Referendum shows weren't the highlight.

The Morning Star asked me to review the cultural side of the struggle for 2014. This is what I felt were the key moments of an eventful year. Next year already looks as if it too, is shaping up to be a goody - with a retrospective of Ewan McColl's music, and a celebration of Arthur Johnstone featuring at Celtic Connections 2015.

The 2014 referendum debate inevitably had an impact on this year’s productions. However the domination of pro-Yes sympathies in Scotland’s artistic community didn’t lead to as much important work as anticipated. Successful shows used the debate as a stepping-off point to examine the nature of Scotland, like Rona Munro’s James plays for the National Theatre of Scotland (NToS) at the Edinburgh Festival. 

Front looked at the 1WW from both sides

 

However it is a production in that festival that addressed a different political issue that gets my vote as outstanding. Front, a Flemish production from a German company about the first world war in Flemish, German, French and English was outstanding. Using both Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front and Henri Barbusse’s Under Fire as source material, this was a shocking, emotional and political view from both sides of the line. 

For those who said that the referendum was too close to allow that perspective, NToS also produced the Yes, No, Don’t Know Show, a series of short pieces curated by David Greig and the late and much-missed Dave MacLennan, which was vibrant and humorous. 

Celtic Connections was referendum-lite. Rebel Musics saw Dick Gaughan and Dave Swarbrick  explore the connections between reggae and Scottish music, the Roaming Roots Review’s look at West Coast US music sparkled and the powerful Imelda May rocked out.

Fraser Speirs on the moothy. Rab Noakes on Guitar

Glasgow’s MayDay Cabaret delivered a sell-out concert for the second year in the city’s Oran Mor, with stand-out performances from Bruce Morton and Rab Noakes.

Pro-Yes productions dominated the Edinburgh Festival fringe. Much was poor but David Hayman (pictured) in a A Pitiless Storm rose above the herd. Bravely, Phil Differ’s MacBraveheart had a pop at all sides and crackled with language gags, while Mark Thomas’s history of betrayal, Cuckooed, delivered a thoughtful story. 

 

We lost both 7:84/Wildcat/Play, Pie & Pint founder Dave MacLennan and politician Tony Benn this

The late, and much-missed Dave Maclennan

year. With typical Glasgow resolve, both became the subjects of excellent celebratory concerts, with a galaxy of stars marking the passing of two major talents.

Film of the year for me must go to Pride, the story of the LGBT community and their support for the striking miners in 1984-5. Although flawed by the failure to recognise the politics of a main character — Mark Ashton became general secretary of the Young Communist League — it still highlighted the strong links built between different communities under attack. 

Also heartening was the increasing use of cultural events by campaigns. A series of workers’ films is planned by a local GMB branch and  a range of talks and films was staged by Hope Not Hate in Glasgow around the anti-racist St Andrews Day rally. And of course the Morning Star’s own Our Class, Our Culture series continued its success.

Tak a long spoon…

Tom Watson MP was at the Glasgow Libraries' Book Festival, 'Aye Write'  last night. He was talking about his long (and at times scary) campaign to expose the over powerful ‘Sir’ Rupert Murdoch, and his media empire, News International.

He came across as a generally sincere and likable backbencher, with principles. One of which was that the closeness of the Murdoch media with politicians and the police bordered (!) on corruption. As a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee - he loves films and football! - he took a particular interest in the media. He had also had previous experiences with the Murdoch press, who have doorstepped him, put a private eye on to follow him, raked about in his (and his neighbours) dustbins regularly, and (by admission from a News International journalist) had Rebekah Brooks out to get him, since he resigned as a Defence Minister and ‘damaged her Tony’.

His presentation last night was a lesson in warnings for Alex Salmond. Apart from the admissions of illegal payments to the police, hacking into news subject’s phones on an ‘industrial scale’ and muckraking journalism, he believes that News International had become too powerful in terms of media ownership in the UK, and that Prime Minister after Prime Minister either courted or went in fear of Murdoch.

The fact that he includes in this litany everyone from Margaret Thatcher onwards, and does not spare his own party leaders means, I think, that his warning to Alex Salmond last night (and again in todays Daily Record column) should be taken very seriously. He admits to having admired Salmond and his aptitude to ‘tell the truth to power’. He said he was very surprised that Salmond leapt straight into private meetings with ‘Sir’ Rupert, as one Scottish Government communication erroneously called him. Writing a tribute to the launch of the ‘Sun on Sunday’ in its first issue and allowing the paper to ‘scoop’ the referendum date have tied the first minister into the News International octopus as surely as Andy Coulson’s appointment has done with David Cameron.

It will come back to haunt him. Unlike David Cameron, Alex Salmond’s snuggle up to the old media fox, comes at a time when his papers are under a number of criminal investigations - one by Strathclyde Police. It is in the middle of the Leveson inquiry, which is showing signs of probing even deeper; and a variety of other groups are asking queries about whether the Murdoch clan in general are ‘fit and proper people’ to run media companies.

Should the results of the Leveson Inquiry and/or the corruption inquiries prove to be as damaging as they could be, then the mealy-mouthed excuses of the First Minister’s spokesperson that it is ‘all about jobs’, will be exposed as dangerous delusion. It already seems that it is more likely all about getting the Murdoch media to give Eck their support, as Rupert (I can’t help remembering Denis Potter’s name for his tumour) casts about for some damage to do to the British state that has (finally) turned on him. As Tom Watson said ‘One thing’s for sure, Murdoch is not doing this for the good of Scotland or the Scottish people.’

It is slightly surprising that an experienced campaigner like Salmond (and even more so the SNP media machine that surrounds him) would go down the same road as Blair and Cameron before him. Especially after the experiences of those associations. But he does have previous in cosying up to tycoons. Rupert Murdoch, however,  is not Brian Souter or  even Donald Trump. Tak’ a long spoon? I suggest a ten foot tarry bargepole might be more appropriate.

Stirring the clear yellow water of independence

I was rudely awakened this morning by the sound of the normally calm, urbane and sophisticated Gerry Hassan shouting at some poor unfortunate on GMS! Intrigued as to what had exercised our commentator I listened further. Turns out that this outburst had been occasioned by a disagreement over Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore’s claim that independence would require two referenda to be administered before being achieved.

Gerry was otherwise minded and his ‘opponent’ Alan Trench got both barrels. (Although we found out later that both actually agreed on the advisability or otherwise of this approach.)

But it did suggest to me that Michael Moore might have inadvertantly raised an important procedural point. At what stage does a referendum take place? And what agreements have to be in place before it actually achieves what it sets out to do?

Amidst all the fog of independence-lite, and devolution-max, a number of crucial questions remain to be clarified before clear question(s) could be put to the Scottish people. Ones that immediately come to my mind are - monarchy or republic? boundaries? single currency or sterling? armed forces and defence? There may well be more and each of these - I would hazard - might cause disagreements, not just between unionists and nationalists, but even within the ranks of nationalists. Debate on them could take some resolving, but might make considerable difference to the views of voters. How much would an ‘independent’ Scottish monarchy under a ‘UK’ crown, using ‘UK’ currency, and defended by ‘UK’ troops be ‘independent’ for example - whether the ‘K’ stood for ‘Kingdom’ or ‘Kingdoms’? Would we be more independent in the Euro - shall we ask our Irish, Greek or Portuguese colleagues? Land boundaries might be obvious (leaving aside the question of Berwick-on-Tweed) but what about marine boundaries?

Would any negotiations around these (and other) questions be resolvable by agreement? What happens if the parameters are not agreed? Could we simply leave them to some constitutional court. At one time we might have looked to the UK Supreme Court, I suspect its even-handedness might now be a little more in question! So where would we go now? Europe?

This murky water, I think, is where Michael Moore has placed his size 11s. If we are talking one referendum, then the answers to these (and no doubt other) questions need to be clear to we who are voting. If not, then any early referendum would be about aspirations and would need to be followed by negotiations. On the outcome of these would rest any further vote.

It might be, as Gerry alluded this morning, a device for the British state to draw out and confuse the discussion, but I suspect two factors suggest that this isn’t likely. One, is that within nationalist ranks it seems there are some who are already flying kites on some of these very questions - coming down too definitively on one side or the other may not be in the interests of a united pro-independence campaign. Secondly, are we so sure that Cameron will be too concerned about a separate Scotland? It might be in his political best interests.

Meanwhile, the important (and more concerning) statement that the UK government was not inclined to devolve any more powers under the Scotland Bill, has almost slipped by unnoticed. Is this a ConDem double bluff? Do they want to hand such a key stick to the nationalists?