at his fucking phone - while I looked like I'd been talking to myself. I'd gently suggest this was a bit rude, but he'd say the sender of the message knew he'd read it and if he didn't reply, they'd think he was ignoring them. I'd think, (but not say), you're ignoring me.

It was invariably his partner - and this is the point I'm clambering my way toward - they'd be hundreds of miles apart, not even on the same land mass - but they still found a way to have unpleasant arguments with each other.

And so it is with Twitter just now. Why do we do it, and why do we care so much about the thoughts and opinions of people we don't know?

We've now had the verdicts, outcomes, reports - call them what you will - and we're not really any further forward. Speaking for myself - which is all I can ever do - I'm more lost.

Nicola Sturgeon was 'exonerated' by the Hamilton Inquiry but found somewhat guilty (if that's the right term) by the Fabiani Inquiry. The former was independent, the latter was not. I don't mute people often on Twitter, but if you attempt to convince me SNP MSP's never vote along party lines, then claim I'm being manipulated. If my subsequent tweets seem aggressive, it's not necessarily because I think you're stupid, it's because you have no self awareness or empathy. You're just a very irritating (and gullible) sociopath.

My point is this, the devil is in the detail. In all that has transpired - no one has been held responsible for anything. No one has been sacked, and no one has been censured. More over, no one has admitted any fault. Indeed, the only person who has, is still being vilified for a great many things he was proven not to have done - which is an embarrassing double standard.

Look. It's a Star Trek meme. (I see young people...)

If we can at least accept that mistakes were made, and tacitly accept who was never in a position to make them -  by which I mean critics of Nicola Sturgeon who had no hand in developing the new complaints procedure (for example), can we at least accept there are issues here which still need addressed? 

And since we're so quick to condemn individuals based on extrapolation, is it fair to excuse others, despite there now being so much established fact? And I suppose a final question, have we forgotten the difference between established facts and establishment facts?

Trying to talk about any of this on Twitter just now, is tantamount to what my pal does with his phone. The debate still needs to be had, but if anything is damaging hopes of independence right now, it's this toxic method of having it.

Percolations, identifications, and metaphors.

This particular typed outgrowth, has been brewing for some time. The temptation was to talk about the leaked voting from the incorrectly-but-popularly-named 'Salmond Inquiry', but enough is being said already, you don't need to read my (probably entirely predictable) opinions on it.

A meme. It's how young people communicate, apparently.

Self-identity or self ID though... It's fair to say it's been the cause of some grief. Indeed, it could be said, it's partially why Nicola Sturgeon's leadership is in crisis. I have no clue why they pursued the policy - they didn't need to. But they did, and handled the subsequent debate in a way that's been impressively crap. I might say, so-much-so, it's as if they chose to destroy themselves with it. (Although that's not my theory, more in a minute on that.)

Getting this most obvious manifestation of self-ID out of the way - of course men too easily being able to identify as female is going to be problematic. For reasons that are obvious, and reasons that are not. Mostly though, because people can be dicks. It doesn't matter if they're male or female or an ephemeral, unknowable entity somewhere between the two. You could have a bunch of daffodils hanging between your legs and chromosomes made from Gouda - you might still be a psychopath, a sadist, or just a creepy twat.

Self-ID though.

The problem with self-ID is simple - there's no such thing.

That's basically it. It doesn't exist. It's not a thing. The type of person who believes self-ID is achievable - is a pure narcissist. We are not what we decide we are, we are as others observe us to be. Identity is a compromise, sometimes easy, sometimes not. Sometimes it's automatic - done subconsciously - sometimes we have to work at it. But it's never purely a decision of the self.

Which is why self-ID as part of a wider policy can't work. Putting to one side the idea of forcing people to think in ways they're not prepared to think, there's the entirety of our lived existence - the way we observe and understand the world itself - at stake.

Science is objective, human thought is definitely not - we're seriously fucked up. I'll give you a topical example, (and put my head on a chopping block.) The current Scottish Government seeks to convince us if a man so chooses, he can be a woman - not dress up or pretend - he can self-identify as a woman and be one.

Occasionally, if it looks interesting, I watch Abandoned Engineering, (I know, I'm kind of at that stage in life), on it is a contributor called Lynette Nussbacher. When she's on, I see and hear a woman. On the other hand, (while I've never watched The Kardashians), if I see Caitlyn Jenner down the high street, I see and hear a man who looks like a woman.

How we perceive people has little to do with how they perceive themselves. And how they're being perceived, shouldn't matter to them anyway. 

You're damn right I am.

Why have the Scottish Government pursued this? I suspect it's more to do with being caught in the deadlights of a lobby group with a powerful narcissist streak. I sometimes wonder if it started out as a project to build a support base, or perhaps to spike the ambitions of someone doing the same, that just got out of hand?

I have no idea, and in terms of the subject of this blog post, it doesn't matter. The policy is based on a premise which is rubbish. It is not possible for anyone to fully self-id as something they're obviously not. Whether it's me thinking I'm an athlete when I'm out jogging, or Kirsty Blackman thinking she's a serious politician when she's out, ummm, doing what ever it is she thinks serious politicians do.

Post Script: It goes without saying, I fully respect the rights of trans-people to exist and I will be as polite as I usually am - which is to say - effusively so due to a middle class upbringing and a moderately passive aggressive nature. What goes on in the fucked-up space between my ears however, is nobodies business but my own* - and I'm fairly sure you couldn't give a shit anyway, and nor should you.

* Unless I decide to blert it out here of course. In which case I'm sorry, but you didn't have to read it.

(Further) down the rabbit hole.

The latest instalment of the Scottish Government's corruption saga landed on Twitter last night, I think that was the only place it landed, but gosh - landed it did. With the wet splat of a fibre-deficient jobby, it descended upon users (not real people remember), and provoked an immediate response, from both sides.

Speech here.

I'll lead with the TL/DR version - Sturgeon loyalists dismissed David Davis' Westminster speech, mostly because it was David Davis. Salmond loyalists rolled their eyes because everything he said, they already knew. Everyone else? They didn't notice - why would they?

Now for the Did Read version. The Scottish press seem to be leaving it alone, which is astonishing really. Think of the countless times the merest hint - even if that hint was an obvious fabrication - of SNP/independence-related scandal, but the Scottish media ran with it anyway. Yet here we have a proven sequence of actions in to which, the Scottish press, and what passes for Scottish news from the BBC, have barely dipped a toe. Normally they'd be baw-deep by now.

Or eyeball-deep

I'll admit, I'm not a fan of David Davis - I may have said horrible things about him over the insouciant way he dealt with his responsibilities around Brexit. One uncomfortable lesson I've learned while watching Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon give evidence is, unionist politician - even the most oleaginous ones - shouldn't be dismissed entirely. One of the more unfortunate gifts social media has given us, is a willingness to dismiss 100% of a person because of 1% of the things they believe. I'll admit - I do it sometimes, but it's not right. It's shallow and self defeating. Joanne Lamont's contribution to debates around women's rights are a strong case in point.

I will never vote or be a Conservative, but only a fool would blank another human being because they happened to be a Tory. If Jacob Rees-Mogg gave a speech about how much we love our children, (putting to one side he might think yours should be sent up chimneys), would you angrily declare you hated your kids anyway?

What David Davis did last night, was read out a string of events which happened. It wasn't a list he wrote, or his interpretation, opinions, or extrapolations. It's what actually happened based on the sworn-under-oath testimony of the people involved. They admitted it. It's there in balck and white, in emails and text messages - emails and text messages the Scottish Government and COPFS have been desperately trying to redact, hide or forget exist.

Don't mistake my tone for glee, and don't even think about dismissing me as a unionist or 'yoon plant'. This is anger. The current leadership of the Scottish Government allowed a situation to develop resulting in David Davis (of all people) being able to stand up in Westminster (of all places), and give that speech. I'm mortified, and so should the current SNP leadership be.

I thought so highly of Nicola Sturgeon. I thought she was a different kind of politician. There was never the doubt for her, people my age had, for Alex Salmond.

I don't dislike Sturgeon and for the same reasons I won't dismiss Joanne Lamont, I won't dismiss Nicola Sturgeon. I'm just disappointed.

What is more disappointing, is the craven denial of fellow independence travellers. We know how it works, we see through it every time we intelligently rubbish an argument for the Union. To not see through it because it's our own side, is an abandonment of morality. Worse still, to do so off the back of an unwillingness to be informed, is an abandonment of the good sense that brought us to the independence cause in the first place.

I prefer not to use the word cult to describe diehard Nicola fans, but it's beginning to fit. They claim because we don't support Nicola, we no longer support independence - to them Nicola and independence are one and the same. What is that, if not the views of the inculcated?

The idea independence might be at risk because of the actions of the current leadership - and not its critics - does not compute. Instead, we have continuing and increasingly shrill admonitions to wait for the outcome of an already flawed inquiry, and to ignore all that has come out from it to date.

Its a mess, it can't be denied. Divisive policies and decisions pursued by the SNP leadership - if they were half as competent as their supporters claim - they knew they'd be hugely problematic, yet they persevered anyway. This cannot be the fault of the policy's critics. Those critics exist as a result of the policies, not the other way round.

A longer post today, but it reflects the frustration many feel. That it's been brought back into the spotlight by David fucking Davis giving a speech at Westminster, is frustrating and embarrassing - but the Sturgeon faithful still see fit to blame the egg instead of the chicken that laid it.

If Nicola was a fraction of the leader they claim she is, she'd take responsibility for the eggs she's broken.