One of my (less) endearing personality traits is my impulsiveness. This has sometimes led to good and bad decisions, but most often, neither good nor bad. I have always wanted to give my opinion on well, anything really. So, recently when I was idling away an hour online, I signed up to a site giving permission to, I thought, a limited number of pollsters contacting me.
OK, I should have thought this through before agreeing to speak to anyone and to realise that this might be more time consuming and considerably less straight forward than I imagined. My reasoning for taking this step is that there is virtually no representation of radical feminist middle-aged Scottish people’s opinion apparent anywhere. I now know why. In order to have such (apparently) specific opinion showing in polls, the right questions have to be asked.
What I have discovered since inviting access to my views is that my answers don’t fit the questions asked as most questions are framed using the dominant patriarchal outlook. Perhaps I should have been more cynical before embarking on this, but surely it cannot be beyond the scope of computer programmes to analyse a wider range of views than currently seems to be the case, going on the, admittedly, limited number of surveys I’ve taken part in. Until questions are more flexible, minority opinions cannot gain any representation and answers will continue to be hopelessly skewed in favour of the status quo. The other glaring problem is that surveys are answered only by those who are interested in answering surveys. This insight does not lead me to conclude that there is a silent majority of Scottish, middle-aged radical feminists in our population who are failing to make their views known.
To date, I’ve only answered one political survey. It was online and dealt almost exclusively with issues that only affected the English therefore I didn’t feel able to make much of that, as I’m reluctant to offer views on another country’s affairs.
If I’m asked about my views on the current burning topic, (at least amongst the chatterati online) I will have to resort to that enormously helpful Scottish legal verdict and assert that my view is ‘not proven’. I’ve no idea whether those who think the Libyan chap is not guilty have it right or wrong, neither have I a firm view on compassionate release, although I found Annabel Goldie’s idea of hospice care for the prisoner, inconceivably short-sighted. Responses have been remarkably narrowly framed in party political terms by too many politicians who project a view that can only arise from a belief that Scottish people/politicians are uniquely unable to deal with international implications, (with the commendable exception of the ever impressive Malcolm Chisholm in his statement in Parliament on Monday.) I am inclined to regard the way MacAskill’s handled it as him making the best of a difficult situation and that Scots politicians stride the world’s stage with as much or as little talent as those of any other nation.
Innate pragmatism engenders a feeling of gratitude that he will die at home and not in a Scottish jail with all the fall-out that would have entailed, particularly if he is eventually found not guilty. Slightly wistful thinking has me speculating that maybe Hillary would have moderated her views if dealing with Nicola and Harriet, but then again, probably not. And now I have to go answer an email on the subject from a baffled American pal whose views are always satisfyingly contrary to my own.
6 comments:
I agree with MacAskill’s decision. Compassion in the last few weeks on someone’s life is an excellent principle (they released Ronnie Briggs in England recently). Good for Scotland and its legal system. (Right-wingers might care to ask themselves why the taxpayer should pay for these last few weeks.)
It wasn’t in the end so party political: for example, Jack McConnell was against, but Henry McLeish was for. There seems more support in Scotland for release than against. There was no call for MacAskill’s resignation, nor a vote of confidence. Indeed, one wonders what the point of recalling Parliament was; just for the media maybe.
As for what Hillary says in public, and how she gets on with Nicola and Harriet in private – these are not necessarily the same.
I read this article in London Review of Books from 21 June 2007: “Inconvenient Truths” by Hugh Miles http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n12/mile01_.html . He presents strong arguments that al-Megrahi could not be guilty, and points to a Palestinian group with links to Iran and Syria as the perpetrators. Given the arguments, which governments would know, I think the conviction isn’t safe, and the release is a recognition of that. Had al-Megrahi lived to continue his appeal, maybe we would have found out more. I don’t know that governments will bother now – they have their scapegoat and it would be embarrassing for them and their intelligence outfits if they turned out to have the wrong one.
interestingly enough I can't find a single friend or aquaincene (sp?) in my circle who is against the release of Megrabi. So the reports of the general outrage at the decision baffle me.
The fact that the review board where close to agreeing to an appeal and they don't do that unless the evidence of a mistrial is overwhelming is telling. (My dad says the picture of the Lockerbie 'bomb' he has seen is at he most obvious fake he's ever seen as as he's a physicist I defer to him on these matters).
But interestingly enough a friend who works in the scottish legal establishment says that generally in her workplace the consensus is that the SNP has rung a concession out of London probably around the Barnet Formula being left untouched for at least 3 years.... watch this space!
Hi M and Jerzz
Thanks for your comments. I've been down south for most of the time since this news broke, so I've not spoken to anyone and don't have a sense of what the average Edinburgher thinks about it. Indeed, I was driving down the M74 when MacAskill gave his statement last Thursday. Proximity to Lockerbie gave it a particular resonance.
I've looked at lots of blogs and news-sites and certainly my perception is that most people are in favour of the decision. I suspect that many people are really not that interested, and as time goes on the story will recede into the background. Or it would if BBC Scotland would cease and desist with their attempts to dredge up Gray's 'silent majority'. The BBC Scotland poll announced yesterday is being roundly castigated as desperate union-supporting bias on the Blether with Brian blog.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/
Although some people comment unfavourably about MacAskill, most are in favour and, just as you said, M, have only spoken to people who think it was ok to send al Megrahi back to Libya to die.
The Herald actually undertook some real reporting for a change and went to speak to Gaddafi junior. He appeared concsious of the ramifications of the decision all round. The Herald also has an interview with al Megrahi.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2528070.0.The_truth_never_dies.php
I cannot imagine that we will ever find out the truth, but I am interested in what M's father says about the 'bomb' and the idea that the SNP has managed to get concessions from Westminster is positive, but considering that the present incumbents may not be around much longer, what is their 'word' worth?
the oddity of the 'bomb' if you can find a picture of it is that it is clearly made out of several motherboards - they are different colours. Now why would a bomb be made out out of several different ones? One would suffice. My father is convinced that this 'bomb' has be created after the fact.
Oh and yes surveys you are right that they are incredibly directed. I could tell you a few hairraising stories. There is only one survey I do regularly on the exeriences of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system which I think gets it right - it has enough really open questions which are taken down verbatum which gives the respondent enought space to say what they would like not covered by the rest of the survey. But its very expensive to do this and of course might bring up answers they doen't want to hear so not used a lot in surveys. If you hang about on princes at the east end there are usual middle aged ladies waiting to pounce on people to do market research. I've occasoinally succumed and then tried to skew their results by saying stuff about the general hideousess of commercial shampoos etc!
Hi Anonymous
Thanks for these interesting comments on the ‘bomb’, although this is rather far out of my knowledge zone, so I’ll happily take your father’s word on this issue.
My hope for more information rests with those who allegedly are bringing freedom of information questions within the American system. Particularly as there appears to be less information in the public domain from those parts than from hereabouts following the publication of substantial amounts of papers by our own government as well as what the Westminster people have produced. No doubt much more could come to light, but no one is holding their breath for that.
I suspect that much like the MPs expenses row earlier in the summer, the public will eventually lose interest in all this, but not quite yet? Certainly, I’d thought after the relatively civilised debate in parliament yesterday it would have shifted the focus southward, but no, FM questions today were as tediously party political as ever. I despair of the ongoing effects on Lockerbie residents and of victims’ families ever managing to put this behind them as long as this continues. So much is talked about (in particular) the Amercian families need for ‘closure’ but this is an illunderstood pop-psychology concept bandied about by policicians seeking to sound supportive but only displaying their ignorance of the psychology of grief. Additionally, the families and Lockerbie residents are by no means an homogenous mass, as several have tried to make clear in their communications for and against al Megrahi’s release.
So, scant evidence thus far of it abating, and the continuous outpouring of ignorant comments by pundits and online commentators alike demonstrates how little some Scots, far less those outwith our polity have in understanding that the justice system in England and Wales remained separate from ours in 1707. There is therefore a clarity of procedure in this complex case which can be understood if approached with a reasonably open mind instead of an opportunistic attempt to once again display the visceral hatred that some have for those who want to put Scotland at the centre of their agenda.
Anonymous
On your other point about framing polls, thanks for your practical example!
Also, I too have succumbed to the invitation from the ladies at the East end of Princes Street, especially if it is raining and my feet are sore, as you get a seat in a warm room, a coffee and the chance to answer silly questions. Both times I've done this it has been all about car adverts none of which I've ever seen.
Post a Comment