How to Win at Black Friday

I'm still not entirely sure how we can have "the day after Thanksgiving" without actually having Thanksgiving in the first place, but never mind. Once again, our stores have engaged in their pre-Christmas "let's have a sale" sale, with all sorts of wonderful bargains on things people mostly don't want. And, once again, we have a flurry of articles from newspapers decrying this, declaring that they're not really bargains at all, or whatever else. Which is their way of cashing in on all this consumerist nonsense without looking like they're cashing in. It's all quite clever.

But the truth lies somewhere in between: buying into this consumerist nonsense is a bad idea, but so too is adamantly refusing to get involved no matter what. There are, in fact, some good bargains to be had; you just have to be a bit savvy.

And the key question is this: would you have bought the item anyway, even at full price?

See, that's the thing: if there was something that you were going to get anyway (let's say a printer, just for a random example), then it may well be that you can find a good one at a much reduced price in the sale. In which case, it makes sense to go and get that item at this time of year, rather than, say, two weeks ago when prices were higher or two weeks from now when they're probably higher again.

(And so, really, the way to win at Black Friday is to ignore the advertising and the offers completely. Instead, if there's something you'd been considering buying, then maybe go look if there's an offer on that, and make a purchase. But look only at things you've been considering anyway, and don't get drawn in to other purchases.)

Speaking of which... it's probably time for a new phone. Though the big downside there is that the one I almost bought last time I thought about it was a Samsung, which I'm obviously now avoiding...

#64: "The Long, Dark Teatime of the Soul", by Douglas Adams

Post-truth Politics?

Apparently the word of the year is "post-truth", which refers to the tendency of people to only seek out political news from sources they agree with, meaning they never see the other side, never have to deal with fact checking, and as such aren't interested in 'truth'. Which is, indeed, an issue.

Except... post-truth implies that there was a time when there was that interest in truth in politics. But I distinctly remember being advised at high school that newspapers had their agendas: some supported Labour, some the Tories, with the 'impartial' BBC using the newspapers to set the overall agenda.

And people would buy and vote accordingly: if you were on the Left, you probably bought the Guardian and voted Labour; if you were on the Right, you probably bought the Telegraph and voted Tory.

(There are several ways that the newspapers supported their agendas, often without lying. It's done by cherry-picking only those statistics that support your argument, by giving greater emphasis to some facts over others, giving more air-time/word-count to your preferred experts, and even by simply not reporting inconvenient facts. Actually lying is for amateurs.)

So how is that any different from now? People were still only seeking out the voices that agreed with what they thought anyway, they were having their opinions reinforced, and they weren't actually interested in 'truth'.

What has changed is that people are increasingly declaring "a plague on both your houses" and walking away from both Labour and the Tories. At which point they're also walking away from their previous newspapers... and finding there is no alternative. On the Right, there is no serious newspaper that supports UKIP. In Scotland, until about eighteen months ago, there was no serious newspaper that supported independence. In America, the same applied to Bernie Sanders, and indeed to Donald Trump until he secured the Republican nomination.

What's new is not that people have started looking only at the sources they agree with; what's new is that they've rejected the newspapers' versions of what is 'true'.

#63: "Spelljammer: The Broken Sphere", by Nigel Findlay

Remember Them? It's All About Us These Days

This year I once again played at the Festival of Remembrance in Falkirk Town Hall on Saturday and then again at the Armistice Parade in Falkirk on Sunday. Sadly, this was also the first year I found myself rather uncomfortable doing so. It really feels that Remembrance Sunday has completed its transformation from a sombre event of respect and remembrance into something decidedly... other.

I have three reasons for this:

Firstly, there's a enforced respect agenda that has been gradually creeping up on us. It started a few years ago when we started seeing various guests being lambasted for the horrific 'crime' of not wearing a poppy while appearing on the BBC in the weeks before the event. It has now expanded to the point where even the Cookie Monster is festooned with a poppy before appearing on the One Show. (I'm also more than a little uncomfortable that the BBC apparently gets a bulk order of poppies for this season, and puts one on all guests as a matter of course. Which means that it's actually not a show of respect for people to wear them; it's just an extension of makeup. If we were actually serious about the matter, guests would be required to provide their own poppies for appearance.)

But more troubling than even that is the horror show of the newspapers turning Remembrance Day into a stick with which to beat Jeremy Corbyn - he didn't bow low enough, or his poppy wasn't big enough, or was too big, or he dared to dance into the street (while talking to an actual veteran; the newspapers cropped the photo in order to invent an offense). It's disgusting.

Secondly, there's the rise of poppy bling. Apparently, it's not enough for our celebrities to show respect the same way as the rest of us. Oh, no, they have to show how specially special their remembrance is with their special bejewelled poppies, with larger-than-life poppies, poppy cufflinks, poppy ties, poppy hats, or whatever other show of one-upmanship they can event. Because they're special people, so they need to show their 'respect' in special ways.

But, thirdly, and most troublingly, it really feels that the remembrance agenda has become increasingly hijacked by the powers-that-be for their own ends, and in particular the glorification of our military and their ongoing adventures in far flung lands. Here's a hint: if you're painting a poppy on a plane or a tank, you're doing it wrong - unless your next act is to immediately scrap that vehicle.

I find myself deeply uncomfortable even writing this, because Remembrance Sunday is a serious and important event, or at least it should be. The First World War was a mad exercise in throwing away lives for no good reason, and we've not actually become much better. We still send our troops to places they probably shouldn't be, don't equip them properly, and then fail to care for them when they come home injured. It's all a disgrace, and if Remembrance Sunday even helps to keep that in check then that's a good thing. But I'm increasingly uncomfortable with what Remembrance Sunday (or, rather, everything that surrounds it) is becoming.

I think, unless something changes, my days of wearing the poppy are numbered. I'll continue to make my donation, of course, but as for wearing the symbol... As long as Grandad remains alive, I'll wear it in recognition of his service. But once he passes, it will be time for a rethink.

The Tragedy of Trump

Over the last several decades, the world has become increasingly globalised. The trend has been for lots of jobs, especially in manufacturing and related areas, to move away from the UK and the UK overseas (largely to India and China, with South America and/or Africa next in line), and with lots of cheap goods to come from overseas into the UK and US.

And, taken as a whole, that's a positive thing - average standards of living have improved significantly, the economy has done well out of it, and lots of money has been made.

But...

The UK isn't just an undifferentiated blob of people who all benefit when "the economy" does well. Instead, we're a collection of some 70 million people, some of whom do incredibly well out of globalisation, some of whom do less well, and many of whom do incredibly badly. (The US is the same, just with bigger numbers.) And while millions of people in London do well out of globalisation, there are millions of people elsewhere who are doing badly. Indeed, in some cases it's a disaster that now engulfs three generations: one generation of workers lost their jobs during Thatcher's mad de-industrialisation programme, their children have therefore grown up in abandoned towns with few prospects, and now their children have damn little hope.

So when someone suggests that they can turn their back on the worlds, turn against globalisation, and things will be better, it's no surprise that that message gets traction.

And the Left, the Labour party in the UK and the Democrats in the US, who should be on the side of those people turned a deaf ear. They wrote them off as racists, or stupid, or a "basket of deplorables", or whatever else, and used this as justification not to listen.

Well, here's the thing: some of those people may well be racist, or stupid, or whatever else, but that doesn't mean they don't also have legitimate concerns. (And, whoever you are and whatever faults you might have, "I can't feed my family" is pretty fucking legitimate, as concerns go.)

And that's how we get Brexit in the UK, and President Donald Trump in the US. Those campaigns managed to persuade people they were listening, they sold them the message that they would champion their causes, and they reaped the benefits.

The tragedy of all this, though, aside from the fact that those results really have enboldened the racists, misogynists, and homophobes, is that it's all for nothing. Neither Brexit nor President Trump can do anything meaningful in the face of globalisation. It will still be cheaper to employ people in manufacturing in India and China (and South America and Africa) than it will in the UK or US - and would be even if the workers over here were paid a wage of zero. And, worse, the next round of automation is coming ever closer, which means another swathe of jobs is going to disappear. So people were persuaded to vote for Brexit/Trump in the hope that jobs would come back to improve their lives; what they'll get instead will be no jobs but an increase in prices, and worse lives. Again.

(Which is really scary, actually. If you're angry at the world, and you place your last hope in Brexit/President Trump, what do you do when that one last hope is dashed?)

Alas, while I'm reasonably sure of the fundamental underlying problem (that those jobs are going away, forever), I'm much less able to see a solution. Because I am convinced that that shift is indeed inevitable, which means we need to adapt to it, not fight against it. (See also Climate Change - sorry, it's too late, we've destroyed the world. So we'd better figure out how to live amongst the ashes.)

The bottom line, I think, is that we need a societal shift: the assumption that people will work for a living needs to go, we need to stop measuring people (and our own self-worth) by the jobs they do, and we need some sort of a universal income so that people can actually afford to live. None of which will happen.

As I said, it's a tragedy. (Only even that's not right. Marx noted that everything in history happens twice, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. Thatcher/Reagan was the first time; May/Trump is the second. So, really, this isn't the tragedy; it's the farce.)

#62: "Shy Knives", by Sam Sykes

Dear America...

Going Retro

Last week, LC and I watched "West Skerra Light", a horror/comedy produced by the BBC for Halloween. The show starts with one of the characters narrating a story to a bunch of kids at some sort of camp fire, during which he accuses them of being "too busy with your Game Boys." To which the child in question asks, "what's a Game Boy?" Which is, of course, both amusing and disturbing for its truth.

The other major task LC and I are involved in, of course, is the process of moving. In the course of which we've taken the opportunity to dig through a lot of our accumulated stuff and are gradually shedding a lot of dross - over the years we (mostly I) have accumulated a whole load of rubbish that should have been disposed of but which has gradually accumulated. So much of the weekend was spent shredding old documents - indeed, it remains an ongoing task, as I had to stop when the recycle bin was full.

In addition to shredding papers, though, we also dug out a couple of boxes of stuff that had been resting under the spare bed. In truth, those boxes had mostly lain untouched since I moved in, having mostly lain untouched in all previous homes. So, as I'm sure you can imagine, it didn't really have much of any value!

Funnily enough, though, it did contain not one but two Game Boy Advance units - both the original design and also the SD redesign - both still in working order, and with a bunch of game cartridges. Cue hours of retro-gaming fun... to be had at some later, more suitable, time.

(That said, I'm not entirely convinced that the GBA counts as "retro-gaming" - it only came out in 2001, which is a mere 15 years ago. That's only ten generations of computing power, meaning that current units are a paltry 1,024 times as powerful... yeah, okay, they're retro...)

The other surprising thing that I found at the weekend was a letter written by my great-grandmother to my parents some two weeks after I was born. Needless to say, that will be being kept.

#61: "Le Petit Prince", by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (a book from The List)

Tick

Last night I finished "Morgawr", the third and final volume in the "Voyage of the Jerle Shannara" trilogy, and my sixtieth book of the year. This therefore completes my second (of four) goals for the year - one more will be coming next month, all being well; alas, the fourth looks certain to fail.

Sadly, "Morgawr" is not a particularly good book, and indeed will probably be recorded as the weakest book I've read all year. This creates something of a dilemma for me - with such an agressive reading schedule, I've found it useful to follow a number of series to follow, and I'm running a little short. I had therefore considered getting caught up on the Shannara series, which I last read many years ago, and had therefore treated the "Voyage of the Jerle Shannara" as something of a test for the series. And it was going well enough - the first book was fine and the second better. But I really didn't care for the third...

So I'm now rethinking my strategy - I could stick with my plan of declaring the Shannara novels a sublist for next year, I could abandon them entirely (especially since the next trilogy is long out of print and potentially hard to find), or I could try the next trilogy and then decide.

#60: "Morgawr", by Terry Brooks

A Matter of Principle

As a matter of principle, today's ruling that Parliament must vote on the invocation of Article 50 is dead right - one of the key principles argued in the referendum was that it should be the Westminster parliament that holds power in the UK, and this ruling reflects that.

However, as a matter of principle the MPs within the House of Commons really need to vote for the invocation of Article 50, almost regardless of their personal views on the same. (MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland have something of a get-out clause here, in that they'll be representing the wishes of their countrymen, but that should be largely symbolic - they should be handily outvoted by the MPs from England and Wales.)

Because the job of MPs is to represent their constituents in Westminster. And while I don't like the result of the EU referendum, the will of the people of the UK was clear - it is therefore for our MPs to get on and implement it.

(What this does mean, however, is that Parliament can, and should, demand greater oversight of the process of Brexit - and, specifically, Parliament could insist on a 'soft' Brexit or could insist that the government not give sweetheart deals to some companies at the expense of the rest of us, or on whatever other conditions they want. Because while the result of the referendum was clear that the UK should Leave the EU, we did not vote on how this should be done. If the powers-that-be want a specific mandate on that one, they're free to seek it; otherwise, the mandate lies with our MPs.)

#59: "Tome of Beasts", by Kobold Press

Christmas Strikes Back!

I'm not really keen on people calling for government bans on things that they happen not to like. By and large, I take the view that the biggest threat to our freedom comes from the governments that we elect, and where possible we should err towards being as permissive as possible - at least in terms of the laws we impose.

However, it has long since been clear that the shops either can't, or more likely won't, police themselves when it comes to maintaining the seasons and festivities. Indeed, in one case a store in London started advertising Christmas at mid-summer this year, from which it's a short step to everyone just advertising Christmas all year round, and then anything that's different about that season is lost.

So I think the government needs to step in: shops should not be allowed to advertise Christmas until after Halloween, to advertise Valentine's Day until after Christmas, Easter until after V-Day, "Barbecue Season" until after Easter, or Halloween until the last weekend in September.

I believe that way they always have something they can advertise as being 'seasonal' but at the same time we have a nice, distinct separation between events. And, crucially, we don't have Christmas colonizing all of the seasons. (Though, in fairness, I would definitely go to see a sequel to "The Nightmare Before Christmas" in which marauding elves seek their revenge for Jack's ill-fated invasion attempt in '93.)

Calling Time on Region One

As part of our decluttering exercise prior to moving, at the weekend LC and I had another cull of our DVDs. This involved identifying a number that could go to a charity shop, and another number that, being Region One discs, were no use to such a shop and instead had to go to the bin. (Of course, either of these could have gone to Ebay to recoup a little of the money spent. But since the goal is to clear some much-needed space, and to do so quickly, we didn't take that option.)

In the course of doing that job, I came to the conclusion that it's long since time that I abandoned Region One entirely, much as I abandoned VHS a number of years ago - ever since we moved to the Playstation 3 as our primary means of DVD playback, the writing has been on the wall. (Actually, there's a strong argument that both DVD and even Blu-ray are already obsolete as well, and should be phased out. But that's another discussion for another day.)

What that means, I think, is that in the course of the move (probably while unpacking at the far end), I'll take the opportunity to sort out the Region One discs from the rest. These will then be divided into three sets - discs to be replaced with Region Two equivalents as soon as possible (eg "Die Hard"), discs to be discarded at the next cull (hopefully, there won't be too many of these - they should have been culled already), and discs that can't be replaced.

From there, there's an easy next step and then a harder next-but-one step. The easy step is to simply spend the money to replace the discs in the first set. Yes, it's a little galling to have spent money on a DVD of "Die Hard" only to spend more money on another disc and then throw away a perfectly-good disc... but it's not that much money, and so it's not that big a deal.

But the next-but-one step is harder, because that's a question of doing something with the discs that can't simply be replaced: things like "Reboot", which was never released on Region Two, or the "Babylon 5 Movie Collection" which is long since out of print. (The latter can be replaced, but only by replacing the entire series.)

The reason that one's tricky, then, is that those are DVDs I would very much like to replace but can't. And for the exercise to have any great meaning, I really do want to get rid of them, and the player as well. So it's tricky.

(Annoyingly, I did once have a bit of software that would have allowed me to rip those DVDs onto computer files, and go from there. I actually never used it for that purpose, but only to use my laptop as a multi-region player. Alas, that software went with the laptop some years ago, and is no longer available because the 'ripping' function was of questionable legality.)

Anyway, I guess the difficulty of that next-but-one step really depends on how many DVDs we're talking about - if it turns out that the two I've mentioned are the only ones, I'll probably take the hit and replace "Babylon 5" and abandon "Reboot". But if the list is significantly longer, maybe I'll hold onto them until the player finally gives up and I'm forced to make a final decision.

Changing the Clocks

I can't say I'm a particular fan of the twice-annual ritual of changing the clocks. Frankly, it's an absurd practice to spend most of the year with our clocks all set to lie to us in the strange notion that this gives us more daylight at some time of the year.

On the other hand, I suppose that ridiculous practice is marginally better than the 'fix' we see endlessly proposed in the newspapers every time the clocks change; specifically, to keep the country on "British Summer Time" (or, as I prefer to call it, "Liar's Time") all year around.

(The reason it is a lie is that time, like everything else, needs to be measured from a fixed reference point. And since the seasons change, meaning that sunrise and sunset aren't fixed, time is measured from the point where the Sun reaches its highest point over the horizon, which we call 'mid-day'. (Which is also why we divide the day into AM and PM.) Moving the clocks forward during the summer means that the Sun reaches its highest point at 1pm, not at 12 noon, which is incorrect. And since that's done deliberately, it's a lie.)

Anyway, if we must persist with this crazy ritual, could I please make two wee requests of clock manufacturers?

1. Firstly, could you please make sure to put the buttons for adjusting the time somewhere easily accessible on the device, and could you also make sure to include single buttons for both adding 1 hour and subtracting 1 hour? Having to step through 23 hours, and having to do that for each of three or four clocks last night was just annoying. And having to take a clock apart to access the buttons and then having to step through not just 23 hours but 47 to get past the "24 hour clock" options was especially galling (IKEA, I'm looking at you).
2. But, actually, since we're talking about new clocks, could you also please make sure to make these easily networked, so that they can pick up the time, and time changes, from a central point (or time server)? The "internet of things" is mostly a nonsense gimmick and waste of time, but this would be a case where it might actually make our lives just a little easier.

(In case you're wondering: no, this post is not entirely serious. The one thing that is is that we can't keep the clocks moved forwards throughout the winter - here in Scotland, the mornings are just too dark for that to be feasible, and it gets worse the further North you go. And it's really not practical for the schools in Scotland to instead move their start and end times instead - even if they could coordinate this, when they can't manage to coordinate holidays so that children and those of their parents who are teachers can holiday together, there would be the problem that everything else would be out of alignment.)

The Seasonal T-Shirt Rant

I notice that today's Qwertee offering contains a Halloween-themed t-shirt. And it's a very nice t-shirt, which I would probably buy if it wasn't black (I have too many - it's blue, white, or grey I need to replace).

Also, for Christmas last year, I got an extremely nice Christmas-themed Yoda t-shirt.

There's just one tiny problem with both of these: there's only a small window in the year when it's appropriate to wear a seasonal t-shirt, and by the time said item is/was/would be in my possession, it's already too late!

What I mean is this: from the time of ordering a Qwertee t-shirt and actually receiving said item there's a delay of roughly 2 weeks. That's fine, it's just how long it takes. But two weeks from now is the 11th of November, while Halloween is on Monday. Meaning that I wouldn't actually get to wear my exciting Halloween t-shirt until next year.

And, likewise, the lovely Yoda/Christmas t-shirt I got last year was enjoyed for a matter of hours before it was lovingly put away, not to be seen again until the 27th of November this year, or thereabouts. (Actually, it will probably be later, due to the house move, but not really Yoda's fault, that is.)

So, anyway, that's the Seasonal T-shirt Rant.

Day 300: Update on Goals

And so, day 300, and the final update of goals before the end of the year.

• Super Secret Goal #4: Things are changing really fast on this one - two weeks ago, I was settling in to being in the flat for another six months at least, and then in the space of a week we had a viewing, received an offer, found a new house. It looks like we'll be moving out by the end of next month, but not moving in until the middle of the month after. So, suddenly, it's all looking good... but is all likely to change again by the time you read this!
• Weight: This goal hasn't worked out at all, and I'm going to end the year having gone quite badly in the wrong direction.
• Books: Conversely, this one is going extremely well - I'm now within touching distance of the goal, with two months still to go. I'm estimating a total of 73 books for the year, well above my goal, which is nice.
• Games: The "open tabletop" I mentioned in my previous update proved to be a non-starter, while the "interesting development" I mentioned also turned out to be a non-event. Also, the "Dust to Dust" campaign came to an unexpected end on Tuesday, which was somewhat amusing as I actually had a solid plan for the end-game for the first time. That just leaves the "Christmas Game" for this year. But given the house move, it's not clear whether this will be postponed, hosted by someone else, or take place in the new house - my bet is probably on it being postponed, but we'll see...

So...

It looks like it's going to be a mixed bag for the year. One goal will be completed and exceeded with some ease. A second goal will succeed, although it's worth noting that it wasn't really properly formed - strictly speaking, it was complete the moment I had one session each of the two named campaigns. Still, I'm pretty happy with that. And a third goal will be completed, but perhaps in the most chaotic way possible. We'll need to see.

On the other hand, it looks like one goal will have failed spectacularly, and that's squarely on me.

Still, all in all that's rather better than I expected to do even just a few weeks ago, so that's good.

And there it is. The next update will of course be the end-of-year round up.

Sampling Theory

We've bought a house.

Well, okay, that's maybe a little premature. LC and I have received an offer for the flat (which we're going to accept), and we've made an offer on a house (which has been verbally accepted), and so if everything goes according to plan we'll be moving very soon. Which is all good.

But this post is not really about that, but rather about the process that we usefully applied to find the house that we're hoping to buy. Here's how it works:

In an environment where there are lots of options available, and you're not sure how to go about narrowing the field and then choosing, especially when it's a huge buy and you want to be sure to get "the best" option... don't.

The truth is that there are probably too many options to ever properly evaluate them all, and even if you were able to do that you'd almost certainly end up with analysis paralysis and so not be able to choose between the inevitable trade-offs. There's probably no such thing as the 'perfect' house or the 'perfect' car, or whatever. (And even if there were such a thing, your needs will inevitably change with time. So even if you did get the perfect item, it wouldn't stay perfect for long.)

So, what is useful is to try to identify a representative sample of what's available: pick five or six properties of about the right size and spec, and go and see those. (It's also a good idea, if possible, to throw in one or two 'odd' choices, rather than going only for the obvious ones. So while you might not initially be thinking of a new-build or a bungalow, it's maybe worth viewing at least one.)

As you do the viewings, consider two things. Firstly, does the property in question meet your requirements (both the immediate ones and the ones you expect for the future). If not, it can be discounted immediately. But do note that that's requirements, not preferences - that's actually quite important! Secondly, how does this property stack up with the best we've seen so far?

One other thing: you should make sure to view all the properties in your sample, even if you happen upon one that's great with your first attempt. Basically, you owe it to yourself to get a real picture of what's out there!

Once you've viewed all the houses in your sample, you have hopefully identified a property that is both the best in the sample and that also meets your requirements. (If you haven't found any that meet the requirements, or you're really not happy even with the 'best', you'll need to identify a new sample and/or a new area, and keep looking. That's a weakness in this process.)

Having identified your candidate, then, you should proceed with checking if it's still available, making the purchase, etc etc...

However, if you find that that doesn't work out, for whatever reason (in our case, because we couldn't sell our flat in time), then the thing to do is to go back to the search and keep identifying and viewing properties. But your goal now is quite simple: find one that is at least as good as the best in your sample. And as soon as you find one, that's the one to go for.

The reasoning here is that the best property you found in your sample probably isn't, in fact, the very best property that's available. Instead, it's an indicator of the best-fit properties. That means that there is almost certainly at least one, and perhaps several, that are as good or better. So all you need to do now is find one. (And you stop looking as soon as you find one, because that way you have the satisfaction of getting the best-fit from all the ones you've actually seen - it's not like there's a "one that got away" that was better.)

Of course, it's not an absolutely flawless method, and it does mean that there's probably a better match out there somewhere. But it has the benefits of giving good results, of doing so in a manageable amount of time, and of not showing you better options that you then leave behind.

Well, it works for me, anyway!

#56: "Notes From a Small Island", by Bill Bryson (a book from The List)
#57: "Spelljammer: The Radiant Dragon", by Elaine Cunningham
#58: "The Night Manager", by John Le Carré

Here We Go Again

It's fair to say I'm not hugely enthusiastic for a second independence referendum. Had the powers-that-be actually delivered the things they solemnly vowed to deliver, and had England not engaged in the monumental self-harm that is Brexit, the issue would have been put to bed for a generation.

However, the people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK by 55% to 45%, and voted to stay in the EU by 62% to 38%. And after the Brexit vote it very quickly became apparent that we can't have both - neither the EU nor the UK government have any interest in any sort of a "reverse Greenland" deal that might see Scotland retain both unions.

That being the case, someone has to choose which to preserve. And while you can argue many different ways about which mandate supersedes the other, the bottom line is that there's a choice: either we the people decide what we want, or some group of our elected politicians decide what we want for us.

In that case, better that it is us. That way, we get what we actually want, and not what someone else decides that we want.

So, yeah, a second independence referendum is necessary.

(And, actually, it's those who would prefer to stay in the UK who should be calling for a referendum. Because 56 of Scotland's 59 MPs, 68 of 129 MSPs, and 3 of 6 MEPs support independence. If it's down to Scotland's elected politicians, it's independence.)

Of course, there are all sorts of potential issues along the way.

Firstly, the required bill would need to pass the Scottish Parliament, which is by no means a sure thing - in theory, the SNP and the Greens together should be enough, but there's always a suspicion that the Greens may decide that now is not the time, and block it. (Of course, in doing so they would consign themselves to electoral oblivion, so it's doubtful they would... but it is possible.) There's also the question of whether the Presiding Officer would allow it, since it has always been debateable whether the SP has the competence to pass such a bill. And while in the long-term it's probably that it would indeed be deemed valid, time is rather critical here.

Secondly, there is the question of whether Westminster would be on board. Again, I doubt it's practical for them to block a vote forever, but they could certainly delay one, when timing is fairly critical. (There's also the possibility of this having to go through the courts, which would also take time...)

But, ultimately, I think this can be resolved one of three ways:

• The best option is for Westminster to concede the validity of the vote, to arrange another Edinburgh agreement, and let things proceed sensibly. This was the approach David Cameron took last time, and as a matter of principle it was the right one. (Of course, what they also should have done, either in the previous agreement or in the post-referendum settlement, was to formally devolve the right for the Scottish Parliament to hold future referendums with a specified cool down period between them. But I digress.)
• The next best option would be for Westminster to try to block the vote. I suspect the consequence of that is that, eventually, there would be a vote anyway, and that such a vote would inevitably lead to independence - because a Tory government telling Scots that they don't get to decide for themselves won't go down well.
• The worst option is one I've discussed before, where Westminster simply refuses to engage - they refuse to have anything to do with the referendum, then declare the turnout too low for the result to have any validity, and thus leave us in a complete mess.

Needless to say, I really hope they go for the first of these, but given the immense competence of the current government, I'm fully expecting the latter.

But perhaps the biggest question I have is about the No campaign itself - who leads it, and what sort of an argument can they put forward?

The problem is that all the leading lights from last time are utterly discredited: Labour in Scotland have imploded; and Darling, Brown, and Murphy have lost all credibility up here. So the best candidate I can see to lead the campaign is Ruth Davidson... but, again, a Tory leading the campaign to keep Scotland under the control of a Tory government we didn't elect and widely hate isn't going to go down well.

And then there are the arguments... But most of the old ones are now useless - every promise that was made has been broken, and every threat that was made has come true anyway. (Well, except the loss of the pound. But that has been devalued so thoroughly that that threat is now a hollow one.) They can't even argue that independence would cause uncertainty, since Brexit has already done that.

Just about the only ammunition they have is the price of oil and the question over which currency Scotland would use. Which are fair enough, but I really question whether they would be enough. Especially since the Yes campaign (a) have known they need answers to these questions and (b) have had two years to come up with them.

So, I guess we'll see.

(As for me: I'll be voting for independence again, unless something very significantly changes in the meantime. After all, the reasons I voted Yes last time haven't changed, and indeed have become much, much worse. And all the reasons I had some doubt last time have become very significantly eroded in the last two years. So no change for me.)

An Update

Dear Microsoft,

I appreciate that sometimes it will be necessary to update my PC for security reasons. I further appreciate that applying those updates will sometimes require restarting my PC. And I even appreciate that some updates will take longer than others to apply.

What I don't appreciate is that you don't tell us beforehand when a 'restart' is expected to take a particularly long time, leading to my PC being out of action for an hour and three-quarters when I have better things to be doing than watching your largely-illusory count of the percentage completion.

And I really don't appreciate it when the counter gets to 100%, the PC restarts for the final time, I log in, and then have to wait another five minutes for a painfully slow "we're getting your PC ready" presentation. If you still have work to do, your update is not 100% complete.

(Even more galling still is that, as far as I can see, the net effect of the updates has been to cause my PC to run 10% slower than it did previously. Gee, thanks!)

Just an idea: maybe in future you should consider giving an estimate of how long a 'restart' is expected to take?

#55: "Pathfinder: The Thrushmoor Terror", by Tito Leati

Drawing a "Must Win".

I didn't bother to predict that Scotland won't qualify for the World Cup. I figured that was obvious. And, in all honesty, in the group where we're third seeds and where only one team goes through (and that will be England), it's probably acceptable for Scotland to fail to qualify.

But we need to be targetting second place in the group, and we really need to achieve a minimum of third place. Because as long as Scotland remain third seeds in qualifying groups, we'll always be finding ourselves in groups with at least two better teams in the groups with us, in groups where only one or two teams qualify, and it will always be an uphill struggle. We really need to be working upwards, with a hope of getting into that group of second seeds, and then maybe we're in with a chance. Maybe.

But in addition to that, what Scotland really need to be doing is routinely beating any of the teams that are 'worse' than us, and doing so both home and away. And in the current qualifying campaign, that means Slovenia, Lithuania, and Malta. (And I mean no disrespect to any of those teams, hence the quotes around 'worse'. It's not as if there's any evidence of us being any better than Slovenia, for one.)

So last night's draw against Lithuania is a failure. Indeed, that draw is probably worse even than the 1-nil loss we narrowly avoided - the late goal, and the point that it brings, is probably enough to mask the obvious deficiencies in our play, and delay some much-needed corrective action. A shock defeat would have enforced that be done immediately.

I should note that "corrective action" doesn't necessarily mean a change in manager, largely because I don't see who we could replace Strachan with who would be better. But it does mandate a change in approach. The fundamental issue seems to be that Strachan is excessively loyal to players who may have served him well in the past but who are just not doing the job now. Coupled with a seeming reluctance to play actual goal-scorers - an absurdity in a must-win game.

(Amusingly, the team he played last night is probably the correct team for Tuesday's match away to Slovakia, when a defensive approach is required. I therefore expect the team to go out attacking, and lose the match.)

And I suspect that's all there is to it - no need to change the manager or to change the squad, just change the approach. Against the stronger teams, it's right to go for a defensive approach and try to nick something; but against the weaker teams, go out and win the match.

Not that it really matters. We won't be qualifying for the World Cup in 2018. And unless they just let everyone in, we won't be going to the Euro 2020 party, either. In fact, I'll go one further: Scotland (or, rather, Scotland's men) won't be at a major football championship this side of independence.

(And, yeah, it's possible that independence may never come. In which case, there's only one way I can see us ever being invited to the party.)

#54: "Storm King's Thunder", by Wizards of the Coast

Experimental Cookery 2016 #7: Slow-Cooker Chicken Tagine

This is an odd one: it's from "The Hairy Dieter's Fast Food", which promises to be a book of 30-minute recipes, yet this one took eight hours to cook. But that's okay - the meal only really took 30 minutes to prepare; it then just sat in the slow cooker for a very long time.

And the meal was quick and easy to prepare. I did adjust it slighty, because of the nature of our slow cooker - I took the opportunity to sear the chicken a little before layering everything into the cooker. But that was only a small additional step.

And, yeah, it was good. Not the greatest meal ever, but certainly enjoyable - enough so that we'll certainly have it again. Just one modification, I think, though - we'll probably have rice next time, rather than couscous.

A Long Week. A Very Long Week

Well, thank goodness it's Friday!

Last week was a very long one - LC and I had spent the weekend in Nottingham visiting my gran, and so hadn't really rested too much, then things were extremely busy at work, and so I found myself staggering towards the weekend. And then, just as I was about to leave for the weekend, I was called into a meeting to discuss a crisis situation on another project.

The upshot of which was that I ended up working all day Saturday and also Sunday morning.

And so I came into this week with a huge amount to do on my own project, plus needing to provide support on this other project, as well as all the other routine things that make up my working week. It's fair to say it has been a tough one!

Once again, we come to Friday, and things look to have calmed down somewhat. Now, if I can just make it through the next four hours, and then home...

About a Second EU Referendum

It's fair to say I'm not keen on the idea of Brexit, and it's also fair to say that I would support having a second EU referendum if there is a material change in circumstances. 'Cos, you know, I'd rather not go.

However, what I can't support is the lunatic suggestion, put forward by the Lib Dems and now by Labour, that we should have a referendum on the Brexit deal.

The problem with having such a referendum is one of timing: there obviously can't be a deal until we've negotiated, and we can't have formal negotiations until Article 50 has been triggered. The issue with that is that once Article 50 is triggered, there's no mechanism for us to take it back - two years after it's done, the UK will leave the EU.

I think the Lib Dems and Labour envisage the people being given a choice between accepting the (inevitably bad) deal or staying in the EU, and the people therefore rejecting the (inevitably bad) deal and opting to stay. But the choice that will actually be on offer will be between accepting the (inevitably bad) deal or leaving the EU with no deal in place. And faced with that choice, it's likely that the people will opt to reject the (inevitably bad) deal, and so end up with the only thing that is worse.

Great work, you guys!

To be honest, I'm not sure I'm surprised at the level of incompetence being put on show here. After all, it's hardly reasonable to expect senior pro-EU politicians to know how key bits of EU treaties work, is it?

On the other hand, it's rather distressing to think that the Tories are an utter shambles on the topic of Brexit, and about to drive the country off a cliff, and they're still more competent than the alternative.

#51: "Spelljammer: The Maelstrom's Eye", by Roger E. Moore
#52: "Software Systems Architecture", by Nick Rozanski and Eoin Woods
#53: "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child", by J.K. Rowling, John Tiffany, and Jack Thorne