The Calcutta Cup

Today at 5pm GMT the 119th Calcutta Cup competition will take place.  It struck me as an interesting fact that the trophy was inspired by a game between British expatriates in India in the late c19.  Of those British expats who lined up to play, the English took side against the Scotts, the Welsh and the Irish.  They knew they were British expats but a simple demarcation was to delineate on some pseudo ethnic grounds.  I say ethnic, but of course ethnicity is a socio-political construct.  Biologically we are all the same species and genetically the story is very much more complex.

This morning on Radio4, I think I heard Alastair Campbell  say he was Scottish before he was British.  I would like to deconstruct this sentiment in a moment but I believe he then went on to say his parents were Scottish, he was born in Yorkshire and moved to Leicester when has was 11.  So really, and by really I mean legally, he was British - English.  British since that is the internationally recognised nation to which he claims citizenship and presumably holds a passport for and English because he lives in an English county as defined in The Interpretation Act 1978, Schedule 1.  I find it particularly interesting that "Scotland" itself is only partially defined in legislation.  This definition is in section 126 of the Scotland Act and has the effect of specifying that "Scotland" extends into the marine environment to the limit of territorial waters (ie out to 12 nautical miles).  Alastair went on to lament the irony that his bag pipe playing father and staunchly "Scottish" mother are not even able to vote in the referendum for Scottish Devolution.  To me though this is fair, as the only sound definition of Scottish is: To be a British citizen and reside within the marine environment of the largest Island in the archipelago and not to be English, where English means to reside in the area consisting of the counties established by section 1 of the Local Government Act 1972, Greater London and the Isles of Scilly. (Note: Wales is explicitly referenced in this context, as it was formerly treated as part of England).  In short, do you have a UK passport? Do you reside north of the area defined as England in the 1972 Act?  If the answer to both is yes then you can rightly call yourself Scottish.  

Would you call yourself Scottish first though?  Even if you could claim a link to relatives that once lived there (ok, parents is a close link, but you get my point.  Al didn't live there himself, ever).  I have recently explored my not too distant heritage  and established that despite my evident Irish heritage in my surname I am 62.5% "English" from name origins.  First and foremost though, I consider myself British and part of me is deeply saddened when our nation, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, seems destined to break up the unity that has been fought for, for generations.  So why do people from certain regions feel that they need to put that first?  I appreciate the need to feel like you belong, to understand your heritage, and to honour your ancestry by remembering it; but why put it first?  Should we not be looking to secure our unity and to put our nation first?

There is a potential contradiction for me here though, I am a big supporter of localisation and devolving more powers regionally but not when it damages the necessary sovereignty of the nation.  Also why only the 3 regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?  This I think hit the heart of the problem for me about the devolution debate.  It should be about political power and regional control within our nation, it should not be about ethnic rivalry and cultural divide.  Alex Salmond, like Alastair Campbell, is British first and foremost.

So back to the Calcutta cup,  today I will be cheering my local team, England, where I live, but I will not be engaging in quasi-racist chanting at my fellow British citizens who choose to support their own local team, even if it was only their parents who lived there. 

England, My England

No, not the poem by William Ernest Henley, but a poem that surfaced around 2009 according to my scant research (JFGI).  I received this just recently, considering my views expressed on this blog previously, it's no surprise I felt I needed to comment, so here goes:


English? Does it mean:

1. English the ethnic group?
2. England the Sociopolitical construct?
3. England the Geographic region?


1.  The ethnic group is descended originally from Iron age Britons a celtic people who ultimately inhabited Wales, Cornwall and Cumbria following complete domination by the invading Angles, Saxons and Jutes.  The Angles a Germanic Peoples from Schleswig-Holstein in Northern Germany, the Saxons from a broad region in Central Northern Germany and the Jutes a Germanic people from Southern Schleswig or Jutland Denmark, one of the 3 great Germanic tribes according to Bede ("The father of English History").   This was the origin of the ethnonym but later invasions by Danes (Viking expansion in the c.9th) and Normans (Norse Vikings from Normandy a fiefdom in the Kingdom of France who invaded in c.11th) also added many genetically similar peoples to the gene pool.  English = Northern German / Viking.

2.  The Kingdom of England existed from 927 to 1707, it was formed by Athelstan the Glorious, Grandson of Alfred the Great.  It existed as a Sovereign State until the Acts of Union politically unified The Kingdom's of Scotland and England to create the Kingdom of Great Britain. Then in 1801 The Kingdom of Great Britain was united with the Kingdom of Ireland through another act of union to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  In 1922 the Irish Free State was established and an Act of Parliament in 1927 formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Wales had been a Principality since 1284 until 1536 having been conquered by Edward I and then finally annexed in 1536 by the Laws in Wales Acts (1536-1542).  England=Dominant Political Power in Britain

3.  Geographically England is the larger part of Great Britain and is only 21 miles away from mainland Europe (Dover to Cap Gris Nez).  If you look at google maps, London to Milan is a 765 mile drive and Milan to Messina in Southern Italy is 1252 miles.  Geographically we are part of the same land mass that has only recently (in geological time) been separated by Sea.  England = Parts of the archipelago on the west of the European landmass

The Flag:
The Union Flag (like the ensign the Union Jack) is made from the Cross of St. George representing England and Wales, the Saltire of St Andrew representing Scotland and the Cross of St Patrick representing Ireland.  It couldn't be a better symbol of unity.

The Battles it mentions:
Agincourt was characterised by the strength and bravery of the English and Welsh Longbow-men.
Hastings was the death of an Anglo Saxon England and the Birth of Anglo-Norman England.
At Mons English, Welsh, Scots and Irish all fought and died under the Union Flag
At Arnhem English, Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh all fought and died under the Union Flag defending Europe from the tyranny of a fascist dictator from the heartland of our ancestors.

My Thoughts:
I do think though at the heart of this poem is a message that needs to come out.  The inequity created by only Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales having devolved governments and the greater part of the nation not having any strong regional representation must be addressed by Westminster.  Unfortunately the message can get buried in the mire of jingoism for a state that ceased to exists in 1707 and worse still, hostility and fear that fuels xenophobia, the very same notion that mobilised the Axis and triggered a staunch defence by the Allies in WWII.

I am a Briton and believe our nation is stronger with a strong Union.  Devolved power to regional governments should create a fairer society allowing people to live in a subregion that has social and political harmony with their own views.  I also believe that the only way that UK (of GB & NI) can continue to play a role on the world stage is by uniting with Europe in a stronger way than we do already.  With the rise of Eastern superpowers our culture and society will be consumed by a world dominated by Eastern cultures if we do not.  This is not a bad thing, its just a thing, but I would like the children of Britain to play a role in shaping European culture and in turn for European culture to continue to play a strong role in shaping the world culture of the future.

Jingoism and Xenophobia go hand in gauntlet

Is it more acceptable now to be jingoistic?  I find it difficult to be patriotic, many would call me English – I would accept this if it was seen as a synonym for British but it is increasingly seen as the partisan group with some romantic notion of English as distinct from the other geographies that make up the British Isles.  So I am British.  If this is shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  I say Northern Ireland but as recently as 1801-1922 this would have been shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from the 1801 Act of Union.  In 1922, after the Irish War of Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, the larger part of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom and British was redefined again.  Am I a patriot? I cherish what previous generations have achieved in the name of being British, I am embarrassed and apologetic for the atrocities that have been metered out in the name of being British, so I believe in that sense I am patriotic.  I have empathy with the need to belong to a society, I also realise that resources need to be protected and managed largely since humanity seems destined to ignore the benefits of enlightened self interest; but does this need to naturally progress to the extreme?  We seem to have a preponderance of patriots throughout our Union rattling their sabres in honour of disunity, of devolution.  Can they not see that jingoism will inevitably lead to xenophobia, whipped into a frenzy by the rightwing press, to the degradation of society for all. 

Its all in a name:  I suspect my desire to be seen as British, as a descendent of the occupants of the British Isles, stems from my name.

James  (in homage to James I of England and Ireland,  VI of Scotland)

Richard  (in homage to Richard I,  Cœur de Lion, King of all England [oh, and a bit of France])

McDermott (in homage to Dermot mac Tadhg Mor, King of Magh Luirg (Moylurg), progenitor of the surname McDermott in Connacht, Ireland.)

Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics

This much quoted phrase, with an inherent progression starting at a low point, developing to an even lower point and then ending with statistics, is (according to wikipedia) potentially un-attributed – or at the very least – avoided attribution.

On the today programme on radio 4 this morning, Francis Maude the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, was mauled by Evan Davis.  The opponent in the debate was Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, who was on the show defending the apparently indefensible strike – he sat back and let Evan do his work.   The weapon of choice for Evan you ask? Statistics.  Or more correctly reported facts.  Maude was quoting the Hutton Report, saying that pensions have been shown to eventually become unaffordable and that if we don’t act now with public sector pensions, future generations will have an unmanageable tax burden.  Evan, having asked him if he had read the report, asked a direct question about an apparent misquote, saying he had used <Ctrl>+F to search for the word!  He then went on to quote the actual numbers from the report that seemed to contradict the attributed “direct” quote.  A bloodbath of squirming and smirking followed, where I was left feeling let down by the government minister but thoroughly impressed with the quality of journalism on Radio 4 – top job guys.

What's the point?

On Tuesday, 10 November 2009 I put my first post on my new blog Soliloquy.  It was called Existential Angst.  In fact I toyed with calling the entire blog Existential Angst.  This pervading theme may be a sign of my time of life or perhaps it’s the age in which we live: we are inundated with information and data streamed at us at such a pace it is virtually impossible to absorb, process and synthesise; we are destined to be standing like rabbits staring at the proverbial headlights of the information juggernaut.  I have three major themes which I cannot seem to get enough time to digest the current perceived wisdom and to formalise my own view.  The topics are quite broad (1) The nature of matter and the hypothesis of its creation, (2) The origin of human society and the resultant behaviours and (3) Exponential technological and biological evolution, the extrapolation of Moors Law and the Singularity

I feel like I am building three 10,000 piece jigsaws, each in a different room.  I am running from one to the other completing one part and then dashing back to look at the previous one – often finding that a small portion from my last attempt is in the wrong place. 

All three strands fit with the general theme and I wonder if its part of the nature of self-awareness that we must ask these questions.

On (1) I am intrigued by the celebrity presented view of Quantum Theory – packaged for the masses to consume – but feel that I have just scratched the surface and I want to know more.  I have this instinctive awareness that there are monumental and potentially portentous discoveries happening right now that I will only have a chance to marvel at in wonder but never truly understand.  I have bought a Quantum Mechanics text book but was shocked to find that I struggled to get to grips with the initial mathematics and physics – the very material I had studied and been examined on years ago.

On (2) I had completed .... you decide part 1, as an initial view of the origins of cities and city states, where apparently for the first time humanity decided to locate itself in a desired place and to defend that place and the resources it provided or represented.  I was intending to research if the first example on the planet of a city, Jericho, was still one of the global hotbeds of civil unrest and what this means for our civilisation.  If the descendents of those early inhabitants of the Levant who have migrated to Europe and the British Isles were not able to live closely together without the apparent need for demarcation lines and jingoistic sabre rattling from minority groups based around arbitrary geographic boundaries – what will our society become?  I have idealistic Start Trek notions of a United Federation of Earth – am I the only one? Or are we descending into a densely packed tribal combat zone?

and finally, on (3), The notions and postulations of Raymond Kurzweil and his disciples are intriguing.  Mathematically and logically they make sense – there is an elegant simplicity to the proposal that ensures that it seems like common sense – my cynicism alarm is still twitching.  I’m not sure I concur with the proposed endpoint of this exponentially accelerating evolution but nevertheless it provides an interesting perspective on how we will see an accelerating introduction of life-changing technology.  Critically it also provides a view of the life that our children might experience and will hopefully help us to prepare them better for their turn “holding the baton”.

And so, still no answers, only questions.  The eventual epitaph of all humanity.

I think I may immerse myself in fiction for awhile and see how things have moved on when I resurface……

The Royal Wedding

I'm not an ardent Royalist.  Seems like an odd thing to say since we are a parliamentary democracy albeit with a constitutional monarchy bolted on for the tourists.  I suspect then my affiliation would likely be as a republican (note the small ‘r’).  I don't particularly find it offensive to talk about the Royal Wedding its just hyped beyond any level of reality and is probably an anaesthetic to aid worldwide society to cope with the global meltdown.  If I were to believe all I read then, as a subject of her majesty Queen Lizzie the second, I am to wish her prematurely balding grandson good fortune with his new social climber wife.  But I don't believe all I read, in fact, I feel just a little bit disappointed with myself for delving into the murky depths of tabloid gossip.

So I genuinely wish William and Kate all the best for the future and any pressure they can put on the government or the establishment to relinquish all of this constitutional monarchy nonsense, that would be good too.  Thanks for the day off!  

Northern British

I've struggled for a while to understand devolution, it's purpose, it's eventual aim. In one of my first blogs (I vote for the Romans) I displayed an affinity with a concept of belonging to a bigger geopolitical entity. Whilst I appreciate the need for more local government to represent the mood of the local community by such acts as raising taxes locally and distributing the benefit locally, I also understand the benefits of scale afforded a larger community for such things as diplomacy, military, finance, police, transport etc. I specifically avoided writing "Nation" here, since within our understanding of this word, nation; we confuse such concepts as culture, race, politics, religion and Land.

In my blog (An Ode to Joy) I explored my poor knowledge of devolution in the UK, eventually returning to the theme of a pan European Nation. A pan European nation is only a pipe dream when we don't have a single united nation occupying the British Isles.  Recently I have been more irked when I see the media referring to Scotland or Wales in terms of them being nation states. This becomes even more irritating in any debate over public spending as both of the devolved parliaments seem to have domain over large centrally generated budgets and are spending these budgets in dramatically different ways to the majority contingent of the UK.  For example, Scottish University students (what does this mean?) are not paying tuition fees. How does this work? The British Tax payers pay tax to the British government in Westminster. Westminster diverts a portion of this to pay for public services in Scotland (the Scottish Consolidated Fund). Scotland's devolved parliament manage to allocate some to pay for a few of Britain's university students to go to university. Which university? Scottish universities? What about other British universities or the Rest-of-the-World universities? Why decide to just send Scottish students to Scottish universities?

Surely this raises the question of fairness? at what cost are Holyrood making this investment? What are residents of Northern Britain going without so their young folk can go to a university in Northern Britain paid for by the British State? Southern British don't have this option. But aren't we all British tax payers, although the Scottish (Northern British) devolved parliament were given the power (by the British parliament in Westminster) to raise or lower their tax rate, they have not done so. Therefore, if this is a fair distribution of money raised through taxation then something must have to give in that region that is afforded the benefit. Presumably the per capita costs of local government are the same? I've read some reports that suggest it is lower in Northern Britain and others that say its much higher but I have not found the facts yet.

The Scottish (Northern British) devolved parliament website refers often to the "Scottish People" and the "People of Scotland". Assuming that in the modern era these are the same thing. The tribe of the Scotts didn't reach Northern Britain until c. 600 AD.   So what defines a person as Scottish? Bloodlines? Surnames? Accent? Location of birth? Well no, none of these. 

Two things define you as Scottish on the website of the Scottish Parliament. (1) You reside (pay tax) in the northern parts of our archipelago and (2) You are British Citizen.   So, Scottish = Northern British.

Given this then, could I rent a house in a Northern British city say Glasgow, pay local tax and then be eligible to have my children's university fees paid by the state? £9,000 x2 kids x4 years = £72,000 actually wouldn't I be better investing in a property there?

An ode to joy

“oo are yuh?”.  I’m not sure really.  May be that answer speaks volumes.  How does one define oneself in the modern world?  Is it by the nation state to whom we pay tax, to whom owe allegiance and in whose borders we reside?  Is it some socio political class probably given a dreadful acronym by the marketeers?  I’m not a DINKY, no really, I’m not.  I’m not “Mondeo man” and last time I looked my pound was neither grey nor pink.  Is it some racial or genetic label that defines us? I’m freckly, my hair has a sort of reddish tint, I enjoy “the beer” and I like swirly patterns, I must be a Celt.  Really, has it ever been so hard to define who you are?  I was listening to the news tonight, confident in the knowledge that I am British.  I believe this to be short hand for a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  This, I have been led to believe, is my country, and is the source of my nationality.  So why do the BBC insist on presenting Scottish and Welsh stories as if they were a separate country.  Short pause whilst I read the Scotland Act 1998. zzzzzz.  Oh yeah, that's why, it's a separate country.  What!  was I asleep? Next you’ll be telling me Wales isn’t a principality and has it own government.  Short pause whilst I read the Welsh devolution referendum of 1997.  Oh.  

So ok, Wales is its own country, Scotland is its own country, what about England?  for that matter what about Yorkshire (population 2.2 million) considering that Wales has c. 3 million residents, is it that daft?  How far will devolution go?  Minority interests fragmenting the Nation.  So we are devolving power to local government, in many ways this is a good thing.  Local people raising taxes and deploying those funds locally but understanding they are part of a larger collective that must collaborate to survive but this is not how government works for us.  So we are not creating mini nations.  Scottish sailors wear the British army’s uniform and go to see on British aircraft carriers (for now), Welsh shoppers spend British pounds (it’ll buy you 1 Euro 15 cents today) and English or Cornish athletes sing the British national anthem.  God save the Queen.  Yes, I know we enter a whole new realm of confusion here, the Queen is English as she burnt some cakes once or was that Alfred, or is she Scottish since she is descended from James the I  or is she Welsh from Henry Tudor.  Actually she’s German, as evidenced by her clear descendency from George of Hamburg or French from our all time favourite King, Guillaume le Bâtard.  

Sovereignty lies at the heart of it.  Again though this is not as clear to me immediately as you would have hoped.  Who has supreme power of authority in the UK?  The Scotland Act deals with this in relation to devolution, clearly retaining sovereignty in Westminster but in reality will economy not drive this, will the size of the economy not dictate that not only will Scotland remain British but eventually Britain will become European?

So there you go, I’ve rambled for a while and decided I’m a Europhile.  Shocking.

Beware what you wish for...

Taking the BBC results table, which still has one constituency to declare, and using some Exel™ jiggery-pokery you get this table.  That is, taking the popular vote and allocating the proportion of seats dependent on the proportion of the electorate that voted for that party makes interesting reading (don’t forget the rounding!).  Bare in mind that I have not read any papers on how proportional representation actually works, or indeed if people knew that we didn’t have a first past the post mechanism would they vote differently?  I’m sure they would.  So this table is not necessarily representative of a PR Election but it does make you think about the level of negotiation needed to reach agreement.

Swing-o-meter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2432632/UK-General-Election-2010-political-map.html

Given that we need a 19.5% swing to liberals to get a hung parliament, is there really any chance of electoral reform?

I tried to post this yesterday but forgot to press the go-live button on the blogger dashboard. Less than prophetic in the most depressing way. Don’t try pressing the reset map button, it doesn’t work. Unfortunately we have all voted and the count is coming in. After all the haggling and horse trading is complete the botched government that is left will almost certainly be a travesty to the Popular Vote. Liberal Democrats have 8% of the seats from 23% of the electorate voting for them.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

Obiter Dicta

Obiter Dictum

There are several themes or threads running concurrently in my internal narrative at any one time.  Herding them and focussing on the important ones is the eternal battle that I have fought my entire life - in fact if I'm honest it is my life.  My personality has been described as a "Butterfly" and for this rare bit of descriptive parsimony I thank that person.   On occasion I take a quick look at the external narrative, since in the modern era we have an accessible and apparently permanent record, and I gloss through my Facebook history, my Twitter stream and now the building archive of this blog.  What strikes me is that the things I think were important to me don't appear in the records anywhere near as much as I would have imagined before taking a look.  There are some elements that are censored for obvious reasons, very personal relationships, work and related private information has remained, well, private.  Out of the other elements that I thought would feature more, games is at the top of this list.  I play games once per week with a group of friends, I have collected over 100 board games I have introduced many friends and their families to a broad variety of modern board games.  So to celebrate this, and in the spirit of keeping an electronic record, I have added a "widget" on the side bar of the blog to show recent games as recorded on the Board Game Geek website.  I shall try to keep this up-to-date.

more art from Derek here

And another thing, currently I am trying to decide which way to spend my 0.17 of a vote.  I have skim read the manifestos and, more characteristically for me, I have reviewed the manifestos on my iPhone.  So I know what the politicians want us to think.  I have listened to the media so I know what Rupert Murdoch wants us to think.  I have endured the cringe fest of the live debates so I know which contestant I'd phone in for! but actually I have paid little attention to what I actually want.  So I need to sift through the untidy bedroom of my brain and find the key issues on which I should judge each party.  My current thoughts are:

1.  A government and leader with statesmanly integrity and presence - showing the UK as a leader on the international stage.
2.  Equitable, balanced governance steering the country with high levels of integrity displayed throughout.
3.  For major issues like immigration and taxation: clear, fair rules consistent with an evolved, just and benevolent democracy that are policed openly.
4.  Macro economic policies that ensure the wealth of the UK whilst we contribute to the global distribution of wealth.
5. Education and learning, not just vocational training, embedded at the core of our society.
6. Smaller central government, more power at a local level.

I've spent no longer than about 5 minutes drafting this list.  It may seem like nonsense but these were genuinely the first six things to form more clearly out of the morass.  I shall let them stew for a while before I settle on my final list, then I shall see which party measures up.

Jimmymandering

Not sure if any one else has seen it or not, but there is a general election in the UK on 6^th May 2010.  It’s clear that voter apathy has lead to poor turnout at general elections in the UK previously.  This graffiti-pedia page has the UK ranked joint 25^th.  My personal voter turnout has been just as poor, as until recently I lived in the constituency of Henley with such Conservative luminaries as Michael Heseltine and Boris Johnson – so I felt my vote would not make any difference either way against the swathes of Tory Heartlanders.  Currently the MP is John Howell, no I’d not heard of him either.

 

Last year we moved home only 4.3 miles away from where we used to live.  It struck me that we may just have moved far enough to be out of the Henley constituency and be in a position where at last my vote would actually count! So after a little bit of research I discovered I have indeed shifted from the Henley constituency to the Wantage constituency.  With a renewed vigour I started to brush up on the political agenda’s of each of the main parties and then looked for the current incumbent.  It turns out to be Ed Vaizey  a conservative, onetime close pal of the neighbouring Cameron family until a recent faux pas.  More conservative than Margret Thatcher, so again I think my vote has become redundant. 

 According to the Telegraph it would take a swing of 19.5% to switch from Conservative to Labour in Wantage – it would have switched to Liberals first clearly but still a similar swing is required.

This is the spread of votes at the last election in Wantage:

During my recent fervour of interest in government and politics I downloaded the 75Mb conservative manifesto, so perhaps I’ll précis it for you in the next blog.

Cultural Diversity

Qu: Has the environment that promotes cultural and thus genetic diversity subsided? And what will be the impact on society and human evolution?

Genetic similarity of breading partners has long been associated with deformity and poor mental health, from the decline of the Pharaohs to jokes about Norfolk, this appears to be a truism.  In order to ensure genetic diversity humanity has had to rely on a range of surrogate markers of "difference". You look different, or more specifically you come from a different migratory tribe or ever since civilizations have settled in particular location, you come from a different land. Often this desire for cultural distinctiveness, that I suggest is primarily to nurture the health of our species globally, has been misinterpreted as "apartheid" and we end up with the likes of Nick Griffin both socially and genetically. I believe the "Nick Griffin" effect is more to do with competition over resources. See previous blog about the tragedy of the commons and enlightened self interest.  This type of person sees the immediate self interest of cultural identity, usually based around resources such as jobs, land, power, valuables or food — as the primary motivator for remaining culturally distinct.  They do not see that identifying who you are is a way of advertising yourself to somone who is genetically different.  Trade and social interaction with the tribe next door is apparently important for short term tactical reasons such as politics or resources, but has been vital for the diversity needed for the evolution of humanity.  Professor Winston has produced some interesting documentaries looking at the reasons why humans subconsciously select a mate.

Living, as we do now, in the global village — where travel is cheap (albeit environmentally expensive), telecommunications are accessible and new media social interconnectedness is vast and growing, we have no need (or derive no competitive edge) to align ourselves to a tribe or locate ourselves permanently in a specific region.  Will this create homogeneity of heterogeneity?  So if competitive advantage is not a sufficient draw to keep us in culturally and genetically distinct groups, and technology is allowing as to interact socially over vast distances will we become more similar or more different?  I can see a utopian humanity where we are one pan global race, the human race, with significant genetic diversity distributed evenly, not clustered, across the population.  If this is our destiny, if cultural diversity will diminish and genetic diversity will become homogeneous what of society?  Will politics and social governance structures become more global?  I'll think I'll save that for the next post.

Sent from my iPhone

Information Error

There is a distinction between data and information.  Similarly there is a distintion between information and considered judgement.

With data such as: total cost of the prison service and the number of prisoners currently incarcerated:-

We get information like: It costs £40,000 per prisoner per year to keep them in prison.

We then get opinions like: The death sentence saves money and Newspapers call for the the return of hanging.

Previously:

When someone has collected the majority of the pertinent data, if not all of the relevant data; they have agregated it and sumarised a balanced view of the available information; and then they have made evidence based judgements and drawn challengeble conclusions, then they can call themselves a journalist and they are worthy of having their report or article published.

You may not have liked someone's conclusion after they had given a subject this 'considered judgement' but at the very least you could evaluate their reasoning and formulate a plausible argument.

Recently:

The development of the pace and currency of 24hr "news" channels initially brought a concern about the emergence of erroneous stories.  For me this has diluted a little now and my frustration is more centred around making "news" stories to fill the airtime - BREAKING NEWS: it's snowing in London

- rather than making news up.

In general, these stations have a prodution team and an editorial team ensuring there is a considered approach. They don't get this right all the time and I do wonder at the value of all the pseudo-news pumping out whilst they await a real news event. However this concern is nothing compared to the very recent phenomenen of rapid transmission of data, information and ill considered opinion on a worldwide platform via social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

I note here that I am fully aware that I am an accomplice in this global pumping out of "news" but hopefully you can see I am considering my role in this phenomenon.  I became aware of the potential for poor judgement on misinformation by us (the general public) when I recieved a very well meaning email request to forward a photo of a kidnapped boy. It turns out, with a little research, that it was an urban myth and actually a spam email chain.  Email though isn't as immediate or interconnected as social media sites.

Today:

Recently (as you know if you follow me on Facebook, Twitter or Linkedin) I've just started reading the Gruaniad on an app on my iPhone and there was an article about a Guatemalan lawyer having a post death video uploaded on to YouTube that surprisingly predicted his death.  This article was in the technology section during the week. Yes, tech is one of my favourites, as is politics.

Apparently, he was murdered and at his funeral a video was played that had him predicting his death at the hands of a corrupt regime. Worldwide public opinion swung in to action and the Guatemalan President was nearly twittered off his perch and YouTube'd into iNfamy.

The dust settles, time passes, journalism investigates (and let's face it CIA covers-up and Politico-doctors spin) and we start to see a considered opinion that is opposite to our twit-gut response.

I don't wish to comment on the Guatemalan lawyer specifically as I have only read the linked article. I am concerned though that it is indicative of a trend in global media, of humanity's desire to achieve prescience.  To be the first to know, to tell everyone that they new before, despite the need to consider facts and context prior to forming a judgement.  I'm not sure this trend can or should be halted, I just hope as a society we are able to handle this new toy.

I would liken it to giving someone a box of matches. With the right guidance, it could be a force for good. Without advice, socially accepted norms and a desire to learn, and even without any nefarious motive- it could cause a destructive inferno.

I vote for the Romans

So having touched initially on Quantum Mechanics and an application to the theory of relativity, I have decided to touch on a lighter subject - European politics.  I think in general I would see myself as a Europhile.  I'm not sure that this is driven by any great political intent, in fact I think I am politically ambiguous - possibly agnostic.  I suspect it comes from being born in England but being identifiably descended from elsewhere.  My surname and complexion indicate that I am probably of Celtic descent. (McDermott)

The precursor to the established Celtic nations; the Scots, the Irish, the Welsh, the Cornish the Bretons etc, were migratory tribes and were a largely pan European, trading society - sharing language, art, culture, genes, oh and blood & body parts, there were a few wars!  I would suggest that most inhabitants of the section of the map above marked blue could trace their ancestry back to these early migratory Europeans without a defined land to call home other than the continent.  I think that I will not be alone in saying, I often feel closer to our continental cousins than I do to some of our island based locals.  So come the local elections, (I never said this was going to be current affairs or topical), when presented with a list of umpteen candidates, I could find no party that defined itself by being pro-European.  Many defined themselves by being anti-European, some ignored the subject but not one made it their clarion call.  In the end, following despair at the lack of pro European options, I resolved to vote for "Roman Party" (bbc news euro elections) on the basis that they were pro European - well they did conquer most of the warm bits. There was a single candidate, named Jean-Louis Pascual, standing for "The Roman Party. Ave!". apparently (Praetor Jean) is a French bus driver who has lived for many years in Reading and stood on the ticket: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."  Great sentiment.  Actually, I failed to post my ballot, and so I continued my many years of political indecision.  Veni Vidi Vici Decrevi .