Promised Land Sound – Sneaky Pete’s 4/02/2017

Nashville’s Promised Land Sound are a band that are hard to describe. Don’t get me wrong they have a ‘sound’ big, compelling, and distinctive. And that’s it – distinctive – I struggle to find them like anything else I’ve listened to.

I’d heard the comparisons to the Byrd’s and Big Star but never really got that despite the soaring harmonies. What good are comparisons anyway when you’re listening to a band as good as Promised Land Sound?

Showcasing songs from their new album ‘For Use and Delight’ they cook up a muscular and sophisticated sound topped with high harmonies and squalling guitars. At times driving and then languid as on ‘She Takes Me There’ the band create their own sound.

The crowd in Edinburgh’s postage stamp sized venue/club Sneaky Pete’s were treated to an evening of melodic effervescent rock from a band that rocks out when it suits and throughout display a range of colour and tone that suggest that there is more to come, much more to come from this young band.

Catch this band if you can, they will repay your attention.

An Evening with Miss Margo Price

Oran Mor, Glasgow 24 January 2017

It was in either December 2015 or April 2016 that I first became aware of Margo Price the honky tonk country force of nature who is carving out a reputation as one of country music’s best new singer songwriters. I have her fellow contemporary country singer Caitlin Rose to thank for that introduction.

From the get go Margo’s honky tonk voice and songs reminded me of that pioneer woman country singer and songwriter Loretta Lynn. Both her voice and songs link directly back to that straight talking real life subjects and lyrics of Loretta. It is perhaps no surprise that Margo Price finds herself debut album released on Jack White’s Third Man Records – White produced and collaborated with Loretta Lynn on her ‘Van Lear Rose’ comeback in 2004.

Like Loretta the songs come from hard bitten experience and deal with the grittier side of life. This is not a moon in June, hearts and flowers songwriter. These are songs that are inspired by hard times, hard living, and redemption. Above all they are infused with her own life experience which thanks to the sheer quality of her songs connects with audiences because of the honesty of the tales they tell. The music harks back to classic country but serves up a bite often lacking from machine modern country.

I got hold of her album ‘Midwest Farmer’s Daughter’ as soon as it came out and it has been on my regular playlist ever since so when I heard she was making her first visit to Scotland to play as part of the annual Celtic Connections Festival getting tickets was a no brainer.

Live Margo Price and her band cook up full tilt honky tonk country rock’n’roll with a panache and warmth that connects straight to the audience.  Opening with ‘How the Mighty Have Fallen’, then taking the show through the many highlights of the album. Stand outs including ‘Hands of Time’, ‘Four Years of Chances’, ‘Weekender’ and ‘Hurtin’ on the Bottle’ adding covers of Dolly Parton’s ‘Jolene’ and an inspired workout on Kris Kristofferson’s ‘Me and Bobby McGee’ Margo showed us all a great time.

She says it took her thirteen years to get to the point of releasing her debut album and on the strength of the new song she featured at Oran Mor ‘You Told me with Your Eyes’ and another new song not performed ‘All American Made’ she’s got more to share with her, rightly, growing audience.

As much as I’m looking forward to future recordings from Margo I can’t wait to catch her live again, real soon.

Find out more about Margo Price www.margoprice.net 

Listen to her session on KEXP https://youtu.be/iavwbKHAnYE 

Lessons for the SNP - a response

This post is in response to an article in the Daily Record by Gerry Hassan. I've always found Gerry provocative and he was certainly that in his article. I felt there were some holes in his analysis and seek to address his points in this post. Helpfully the original article was structured as 11 points and a summary - I've used his original text as the template for my responses.

1. A week ago, Sturgeon said the election gave her “a clear and unequivocal mandate”. That’s not accurate and sets the wrong tone when the public have just elected a minority SNP administration.

The SNP are the clear winners of the election - in terms of seats won, constituencies won, votes won. The result may be a minority government as the SNP is two seats short of a majority but that may not be what the electorate wished for rather the result that the system of proportional representation produced.
 

2. There is now an established pattern emerging of SNP over-reach seen in the three peaks of the referendum, the 2015 general election and this year’s elections.

The SNP don’t seem to know how to deal with huge success (last year), slight reverses (this year) and major reverses (referendum). That’s a worrying pattern.

I don't think this evidences a pattern other that differing results to different questions or choices at elections and a referendum. I wouldn't say that's a pattern. Over-reach is not explained - is over-reach something the SNP created and what is it or is it the expectation of a majority which was predicted by pollsters and commentators but never taken for granted by the SNP?

3. The SNP vote rose compared to 2011 in constituencies and fell in regional list percentage-wise. They made great play of winning one million votes – up 156,982 on 2011 – but down from “Peak SNP” last year, from 49.97 per cent to 46.5 per cent with 394,539 less votes.

Last year's Westminster election had a higher turnout, different boundaries, fewer parties and was first-past-the-post. The Scottish Parliament elections were held against the backdrop of that astonishing success for the SNP and relentless opinion polls suggesting another ground breaking performance from the SNP with no close challenger. Despite the 'no-contest' nature of the election and the further collapse of Labour and the LibDems (outside of the LibDems carefully targeted constituency wins) the SNP advanced in terms of constituency seats won and total vote. It is worth noting that fewer parties contested the constituencies which helped the SNP while the regional list contest was more crowded and competitive which worked against the SNP.

 

4. The SNP won 25.9 per cent of the electorate’s votes, nearly the same share with which David Cameron won in 2015, 24.5 per cent, that led to cries of “Tory dictatorship” from some on the left.
The SNP has been smeared by opponents of turning Scotland into a 'one party state' is this what the 'Tory dictatorship' label alludes to? Also, while I can understand the point Gerry is trying to make about share of the electorate I am unclear what point he is making unless it is to point out the ludicrousness of the 'one-party' gibe. 
 

5. The response of many Nationalists is that share of the electorate doesn’t matter. Turnout affects legitimacy and strength of mandate. A landslide on 55 per cent compared to 75 per cent is very different. Just as a Scotland of indyref participation levels is different from Scottish Parliament turnouts.
Turnouts for the Scottish parliament elections have always been lower than Westminster - why would this Scottish government be any more or less legitimate than any previous one? Turnout was up on 2011.
 

6. Scotland’s democratic revolution is diminishing. The referendum had an 85 per cent turnout, last year 71 per cent and now 55.6 per cent – 5.2 per cent up on 2011.

That small increase from five years ago is an echo from the referendum explosion, with participation down 1.344million from September 2014 and 631,312 from last year.
This is a moot point. The referendum was a one off in a way - many people voted in that election who haven't habitually voted in elections at any level. The tribal nature of party electoral politics and scientific methods of targeted campaigning may have both turned off and not reached voters. Also the relentlessly strong position of the SNP in opinion polls will have driven down turnout - 'why bother voting, they're going to win anyway'. 
 

7. The SNP are the most national party of Scotland, much more so than Labour or the Tories at their peak. Yet, slowly the SNP are becoming more West of Scotland, with all but one of the party’s 11 constituency gains being in the west.
To some extent I can't argue with this other than to say that the SNP won more in the West of Scotland because Labour had held on there in 2011 and collapsed there in 2015. The SNP does have lessons to learn from the constituency losses in Edinburgh Western, North East Fife, and Aberdeenshire West and the closeness of the vote in places such as Ayr and Edinburgh South and Edinburgh Central. Success in just two of these seats would have won that majority (though an SNP victory in Ayr may have cost the SNP a list seat in the South of Scotland regional vote).
 

8. The SNP are still the dominant party in their old areas but while they look impregnable in the west, they are still not as popular as Labour were at their peak – the highest SNP Glasgow vote being Nicola Sturgeon’s 61 per cent, whereas in 1997 Labour won 73 per cent and 71 per cent in Shettleston and Springburn.
Comparing Scottish Parliament results with Westminster again which is not a good thing. Besides is it a 'good' thing to emulate Labour by winning votes shares of 71-73% of the vote in a multi-party democracy?
 

9. After nine years, where do new ideas come from and how do the party avoid policy exhaustion? One problem is the lack of an SNP-orientated, independence-supporting think tank. If the SNP can renew in office and win a future referendum,they have to be open to fresh thinking.
Absolutely, there is a lack of an SNP inclined think tank. That has been the case for decades but is it a bad thing? Is one needed and given its size and depth of experience in its ranks and amongst its supporters is there a way of creating policy forums? The SNP does have its underused National Assembly which until devolution used to discuss and formulate policy on broad issues often calling in experts from outside. Perhaps a combination of internal policy forums around the existing structure of the National Assembly allied with consultative outward facing initiatives could harness fresh policy ideas without the need for a 'think-tank' as such which often comes with its own baggage and agenda.
 
 

10. Pluralism. The SNP have a self-discipline that aided them on the way up. They now have to relax a bit, let go a little and allow a culture of debate and dissent, particularly in the party and independence community.
Agree. The SNP conference debates on NATO membership, fracking and land reform show that the SNP can have these debates with its members and through these engage and respond to campaigns outwith the party.
 

11. Independence is the subject of a forthcoming campaign but where is the work on a new independence package? Where even is the party’s post-mortem on losing the 2014 vote?

There can be no second referendum without a completely revised offer on the currency, Bank of England and Treasury, economics and public spending, along with Europe. What are the party waiting for?
As the SNP is playing a longer game there should be room to consider the views of those who reluctantly voted 'no'. It would be too easy to say the party fully understands all the reasons - it needs to listen. Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear that is a central part of this summers independence campaign. She sees it as important to reach out to those who had enough doubt to vote 'no' in 2014. One could ask where the wider Yes post-mortem is and what its conclusions were. My view is that any post-mortem by the Yes campaign has been limited to the remaining local groups and did not go beyond the self congratulatory and in some cases demonisation of those who voted 'no'. Yes Scotland shut up shop immediately the campaign was over. Possibly an astute move in that it avoided splits and recriminations but on the other hand it may have also avoided rational analysis of the reasons the 'No' campaign won.
 

The SNP have been at the helm of three great waves of political success – the referendum (despite losing), the 2015 election and the 2016 Scottish elections.

They have much to be proud of in each. Yet, there has also been in each, post-vote, an unwillingness to confront home truths.

The worst of these was the referendum aftermath – with Alex Salmond, in particular, coming over as a poor loser who felt his rightful triumph was snatched from him.
This analysis does not ring true to me. My feeling way that Alex handled it well and that his resignation was the right response, was not bitter (it could have been) and allowed the SNP to regroup under Nicola Sturgeon. That has proven extremely successful. Contrast that, if you will, with the collapse of the Quebecois movement after their last referendum where they came much closer to winning that the Yes campaign did. In Quebec the aftermath was divided and bitter whereas the aftermath in Scotland was positive and saw the growth of the independence supporting parties.
 

In 2015, there was too much loose talk that the SNP’s 56 MPs spoke for Scotland.
The SNP did win the vast majority of seats - no other party has ever won as many and as such could be said to be speaking for Scotland. The SNP MPs have certainly made much more of an impact on Westminster politics that Labour's 50 MPs did after 1987. The SNP MPs have provided consistent and credible opposition to the UK Tory government.
 

Some in the party will say what does this matter? We are the winners. However, the SNP don’t speak for most Scots. They have to understand this if they want to govern effectively, remain popular – and win a future referendum.
If the SNP does not speak for Scotland then who does? An argument can always be made with electoral systems in a multi party set up that more people voted for you than voted against. The fact is, though, that the SNP have in the Westminster election won the vast majority of constituency seats and likewise they won the vast majority of of constituency seats in the Scottish Parliament elections. 
In terms of the next independence referendum the SNP leadership know that they need to win it so are playing a long game, seeking to fully understand the concerns of those who did not put their cross in the Yes box on 18th September 2014. Through that understanding and that examination they will be seeking to build a platform for independence that achieves the winning position and one that learns from both the success and the failures of the past referendum. 

I'd like to thank Gerry for provoking me to respond to his article and think about the points he raised. I'd also like to thank Simon Barrow for challenging me to provide my response following my 'more holes than a moth eaten jumper' post on Facebook. The jumper may be slightly less moth eaten than when I made the comment!

Rob Munn
Rob has been an active SNP member since 1986 and is a long time local organiser in Leith and North Edinburgh. He was part of the grassroots Yes Edinburgh North & Leith group.  

Quebec: has the sovereignty movement hit the buffers?

The dust has hardly settled on the Quebec elections and commentators in Canada and Scotland are already pronouncing the Quebecois dream of an independent francophone nation in North America well and truly dead.

Here is Scotland it is largely overjoyed Better Together supporters drawing lazy comparisons in order the provide cheap ammunition in their war against the momentum of the Yes campaign. In anglophone Canada the PQ defeat has been widely welcomed as a vote for the 'status quo' and federal Canada. The triumphalism in most Toronto based press is palpable and just a little overblown.

In Quebec the story is, in reality, just a little more complicated. True the main sovereignty party the Parti Quebecois (PQ) have been unceremoniously ditched by the electorate and replaced by a Liberal Party which itself was rejected just 18 short months ago following a series of funding and corruption scandals that are subject to an ongoing public inquiry  Astonishing really that a party whose links with allegations of corruption of its politicians and government officials could be forgiven so quickly.

When PQ leader Pauline Marois dissolved the National Assembly she was in a strong position - ahead in the polls and widely tipped to win the majority she was seeking to enact her program. It was the blocking of the PQ agenda by the Liberals and the Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) which convinced Marois that with the polls on her side she should call a snap election.

There's a back story that's been missed by most of the commentators so far and that is the the sovereignty movement has been fractured for the past few years. When the PQ were in opposition before 2012 there were two splits that lead to breakaway parties. One was Francois Legault a former PQ front bencher who left and formed CAQ. His new party is soft on the sovereignty issue and must be pleased to see their share of seats move up in the outcome of the elections. The other splinter was Jean-Martin Aussant another former PQ front bencher who set up the small but energetic Option Nationale (ON) to ply a more strongly sovereigntist line. Aussant was an MNA (Member of the National Assembly) when he resigned from the PQ and set up ON but lost his seat in 2012 and stood down as leader in 2013. ON under the leadership of Sol Zanetti pushed a strong line this time round using the slogan 'Reveiller du courage!' and 'Independence'. Their most creditable performance this time was in Taschereau a tight PQ/Liberal marginal where Catherine Dorion resisted the squeeze on votes. There is also the left party Quebec Solidaire (QS) who seemed to play down the sovereignty message this time in favour of social justice - it paid off as the they held their previous two seats and added a third. It is also worth noting the the PQ, ON and QS all gained from the 'Maple Spring' student unrest in Quebec in 2011/12.

So what of 2014? Well the PQ had to some extent weathered the controversy around the 'Charter of Values' which sought to proscribe public servants wearing religious symbols (an issue not uncommon to several European countries) but what appears to blown the election seems to be what PQ thought would be their game changer (in a good way) - the recruiting of Quebecor media mogul Pierre Karl Peladeau to run as a candidate. When he made a televised speech in his riding saying effectively Quebec should be independent the comments were pounced on by the media (the anglophone media in particular), and the opposition. The question of a new referendum then became the focus of the election and this was immediately reflected in the polls. What at the outset looked like bold leadership in calling an election when PQ were ahead in the polls quickly turned into a political and personal disaster for Marois with her party losing seats hers included and the Liberals gaining a solid majority.

The problem on the issue of sovereignty was the lack of clarity of what the PQ plans were. It may be true that large sections of the Quebec electorate are happy enough for the PQ to rule Quebec but are less ready to embrace another referendum. Marois and the PQ failed to work out their strategy on the issue in a way that could have convinced the electorate enough to trust them with another period in government. Unlike the SNP the PQ found minority government difficult, failing to achieve support for their policies and therefore unlike the SNP failed to provide the electorate the confidence in their competence in government that in Scotland allowed the SNP to build a wide enough base to achieve a majority. The other advantage that the SNP has had is its clear stance on the referendum issue - indeed the the promise of a referendum actually seemed to diffuse the independence issue in Scottish politics as the issue itself would not be decided in one election but some time after and the voters would have that choice. Lack of clarity on the referendum process and even if there would be a referendum created enough uncertainty that when the focus turned to that the wheels came of the PQ campaign bus.

Where does that leave the PQ and the sovereignty issue? Becalmed but not over would be my prediction. PQ will regroup and choose a new leader. They will draw breath and consider their platform carefully for future elections. They still have a solid group of 30 in the National Assembly as the official opposition. The other parties will reflect too - ON has already stated they will focus on developing their Independence platform. The sovereignty dream may have led to a rude awakening but the wake up call may be just what the sovereignty movement needs to find focus.

Paper Aeroplanes - Cabaret Voltaire Edinburgh 18/2/2014

I'm not entirely sure how I discovered the charms of the Paper Aeroplanes, was it some late night itunes/amazon browsing? Whatever it was I downloaded a free mp3 of 'Red Rover' and was quietly smitten, rushing off one lunch time to buy their album ‘Little Letters’. For a number of months their songs from this and their e.p.s have had regular plays around my house and on my ipod.  One of my daughters has even taken a liking to ‘Dry My Eyes’. Quite an achievement to penetrate the world of Taylor Swift and CarlyRae Jepson!

I always find it a bit of a challenge going to see new singers and bands. There’s a fear that actually I won’t get it and live they’ll disappoint. I must be mad to think that especially in relation to the Paper Aeroplanes. Sarah Howells and Richard Llewellyn were joined by a full band and they were mesmerising, reaching all shades of tone, tenderness and even attack. Yes there’s a folksiness (that’s not a bad thing) and that is crossed with a pure pop sensibility which captures you and captivates.  They have huge melodies, wistful reflective lyrics and several songs which in a fairer world would be huge hits. ‘Skies on Fire’ exemplifies that perfectly – a huge tune that would connect with any crowd and deserves to connect to a bigger crowd than were gathered tonight.

www.paperaeroplanesmusic.com @sarahaeroplane www.facebook.com/paperaeroplanesmusic 

End of the Green Belt line?

You might not have heard of the Edinburgh Local Development Plan (LDP) or the Strategic Development Planning Authority for Edinburgh and South East Scotland (SESplan) and its Supplementary Planning Guidance. Both of these strategic planning documents and the potential implications that flow from them not only could but in my view will lead to the destruction of Edinburgh's green belt and creation of car dominated suburban sprawl.

The crux of the matter is the perception that Edinburgh needs to encroach on its green belt to provide housing for its growing population. But hang on a minute I hear you say what about the Waterfront developments which were to provide Edinburgh with a 21st Century new town accommodating a population the size of Falkirk? Ah, well say the planners Forth Ports was taken over and the new owners want to concentrate on port activity and related industrial uses at Leith. There will still be houses but fewer of them and anyway the volume housing developers prefer to develop green field sites - its cheaper you see and consequently provides shareholders with greater profits. Simple really. The developers bleat on about the development economics of developing land which is now 'too expensive' while quite happily raising the value of agricultural land around the City fringe making land owners rich and providing their own profit margins. But don't worry it's alright because they are providing 'much needed' housing for the city.

Is this really the way to map out Edinburgh's future shape and how people live in this great city? Is there another way of coping with housing demand and strengthening the communities of the city in a way that is more sustainable. Part of the joke of the proposed expansion into the green belt at Cammo and Maybury is that people are told that the cars will stay at home as people flock to the Trams. It's an argument trumpeted in David Murray's contra plan to put over 3000 houses in the so-called 'Garden District' at Hermiston. It's a joke and the planners know it - the volume of cars on the roads in these areas will increase without the problems that already exist with congestion on routes into the city being solved.

The time is overdue for a wide ranging public debate on what the city should look like - how can the value of the dormant brownfield sites be unlocked, what density should housing be built to, can the city build truly green eco housing for the future, can we adjust our thinking away from dormitory zoning where people live at a) and work at z) resulting in travelling across town or region, is there a future for the green belt, can improved public transport and the routes they use answer the transit problems.

It would seem that the planning system as it exists is not minded to allow the space to think out a future as it lurches from one plan to another - the recent City Local Plan and Rural West Edinburgh Local Plan which are supposed to be in force and guide planning decisions already seem to be superseded by the as yet unadopted Local Development Plan. No sooner will that LDP be in place than work will begin on it's successor. These are not so much plans but transitional enablers of contradictory development. The process resembles a box ticking exercise that neither considers the neighbourhoods its creating nor the communities affected.

Stifled? 'A Happy New Year for Democracy'

A Labour party member recently told me that the Scottish Labour Party has never had an internal debate or discussion on the independence question. The line - anti-independence - had merely been established by the leadership and imposed locally. It is assumed all members will support the ‘Better Together’ campaign and pitch up to leaflet when they are told. Local discussion on the matter in branches is frowned upon if not entirely extinguished.

You could say ‘what do they expect?’ however like many on the left but not in the Labour party some Labour members might actually prefer independence to the union. Like many on the left they may feel that breaking the mould of ‘British’ politics is not just the way to build the progressive society they want in Scotland but also a means to awaken radical democratic change in England too.

Machine politics has stifled this home rule thread of Scottish Labour thought. Much has been made of people like Charles Gray, Alex Mosson and John Mulvey joining the YES campaign. All former local government leadership figures now retired and pointing the way to independence. Where are the current Labour politicians espousing independence and a YES vote? In the main they are cowed and careful. Some no doubt quietly threatened with deselection keep the head down. The exception was former Labour Councillor Alex Lunn in Edinburgh but he found he couldn’t campaign for independence from the Labour benches and jumped ship to the SNP.

You could say this is all conspiracy and Labour is a democratic organisation that lauds free-speech. Maybe it is but it doesn’t look like that from the outside and from testimony isn’t like that internally particularly when it comes to Scottish Independence.

So it was a brave man in Dave Pickering erstwhile reporter with the North Edinburgh News a community newspaper serving Granton Pilton Muirhouse & Drylaw when he posted an article on their website on the 12 January ‘A Happy New Year for Democracy’ where he articulated his reasons for supporting a YES vote. The article is brave and honest and reflected what a lot of Labour and ex-Labour voters have to say about their party, parliamentary politics and the opportunities of independence. The article promptly disappeared later that day and it seems along with it the North Edinburgh News twitter account - searching for @northednews_NEN brings an internal server message. Tweets to the author and the Chair of the board of the North Edinburgh News, Martin Hinds (also Chair of Edinburgh Labour's Campaign Forum) have so far gone unanswered. The article has been found cached here. 

The sad thing is that I know Dave Pickering from my time as a Councillor and he always seemed like a fair guy a Labour stalwart sure but nothing wrong with that. Maybe he had second thoughts, maybe he was asked to think again. Whatever the story is and I sincerely hope we find out what it is the article is testament to generations of Labour members and indeed Scots who see in the independence referendum a route to a new Scotland. A Scotland that chimes with the ideals they hold close.

Update: since the post above was published Dave Pickering's article has been republished on www.wingsoverscotland.com Really glad the article has appeared again.