Justin (time) Trudeau or Trudeamania Mark II


I caught up with some good friends for a drink at the Wellcome Trust recently during a research trip. There were a few new faces and once basic introductions were made, a new face to me – someone late of Scandinavia –turned conversation to politics and Canadian politics in particular. She was wholeheartedly impressed by the new Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau, and his response to forming a gender equal cabinet. ‘Because it’s 2015’, was his very Trudeau-esque rebuttal.
The remark might not quite have had the defiance or, indeed, inherent threat of ‘just watch me’, the most infamous words uttered by JT’s father Pierre, but it showed that something had certainly changed in Canadian politics, but in a back to the future sort of way. I should readily admit to being an unapologetic Trudeauophile. Although the Liberal party is the only major Canadian party I have never voted for (I was even a youthful dabbler in Preston Manning’s Reform movement), I always liked Trudeau, even as a kid. What I knew of his policies, I liked, and his personality seemed to balance all the qualities needed of a leader in a parliamentary democracy where majority governments are common: he was thoughtful and was willing to change his mind about things when appropriate (unlike Thatcher, he did not have the bloody-mindedness of an aircraft carrier without a rudder), but he could also be stubborn when the situation demanded it, such as during the FLQ crisis, and he clearly did not suffer fools gladly. For me, he was far and away Canada’s best prime minister.
PET also loved Canada and had a vision for making it better. He was a quintessentially Canadian prime minister. One of the things that has struck me about non-Canadians commenting about the new Trudeau at 22 Sussex is how very un-Canadian they saw the previous Harper regime to be. What they probably meant is Harper’s mean, parsimonious, conservative approach to everything. While I accept all of that, I also think that the really un-Canadian aspect of Harper’s regime was his complete and utter lack of vision. Even with a massive majority, his masterplan reached only as far as mindless cuts and asserting the sort of tired, unimaginative and dogmatic policies that people on the right unceasingly toss out: deny climate change; get cosy with Israel; ridicule the arts; decimate academia (even the sciences). I might not agree with much of what Manning’s Reform movement stood for now (though Manning was one of the first Canadian politicians to speak out about climate change), but at least they had a vision; at least they wanted to do something! Harper’s modus operandi was neoliberal inertia.
So what of JT? Ever since he delivered his tearful eulogy at his father’s funeral, his path to PM has been clearly marked. Indeed, Richard Nixon predicted his calling long before that. But, rather than becoming a policy wonk like Harper, and nearly every single British party leader, or even a lawyer, as is the pattern in Canada, he went and got a job as a teacher. He got at least a taste of normal life, just as his father did, travelling through India and protesting with nascent nationalists in Quebec during the ‘40s. And while the dynastic nature of his rise to power – not to mention the tragedies faced by the Trudeau family – have a Kennedy-esque quality, I think it’s clear he lacks their unbridled arrogance and ambition. He seems to have been drawn to politics for the right reasons, which is a rare thing. While he appears to have some of his father’s steel, he also has his mother’s humanity, a quality to which Canadians relate.
Like most Canadians, I am hopeful. I also wonder what JT’s influence will be beyond Canada’s three shores. Will he be the first PM since his father to have an impact on the world stage? Will his election, like the last 35 years of Canadian political history, foreshadow what will come to pass in Britain, as it has tended to of late? For Britons who scoff or despair at the election of Jeremy Corbyn, take heed at what’s happened in Canada, not just federally, but also in provinces such as Alberta. Change may well be afoot. Perhaps just in time.

Big Number 5


Tomorrow, I am heading off with my daughter to buy my son a birthday present.  Not just any birthday present, but his 5th birthday present.  Number 5.  It’s hard to believe.  Yes, I know he’s been in school for nearly two months now, enough time to warrant having an autumn break (which he is spending with his mum in Pitlochry), but something about 5 seems big.

I think I remember my 5th birthday.  I am pretty sure we had a party in my basement and that my cousin threw a plastic fork at me that ended up in my eye.  I had to wear a patch for a few days and, every time I go to the optometrist, they tell me that the scar is still there.   I hope Dashiell’s party will be quite as scarring.  Rather than inviting every kid in school to a soft play circus, he’s decided just to invite his best bud, Aaron.  Unfortunately – for me – we will be going to a soft play place, but I will count my blessings!  We’ll head back to ours for some lunch and cake with Aaron’s family – much nicer than 30 screaming kids in a smelly function room somewhere.

But I’m veering away from the point.  Dashiell is about to be 5.  Half way to 10.  How is it possible?  Five years ago, I had a full life.  I did my work, did my playing, did a lot of volunteering, a lot of singing and had a lot of ‘me’ time.  There’s not so much of that these days, but it is getting a little better.  Dashiell is starting to like some of the stuff I like.  We do RSPB volunteering together and he is the star volunteer: ‘He just gets down to work with no complaints’, the coordinator says.  He is also starting to like a wide range of music.  I played South Pacific for him recently with no complaint, along with Weather Report, Jersusalem Ridge and the Clash.  Stan Rogers and Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf are his favourites.  He is a natural on the bike and already is better than me at lego – that’s not saying much, but like I keep saying – he’s not even 5!  While his palette isn’t developing as quickly as we’d like, we have our little victories – yesterday it was sweet potato.  And, quite importantly, he appears to be liking school.

So, tomorrow it’s off to the shops to get some presents. Presents for a 5-year-old.  Scary and exhilarating, but true.

Mental Health in Historical Perspective


After spending a few years editing book reviews for History of Psychiatry journal, I realised that there was a need for a new book series.  You see, I am not someone who is on the pulse, on the ball or particularly clued in.  And I am fairly lazy.  So, if I want to find some books on the history of mental health to commission, I don’t want to go all over the place searching as if I were trying to find a picture of myself at a Dr Who convention.  I’d much prefer going to one place and getting what I need there.

Well, that isn’t really possible as a book reviews editor.  One does have to snuffle about for books to review.  But it is now easier with the launch of Mental Health in Historical Perspective, a new book series with Palgrave, edited by myself and Professor Catharine Coleborne of the University of Waikato.  We hope that the series will be the first port of call for anyone looking for monographs or edited volumes in the history of mental health, broadly defined.  The first book we’ll launch is Psychiatry in Communist Europe and we hope many more will follow.  Please do get in touch if you have any other ideas.

Now, I really won’t have an excuse if a book on the history of mental health passes me by…

The Pinkie Resilience Project


It’s been a wee while since my last post (thanks, Nisha, for reminding me – this post is dedicated to you!). But there are some good reasons for that. One can be found in the title of this post. What is the Pinkie Resilience Project, you ask? Well, it’s a bit of a long story…

It all started when a child psychiatrist named Iain McClure heard me give a 5-minute talk on the histor of hyperactivity on Radio 3. I think he said later that he was in the shower, which I didn’t really need to know. Anyway, he was intrigued by my take on ADHD and we stayed in touch, eventually presenting a paper together at a conference here at Strathclyde. One of those in attendance was the head teacher of Pinkie St Peter’s Primary in Musselburgh, with whom Iain works on a regular basis. She liked what she heard from me, Iain and the others on the panel and wondered if we could all collaborate to develop a pilot project promoting good mental health in very young children.

At the time, I thought, uh, sure, I guess so, but didn’t really think anything would come of it (I am quite the pessimist, really). But a day or so later, I saw a call for proposals from the Scottish Universities Insight Initiative addressing reducing inequalities in post-referendum Scotland (this was just before the big day) and I figured we’d give it a shot. Four months later we have £15,000 to run a series of events aimed at developing a pilot project at Pinkie. It’s a great opportunity to make a real difference (dare I say impact) in the community, or at least raise some awareness about child mental health and all its various determinants. For more on the specifics, go here:

Although I really shouldn’t be heading the project (for a great number of reasons), I am, and, as such, I get a say in what gets covered in our programme of events. My main focus as been to ensure that as many determinants of mental health are discussed, particularly at our symposium in April. Nutrition, exercise, exposure to nature and music will be on the agenda, along with some of the more usual suspects. After the symposium, we will hold a workshop where we select the initiatives most suited to Pinkie and think about applying for funding for a pilot. While my expectations, as ever, are not particularly high, you never know what might happen. Maybe we will start to get more clever about child mental health, and children/childhood, more generally in Scotland.

Hyde Park, Chicago


It’s my birthday and I am far, far, far away from home. I’d much rather be at home in Glasgow with my family, but I am in Chicago instead on a research trip that culminates in a conference (more on that later). Where I am specifically is in Hyde Park, a neighbourhood made famous by the current president of the USA, Barack Obama, who is anxiously monitoring exit polls as I type. Or maybe he’s playing basketball. That’s what I’d do if I were him.

Anyway, I’m in Hyde Park, which is probably about the same size as that other Hyde Park. On balance I’d rather be in the latter, though I can see the merits of where I am right now. Hyde Park is a racially diverse, attractive neighbourhood that houses the University of Chicago. It’s the sort of place that makes you forget that 40 people were killed in Chicago on the July 4th weekend alone this summer in gun violence. So far in 2014 over 1500 people have been shot in Chicago. I imagine a few more have been stabbed, bludgeoned and strangled as well. It’s hard to imagine this until you walk into the University of Chicago library and note the sign that asks you politely not to smoke or bring your firearm into the building. In fact, however, you don’t have to wander far from here to enter the neighbourhoods where said guns are as common as wooly hats in November. A reminder that, like in much of the USA, Chicago has its good, its bad and its ugly. It is good to be in a neighbourhood where African Americans appear to be thriving, it makes you wonder about what will take to help all of those living not so far from here to make something of their lives as well.

Of course, such issues have long been acknowledged in Chicago. That’s why I’m here, examining archival material about social psychiatry, an approach to mental health that focussed on socioeconomic inequalities above all. I wonder what the proponents of social psychiatry would make of matters today. Appalled, of course, but equally convinced that they were right.

The Saltire Blues


I don’t tend to get depressed.  Or at least I haven’t gotten depressed very often in the last twenty years or so.  Certainly deaths, the weather and supporting the Edmonton Oilers for the last twenty years can get a person down, but such troughs have never lasted long with me (though the Oilers loss in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals in 2006 was a monumental bummer).

This week I was depressed.

It was the 55% that got me down.  The percentage of Scotland’s electorate that opted not to take a chance on change.  While my gloom wasn’t as intense as a colleague who concluded that ‘Scotland is dead’, it was pretty intense.  I thought I could rely on my kids to cheer me up, but they only made me think of their future, and that it wouldn’t be in an independent Scotland.  All that hope that had built in the weeks leading up to the 18th transmuted into just a dead, empty feeling.  I could see it in others, too.  Not surprising, seeing that more Glaswegians than not had voted Yes.

I also felt angry, which in my experience can be a nasty sidekick to the blues.   During the week, I heard of many people whose employers had warned them that a Yes vote might cost them their jobs.  They, understandably perhaps, voted accordingly.  How was that democratic, I asked myself?  And of course those who felt the least secure in their jobs were probably the easiest to convince.  If that happened in a general election, they’d be calling for UN observers.

The real low point, however, came early.  On Friday, we went next door for a party – their daughter was heading for university in England.  We were there with the kids and, after about an hour, Michelle and I decided to head to ours to put them to bed.  She followed suit, but I headed back.  Bad decision.  I caught up with a cadre of fellow mourners (all men – it seemed as though most the women had voted no) and we drank and kvetched and kvetched and drank.  All of the sudden it was early the next morning and I staggered home.  I didn’t think I had drunk that much, but the hangover said otherwise.  I did my best impression of a fire hydrant for the next 15 hours, making me a perfectly useful father and husband.  No, it didn’t feel good.

The gloom finally lifted when I headed off to the library on Thursday to officially start my new research project on social psychiatry.  Maybe it was the smell of musty old American Journal of Psychiatry volumes, maybe it was finally starting a project I’ve wanted to do for a decade, maybe it was the fact that two of my students were in the quiet part of the library with me, starting on their dissertations; whatever it was, I was smiling again.  Hopeful.  The next day I played a game of basketball and the other players commented on my energy.  I thought it was probably that my body had been purged of damn near everything on Saturday, but perhaps it was also a fresh start of sorts.

So, if we’re starting again, where are we going?  Well, having just watched some of the highlights of the Ryder Cup, I have an idea.  It was amazing to see the joy on the faces of the victorious Europeans when they realised they had won.  These, the most solitary and independent of sportspeople, in the most exclusive of games, usually have to celebrate solo.  But the Ryder Cup gives them the chance to compete, struggle, lose and win together.  When they triumph, they triumph as one.  When they lose, no one is alone.  And so it should be.  In life as it is in the Ryder Cup.  That’s why I voted Yes.  And that’s the way forward.


Bullets, Bins and Ballots



0620: I walk downstairs with Solveigh a little bleary, but better rested than most days.  After I put the coffee on, I realise that it’s the big day, the 18th of September.  I put Solveigh in her high chair, give her some grapes after checking to see how her first tooth is coming in, and turn on the radio to hear if there’s any news about the referendum.  But instead I hear a report from Syria.  A BBC reporter has been given access to the Syrian Army on the frontline, where they’re battling either IS or the Free Syrian Army – it isn’t clear. The sound of bullets break ripple into our kitchen as the reporter announces that a firefight has erupted between the opposing forces.  Closing his report, he reminds Solveigh and myself of the millions of lives displaced in the civil war.  Shocked by the apparently rapid rise of IS, yet only a year on from bombing Syrian government forces, the US and the UK are at loss as to what to do.  I wonder to Solveigh whether this could be an opportunity to pressure Assad to change his ways, in return for help, but doubt that such creativity has a role in the world of real politik.


1230: I tie into a spicy pasta salad and login to facebook.  I see that a friend of mine has put up a video of some sad-sack Ukrainian politician being thrown into a bin by an angry mob.  Vitaly Zhuravsky used to be in the government of former President Victor Yanukovich, but now has been relegated to entertaining people on social media.  As we all know, after Yanukovich was also binned by the mob, sparking the civil war in Crimea and East Donetsk.  A referendum of sorts was used to justify the secession of Crimea; the people of East Donetsk have not been so lucky and Europe (if we can call it that – isn’t that  the nub of it all?) has seen the worst conflict since Kosovo.  Of course, it hasn’t been just Ukrainians (or whatever they want to be called) that have borne the brunt of such violence, as the downing of a Malaysian airliner carrying, amongst other innocents, dozens of Dutch schoolchildren sadly shows.  One hundred years after the start of the Great War, one wonders if people learn anything from history.


1645: I pick Dashiell up from nursery a little early so I can go vote.  I try to explain to him what an election is and am tickled when he decides that he would like to vote Yes.  We have a typically surreal moment along the bike path that starts when Dash asks me about when we’ll go on a boat again I mishear him and start droning on about the electoral system.  Vote and boat: it’s an honest mistake.  We roll up to the primary school, passing half a dozen Yes supporters and a lonely, slightly creepy No supporter (it’s not his fault he looks like Dave Lee Travis).  After a quick pit stop for Dash – no sense introducing him to democracy with a full bladder – I mark the box next to Yes and let Dash put the ballot into the box for me.  As we leave I feel elated at participating with my son in the most important vote in the history of Scotland.  No one has been shot or been thrown into any bins.  And whatever the result, I think we can all feel proud for that.

5 Questions about Aye or Naw


It’s less than a week until the referendum and the coverage has been heavier than the mascara on a Miss Georgia contestant.  Recently, it’s occurred to me, after listening to argument after argument for aye or naw that, when you boil it down, 5 questions are determining most people’s decisions.  Here they are:

1) Optimist or pessimist?

Most of Better Together’s approach has been to warn that independence will indubitably lead to disaster: no currency; no defence force; no EU; no economy; no hope.  In contrast, the Yes campaign emphasises the positives: social democracy; becoming the new Norway  (which is actually a place in Saskatchewan – be careful what you wish for); reducing inequality; safeguarding the NHS; renewable energy; the national team reaching the World Cup; happy times.  Which basically equates to whether you are a glass-full or glass empty person.  Now while I do think this explains quite a bit, what people should probably also focus on is whether an independent Scotland would given them more of a voice to change things for the better.  And I think it would.  Voting no is basically glumly accepting that things will always be pretty much the way they have always been.  Which might be true, but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to make things better.  Even if our currency will have to be the bitcoin.

2) Voting for yourself or voting for your country?

A little while ago I had an interesting chat with another Canadian working in a Scottish university about the referendum.  I was hoping to have an engaging conversation about Quebec, 1995 and the notwithstanding clause (google it), but he quickly cut things off by saying that he would be voting no because he was scared about what would happen to the research council funding he currently enjoyed.  Now, as someone starting an AHRC project in a few weeks, perhaps I should be thinking such things myself, but, instead, I found myself just getting annoyed (read previous post for more on why).  Why the hell should some academic in a cushy post (let’s face it, fellow ivory tower residents, it’s not as if we’re dinner ladies) base his vote on whether he has a super great wonderful brilliant career or merely a super great one?  And that’s assuming that Scotland, which ran successful universities long before the Act of Union, couldn’t match or do better than the current UK system.  When I cheekily suggested that he should then vote Yes to avoid another referendum on the UK’s EU membership (which the Tories have promised if they win a majority in a sleazy attempt to win UKIP voters), as it could jeopardise Horizon 2020 funding, he simply shrugged and said that he wasn’t currently funded by them.

I had to hand it to him.  He was honest.  And I’ve got to be honest: one of the reasons I’m voting Yes is because an independent Scotland would have a more accommodating immigration policy which would welcome me and my family a bit more than the UK system; after living here for over eight years, I still don’t have leave to remain and I just spent £2500 extending my visa.  But, for the most part, I will probably pay more taxes, earn a little less and have a smaller pension pot in an independent Scotland.  I might miss out on my beloved BBC, lose track of what’s going on with the England and Wales cricket team and be stuck changing my currency when I head down to Devon for a holiday.  But that would be worth it if the Glasgow effect could become a thing of the past, if Scotland could become a renewable giant and if the value placed on education remained secure.  I’m not really voting for myself or even for my kids; I’m voting for my country.

3) Socialist by name or socialist by nature?

Although the first SNP MSP I ever met, and the only one I know personally, is a fiscal conservative, for the most part the SNP, much like the PQ in Quebec, is a left-leaning party and no bones about it.  And Scotland, again like Quebec, has tended towards the left more so than the rest of the UK.  But how far would they go to the left in an independent Scotland?  Would they actually go whole hog socialist? And would people want that?  This is a question that divides people for a reason most don’t acknowledge: many so-called socialists couldn’t actually cope with socialism.  This first occurred to me when I learned that a famous pair of Canadian socialists lived in a huge house in Rosedale, the most exclusive neighbourhood in Toronto, but it’s been reinforced in me ever since.  The recent university union dispute did little to change my mind, that’s for certain.

As for myself, I realised, somewhat grudgingly, that I am essentially a socialist when I decided that I would be content living in a country where I, having spent 10 years in higher education, made about the same amount of money as a bin man. This isn’t just because I’m a masochist.  Over ten years ago I published a short article entitled ‘Citizenship or Consumerism’, which basically argued that it was possible for people to achieve status and security by being a good citizen, rather than draping oneself with consumables.  I still believe this is true, but it is damn hard when you’re living in an inegalitarian system.  For me, a Yes vote is a step towards a viable socialism, much like what is seen in Scandinavia.  It might not be perfect for everyone, but I’d be happy in such a place.  And, I believe thousands of left-leaning, English speakers whose ancestors left Britain in centuries past for a better life, would be, too.

4) Brit or Scot?

Or do the last 300 years count more than the previous 3000?  For whatever reason, when I moved to Scotland I felt at home again.  Maybe the foot of snow on the ground or the fact it was dark at 4pm had something to do with it, but I suspect it was something more.  It’s probably because I’m Canadian, and Scotland has had far more of an impact on Canada than England.  You just have to compare place names in Canada (anywhere, not just Nova Scotia) with the US.  Don’t get me wrong, I adored Devon, but it always felt somewhat exotic and foreign to me.  Or perhaps it was more that some of the people made me feel like I was exotic and foreign – and not always in a good way.  Scotland has always felt familiar and Scots, as far as I can tell, feel pretty much the same about me.

As for Britishness, it’s more difficult to understand.  I can see how during the two world wars feeling British was bloody important (not so much in recent conflicts, of course, which Scots haven’t supported).  But perhaps that sense of Britishness was borne more out of necessity than reality.  Britishness can be too tied up in fairly recent imperial, colonial legacies for many people, including many Scots.  In post-colonialism, Britishness is more identifiable in institutions, such as the NHS and the BBC, than in any cultural, social, economic or political traditions.  In contrast, Scottishness, Walter Scott’s tartan gloss notwithstanding, is more identifiable with a particular way of looking at and living in the world and modelling society.

There’s also what the English think of Scotland leaving.  Ed Byrne joked on Mock the Week recently that if the referendum was like a trial separation for a marriage, the English were essentially saying ‘Good riddance, you’ll never make it on your own!’, rather than ‘Come on, honey, we can make it work!’  Things couldn’t have been more different towards the end of the 1995 referendum campaign, when it looked like Quebec was leaving.  Thousands of Canadians traveled to Quebec basically to pledge their love for the disgruntled, estranged province, rallying in Montreal under a Canadian flag the size of a football pitch.  And rightly so. There is simply no Canada without Quebec.  Each province has a sense of identity, more than non-Canadians realise, but Canada comes first and the essence of that is the marriage of convenience between French and English that has, among other things, kept Canada from becoming the 51st state.  For the English, Scotland doesn’t matter in quite the same way and that basically means that Britain doesn’t matter quite so much either.

5)  Europhile or Europhobe?

Well, this one is a little bit of a fudge, since if there is one thing Yes and No voters can agree on, it is that being in the EU is a pretty good thing.  Those who think otherwise should try to look past the economic troubles of recent years and compare the current state of affairs to what was going on 70 years ago in Europe.  But, on the day that Nigel Farage came to Scotland to boost the Yes campaign (inadvertently – or not), it’s worth mentioning that a Yes vote, red tape notwithstanding, is a very palpable vote for Europe and what it stands for both politically and socially.  It is a vote for independence that also affirms that Scots are willing to cede some of their independence for the greater good of the EU. And there’s nothing wrong with that.


Although a very simple question is being posed on the 18th of September, there are no right or wrong answers.  Each person will have their own reasons for voting and should be allowed to have them.  But people should also be honest about why there are voting the way they are and people outside of Scotland should take the time to understand these reasons, too.  As an ardent federalist in the Canadian context, I would be distraught if Quebec left Canada.  But, after listening to a middle-aged man in Quebec City describe why, 10 years after the last referendum, he still wanted Quebec to be its own country, I had to empathise with his reasons.  I didn’t want it to happen, but I would understand if it did.

A Oui Confession


I stormed down University Avenue, having attended a Q&A about how research might be affected by a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum, hosted by the Royal Society of Edinburgh and featuring Universities Ministers (just) past and present, David Willetts and Greg Clark, feeling about as angry as I felt in a long, long time.  The message provided by the ministers, as I had expected, was decidedly negative.  An independent Scotland would risk losing out on UK and EU funding opportunities, and be left to its own devices.  All that Scottish universities had achieved in recent years would be lost irrevocably.  Doom and gloom, thy name would be Scotland.  The risk of leaving the UK was simply too great.

Indeed, the word ‘risk’ was the keyword extraordinaire in Clark’s speech.  If the RSE had designed a drinking game featuring that word to make his presentation a little more exciting, well, they would have had to wheel everyone out in a flotilla of shopping trolleys.  And yet, I realised halfway through Clark’s talk that if one replaced the word ‘opportunity’ for ‘risk’ (apparently in Mandarin, one word conveys both meanings), a completely different, and much more hopeful, idea would have emerged.  One simple little change that could make all the difference.

When the time came for questions, it became clear that most of my fellow audience members, many of whom were English, were of the No persuasion.  ‘Tell us more about how dreadful an independent Scotland would be for research and universities’ was the general gist.  Now, I certainly understand why people – both Scots and particularly left-leaning English folks – are ardent No supporters.  As I’ve discussed in an earlier blog, the process by which I eventually decided to vote Yes was a long and painful one, characterised by much soul-searching and thought.  But the self-serving nature of the questions I heard filled me with dismay.  Here were the leaders of the Scottish universities sector, and yet there was no discussion of PG funding, widening access to higher learning or tuition fees, let alone the purpose of such institutions (they should be places of useful learning, if you were wondering).  No, the questions gravitated towards the specific, that is, how they and their particular research interests would fare in an independent Scotland.

And that, in many ways, is the nub of the problem.  Of course we all want to know an independent Scotland would mean for us.  But it shouldn’t stop there. What would it mean for the less fortunate?  Children?  The environment?  Health?  Sport (hey, the Commonwealth Games have just started)?  Culture?  History?  If you’re not considering these issues as well, well you should.

So, why did I get so angry?  Well, it started with Clark suggesting that Scotland would miss out on research related to defence and the arms industry.  In a week that saw a Malaysian airliner filled with nearly 300 innocent travellers (including 80 children) shot down by Ukrainian separatists using good ol’ sophisticated air defence technology, I couldn’t believe that he didn’t edit this out of his speech.  Then, towards the end of the Q&A, someone finally asked a selfless question: what about all the foreign researchers and students unable to access the UK academic system because of xenophobic immigration policies?  Why wouldn’t foreigners working in Scotland vote Yes in the hope that such policies might change for the better.  To this, no satisfactory answer was provided.  And that got me steaming because, for me, that’s where it was personal; that’s where I became selfish.  Because, after living in the UK for 8 years, my immigration status – and that of my family – is still in limbo.  If I can’t get my visa extended at the end of the summer, that’s me and my family gone from the UK.   I don’t believe this would be the case in an independent Scotland, a land of immigrants and emigrants, a country that understands the ebb and flow of human capital more than most.

But that’s not the only reason I’m voting Yes.  Scotland, for me, is the first place I’ve truly felt at home.  Despite being thousands of miles away from family and friends I care about, it is here that I feel welcome, comfortable in my own skin and optimistic about the future for me, my wife and my kids.  It is a special place, a place about which I feel optimistic, where I feel that opportunity outweighs risk.  A place that could become, like my birth province of Saskatchewan once was, the only English-speaking socialist jurisdiction in the world.   Of course it could all go Loch Long (wee bit of Scottish rhyming slang for you there), but I hope it won’t.

By the time I’d got to Hyndland Station, I had calmed down a bit, but I had also made a decision: I already knew I would vote Yes, but now I would let others know.  Not necessarily to convince anyone to change their mind, but to be honest and forthright about why I had made up mine.