Sunday 25 August 2013

Today's Accident. Sunday, 25 August 2013.

The first of an occasional series of posts highlighting accidents.  I am doing this because of the very few odd occasional mishaps which may have befallen me now and again, which has left Sheila under the impression that I may very well be a little accident prone.

Anyway, I was working in the garden, taking down some of the hedge, which I think is trying to compete with the Meikleour Beech Hedge (the tallest hedge in the world).  It was a hot day, so I removed my t-shirt.  It was thus, stripped to the waist that I was making downward sweeps of the hedge and learned a very important lesson - unprotected stomachs and electric hedge trimmers are not a good mix.

A mere nick of course.  I've had worse and I shall survive.  I missed the chance of getting a chainsaw last week.  I am guessing that Sheila is pretty relieved about that now.

Saturday 24 August 2013

Sir William Wallace of Ellerslie, the real Braveheart

On 23 August, in 1305, Sir William Wallace of Ellerslie was executed as a traitor on the orders of Edward I, King of England.

No doubt many will be aware of Wallace from the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart.  Well forget everything you have seen.  That tedious yarn has got as much to do with the life of Wallace as Yul Bryner had to do with dandruff.

We do not know when Wallace was born.  All we do know of him is that he was the son of a minor Scottish knight, Sir Malcolm Wallace.  We are not even sure of his name but, as with many names of the time, it may have been in the form of a title.  His family were said to be of the stock of the Britons who once ruled over southern Scotland and he may have been named Willam de Wallys - William the Welshman.

The story of William Wallace comes from the Wars of Independence (which English historians tediously call the Anglo-Scottish Wars) and which had their start when the 7 year old Margaret, Queen of Scots (known as The Maid of Norway - her father was King Eirik II of Norway) died in 1290, leaving the throne empty.  13 competitors rose up to claim the throne - The Devil's Dozen - and civil war broke out in the country.  The Scots bishops, who were the real power behind the throne then, asked Edward Plantagenet, King of England, to intervene and choose who was to be king.  Edward however was an ambitious man and instead of choosing a king in 1291, he declared himself Overlord of Scotland.  He then demanded fealty from the Scots Lords, and as many were of Anglo-Norman stock and had lands in England (which may become forfeit should they refuse to sign) as well as Scotland, they were only too ready to sign.  The name Wallace does not appear on any of these documents.  Eventually in October 1292 Edward bestowed kingship upon John de Balliol, who was married to the daughter of the John de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey and Commander of the English Army, and thus Edward hoped to have made John an easily-controlled puppet king.

Certainly, Balliol swore fealty to Edward as his Liege-Lord immediately after being invested.  When the English king demanded Scots forces for his campaign to take France in 1295 however, he overstretched himself.  The Scots lords not only point blank refused to fight the French but King John sailed to France and signed the Treaty of Paris of 1295, assuring mutual assistance against common enemies (who COULD they have meant?).  This was the world's first ever treaty of collective security, which was to last centuries.  It is still known in Scotland today as The Auld Alliance.  Edward was furious.  He sacked Berwick-upon-Tweed with such severity that the blood flowed freely in the streets for days, and a halt was only called when the body of woman was seen in a gutter, her dead newly-born baby lying between her legs.

Edward marched his army into Scotland, chasing John de Balliol throughout the kingdom, attacking towns and villages as he went.  Eventually he caught up with Balliol near Montrose.  The King of Scots was forced to surrender.  His lands and titles were made forfeit to Edward and their seals torn from his surcoat, thereby earning Balliol the title Toom Tabard; "Empty Coat".  Edward seized the Scottish Crown Jewels, the "Halie Ruid" of St Margaret (a gold cross inlaid with what was said to be a part of the true cross) and a big lump of stone from Scone, alleged to be the Stone of Destiny upon which the Kings of Scots had been invested for hundreds of years.  Returning to Berwick-upon-Tweed, he held a parliament at which the Scots lords were this time forced to sign fealty to him.  To make the point, these nobles who were used to writing only on the finest vellum parchment, were instead forced to sign their names to rough sheepskin, which was seen as below them.  These became known as the Ragman Rolls and are preserved in the British Museum.  Again, the name Wallace appears nowhere upon them.

Having demanded and gained fealty, Edward then supplanted the whole of Scottish with English sheriffs and troops (as well as a few Scots who were obsequious enough to support Edward), and it was with one of these men that William Wallace bursts onto the scene.  Wallace had been taunted and insulted by an English soldier in Lanark, where he lived.  Gaining no response, legend tells that the soldier tried to take Wallace's dagger, with the result being one very dead soldier.  Upon hearing of this, Sir Roger de Hazelrigg, the English Sheriff of Lanark, marched upon Wallace's house.  He was not there but his lame sweetheart, Marion Braidfute, was.  Hazelrigg killed Marion and burned Wallace's house to the ground.  When he found his house gutted and his love dead, Wallace swore revenge.  He went to the tavern where he knew Hazelrigg would be.  Hazelrigg laughed in his face, for which he paid with a slit throat.

Knowing he would now be wanted for murder, William Wallace fled to the safety of Ettrick Forest; then a vast and thick woodland stretching across southern Scotland.  Some equally resentful of the English joined him and soon others sought him out.  Before long a rebel band was forming into an army with one objective - to oust the invading English from Scotland.  It was the birth of guerrilla warfare.

Wallace and his men started out by ambushing and raiding English wagon trains.  Then in 1297, when another rebellion under Robert the Bruce and Archbishop Wishaw of Glasgow failed, he decided to take Glasgow Castle in a manner which would demonstrate a knowledge of military tactics.  Wallace split his forces into two and attacked from the south at Bell o' the Brae.  While the English were attempting to fight him off, a second wave attacked their rearguard, forcing them to fight a battle on two fronts.  The result was a rout for the English, and victory for William Wallace as he took Glasgow.  He had shown it was possible to take on the English and win.

It must have been around this time that Wallace heard he was not the only person involved in resistance.  In  the north east of Scotland Andrew de Moray, the son of a nobleman, had routed the English in many places, including the stronghold of the Castle of Mey, and convinced one English governor to side with the Scots.  Wallace therefore marched north to meet with Moray.  Also in on this meeting was John, Lord of the Isles.  Between the three they raised a huge army which began marching south.  At this time Stirling Castle was considered the most important castle in Scotland.  It was said if you controlled Stirling, you controlled the Highlands and the Lowlands.  It was in the hands on the Earl of Surrey, Commander of the English Army, and Sir Hugh de Cressingham, the English Exchequer of Scotland (few things get Scottish backs up more than a tax collector).  That was Wallace and Moray's obvious target.

The Scots arrived on the north side of the River Forth, with Stirling to the south on the evening of 10 September 1297.  From Stirling a road north, The Causeway, crossed a bow-backed bridge and ran one mile north to a high, craggy hill called the Abbey Craig.  It was here that Wallace and Moray set up camp.  By this time both Wallace and Moray had a price on their heads.  Sir Hugh de Cressingham sent two monks up The Causeway with the message that if they were to surrender, they would be fairly treated with and given lands in England.  Wallace gave this reply;

"Take back to those who sent you this message: That we are not come here to sue for peace, but prepared for battle, to avenge our wrongs and liberate our country.  Tell them to come forward whenever they wish.  They will find us ready to meet them, even into their beards."

Cressingham was furious and called for an attack.  However, Surrey had overslept and as Commander recalled the archers not long after they crossed the bridge.  It is said they were recalled a second time, then on the third attempt it was obvious the attack was in earnest as infantry started crossing the bridge two abreast and proceeding up The Causeway.  All of a sudden the English found themselves caught in an attack from both sides of The Causeway, and Scots horsemen charged down the road towards them.  Meanwhile those coming off the bridge were attacked by foot soldiers, while arrows and spears rained down on those already on the bridge.  It was mayhem.  Because of the design of the bridge, Surrey could not see what was happening on the north side and kept pressing men into attempting to cross it.  He could meanwhile only look across the River Forth in horror as the Scots penned his main force into a loop in the river. Most were in armour and/or chainmail and those who were not slain by the Scots fell into the river and drowned.

Either Surrey's wits failed him or he was too arrogant to see he was beaten.  What happened next however was to change his mind.  A phalanx of Scots infantry, led by Andrew de Moray, had crossed the River Forth further upstream at the Drip Ford and they now came charging down upon the remaining English on the north side of the River.  That was enough to make Surrey lose his nerve.  He spurred his charger and fled the field, leaving Cressingham and his men too it.  It is said that Surrey did not stop riding until he reached Berwick-upon-Tweed, some 100 miles distant.  The battle however was by no means over.  As men continued to struggle on the bridge, they either did not notice the hammering below them, or were too busy to attend to it.  There were men beneath it, hacking at the timbers. Finally the bridge collapsed into the River Forth, taking horses and men in armour with it.

The Battle of Stirling Bridge was a complete rout in which a band of poorly-armed men, mostly commoners, took on the most proficient army in Christendom at the time, and defeated them with devastating effect.  Sir Huge de Cressingham was killed and his body skinned, a strip of which William Wallace wrapped around the hilt of his sword.  More importantly, the rebels now had Stirling Castle, the most important in Scotland.  There is ofttimes dispute over whether Stirling Bridge can be attributed to William Wallace or Andrew de Moray. I think it should be attributed to both.  Sadly, we shall never know who actually came up with the tactics, as Moray took an arrow through the throat in the battle and would die some weeks afterwards.

Few of the lords of Scotland wanted anything to do with Wallace. As he was a minor knight, he was considered of low birth, whom some of the nobility thought to be little more than an upstart.  After Stirling Bridge however it was obvious that he could no longer be ignored.  Not only was he knighted as Sir William Wallace of Ellerslie, he was made Guardian Regent of Scotland in the name of John, King of Scots (the lords at this point still considered Balliol the rightful king).  The unknown knight from Lanark was now effectively king in all but name.  This must have rankled with some nobles, some of whom still sought the crown, as Wallace was to find out to his detriment around a year later.

Wallace continued to carry out raids upon the English, both within Scotland and raiding deep into England. He did not get to York, as claimed in Braveheart but certainly he did hit Newcastle-upon-Tyne with devastating effect.  There is a legend that he killed 600 boys in Hexham.  Given that Hexham was a minor market town at the time, it is hardly believable that there were even 60 boys there at the time.  From the Scots perspective it is claimed that one of Wallace's men killed a monk, for which Wallace publicly executed the man by way of apology.

It is surprising that the Earl of Surrey not only kept his commission but also his life.  Edward I's mighty English army had been defeated and roundly humiliated by little more than a band of bandits.  Edward was now out for revenge, and he was not about to let Surrey handle it this time.  In early 1298 the English King personally led his army north.  When news of this reached Sir William Wallace, he set about clever tactics of a slash and burn policy in the Lothians.  Persuading the populace to evacuate, Wallace burned crops and destroyed buildings throughout what was once the Kingdom of Lothian.  This evacuation was responsible for a number of lowland families moving north.  More importantly however, when the English did arrive, there was nothing to eat or drink.  Edward I had employed Welsh longbowmen, and an advance contingent of these had been sent north with English troops to Dunbar.  When a ship arrived containing nothing but wine, tempers flared between the English and Welsh, with the result that when Edward I arrived, he found the Welsh in almost open revolt and had to promise them higher pay to placate them.

From Dunbar, Edward's forces set out west.  Wallace was approaching to the east and the two would meet at Falkirk at 22 July 1298.  Wallace addressed his men, "I hae brocht ye intae the ring, noo let's see how ye dance."  A battalion of English knights charged immediately (and without orders from Edward I) and upon seeing this, almost all the Scots nobles at the rearguard, notably John Comyn of Badenoch (the Red Comyn - son of John, the Black Comyn, one of the competitors for the throne), fled the field, leaving Wallace with hardly any knights.  Sir John Stewart of Bonkill, son of the High Steward of Scotland, was one of the few to stand and he and his men were slain almost immediately. .After this melee, the English infantry pulled back and Edward unleashed the devastating power of the Welsh longbowmen.  The Scots were slaughtered where they stood, including one other noble who stood by Wallace, Sir John de Greame.  Men fled the field in the deadly rain of arrows, including Sir William Wallace, who barely escaped alive.

Falkirk was a complete humiliation for Wallace.  His force had been decimated, mostly down to the arrogance and cowardice of Scots nobles. Stirling Castle was afterwards smashed with the largest war machine in the world, a giant catapult called The War Wolf.  It was retaken and Edward was once more strengthening his position in Scotland.  In shame, Wallace resigned his position as Guardian Regent, which was jointly given to the Red Comyn and Robert the Bruce.

William Wallace may have been a minor knight but he was by no means a fool.  As a boy he had been taken under the wing of the Earl of Argyll and schooled in French and Latin, of correct protocol and ways of court.  He would now use these to his advantage.  Instead of fighting further battles, he went to the continent to seek assistance from other countries.  Little is known of his time abroad, apart from the city of Lubeck promising assistance to the Scots.  By 1303 Sir William Wallace was back in Scotland - and with his former devastating effect.

Edward I was an elderly man by this time and in failing health.  A peace treaty between England and the Scots lords had been signed in 1300 and ran out at the beginning of 1303 - just enough time for Wallace to rearm.  In mid February 1303 300,000 English crossed the border and proceeded towards Edinburgh.  First they split into three taking three objectives; Sir Robert Neville was to attack Borthwick Castle, Sir Ralph Confrey's force was designated Dalhousie castle, while the remaining force under Sir John Seagrave, and assisted by the English paymaster Ralph de Manton marched on Rosslyn Castle.  Upon this advance, 8000 Scots answered a call to arms.  On the night of 23 February 1303, Sir John de Comyn and 3000 men crept up upon the Rosslyn contingent through the thick woods, surrounding them and drawing ever closer.  The remainder under Sir Symon Fraser and Sir William Wallace, crossed the River North Esk and circled to the southwest.  In the early hours of the morning of 24 February, Comyn's men launched a surprise attack on the English, killing many in their sleep. Survivors fled to the southwest, only to be met in an ambush by the 5000 under Wallace and Fraser.  The losses were so great that Seagrove surrendered to Wallace and begged for quarter, which was duly given.  After a quick meal at Roslynn Castle, Wallace formed a contingent of men up to the summit of Langhill to halt the advance of Sir Ralph Confrey.  Seeing these forces, Confrey broke his siege of Dalhousie Castle to attack Wallace.  He and his forces quickly came under fire from Scottish archers (Wallace's revenge for Falkirk?) which caused them to wheel round to the north, not realising that all that lay there was a sheer cliff above the River North Esk, where many of them under their own momentum and being pushed from behind, went straight over.  The Scots had assembled pike men and wooden stakes in the ravine below, upon which the English, Sir Ralph de Confrey among them, were impaled.  

The English third force under Sir Robert Neville were now approaching from Borthwick Castle.  Unaware of the slaughter which had taken place, Neville's forces came up the cart road which followed the River North Esk.  As this approaches Roslynn, it runs through a deep ravine with cliffs either side.  The Scots of course used this to their advantage and as the English were coming through the narrowest part, they rained rocks, spears and arrows down upon them, absolutely destroying the English army for the third time in one day.

Some apologist historians claim that the Battle of Roslin was little more than a skirmish.  Considering 8000 Scots devastated 300,000 English, that's some skirmish.  What is more, whilst called the Battle of Roslin, it in fact spread across a large part of Midlothian.  If you look on a map today you will find memories of it, from Shinbanes Wood near Bilston, to Murder Dean outside Newtongrange - a distance of approximately ten miles, thereby showing just how much distance the battle covered.

It also once more galvanised the common people.  Wallace had been denied overall command at Roslin but it was the people who kept following him.  Sadly, the nobles once more capitulated and signed peace with Edward I.  It was Wallace who steadfastly stood for the freedom of his land and people.  Now the most-wanted man in Scotland, he was soon on the run and with dwindling forces.  In 1305 Sir William Wallace sought refuge in the home of Sir John Fitzallan of Menteith.  What happened thereafter is unclear but it is claimed the Menteith instead delivered Wallace up to the English.  As throughout his life, for one last time, Sir William Wallace had been betrayed by a Scots nobleman.  He was taken immediately to London for trial.

On the morning of 23 August 1307, Sir William Wallace was bound, and had a laurel wreath placed upon his head, a reminder that he had once boasted he would one day wear a crown in London.  He was dragged through the streets and ridiculed, with people pelting him with rotten veg, stones, and anything else at hand.  At the courthouse in Smithfield, he was not allowed to defend himself.  Edward I looked on as judge, as his justiciar Sir Roger de Brabazon read out charge after charge at Wallace.  It was not until Brabazon laid the charge of Treason when Wallace, knowing he had nothing to lose, spoke out;

"
I can not be a traitor, for I owe him no allegiance. He is not my Sovereign; he never received my homage; and whilst life is in this persecuted body, he never shall receive it. To the other points whereof I am accused, I freely confess them all. As Governor of my country I have been an enemy to its enemies; I have slain the English; I have mortally opposed the English King; I have stormed and taken the towns and castles which he unjustly claimed as his own. If I or my soldiers have plundered or done injury to the houses or ministers of religion, I repent me of my sin; but it is not of Edward of England I shall ask pardon."

Wallace's statement was true and accurate; he had never once sworn fealty to Edward I, King of England, and therefore could not possibly be guilty of Treason to a man who was not his king.  It therefore also logically follows that Edward had no right to jurisdiction over him.  Not that it mattered.  What followed was a show trial which led to it's inevitable conclusion of Wallace being found guilty and sentenced to the traitor's death of hanging, drawing and quartering.

Wallace was dragged out of the courthouse to a yard where the paraphernalia of execution awaited him.  He was stripped naked and strung up in a noose which choked him, rather than breaking his neck.  This being done to a man results in a powerful erection, and when this happened, his penis was chopped off and thrown on a fire. He was cut down while still alive and tied to the rack where he was drawn (stretched).  His abdomen was then cut open and his intestines pulled out and shown to him before being thrown on a fire.  In all this Wallace was still alive and aware of what was happening.  Even the English and very anti-Wallace Monk of Lanercost does not record him begging for mercy or crying out once during this time.  And no, he never cried out "FREEDOM!" or anything else.  But it was only when the executioner's axe came down on his neck that the pains of Sir William Wallace of Ellerslie were finally over.

Wallace's head was placed on a spike on Westminster Bridge. His body was cut in four with a quarter each placed in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Stirling and Perth; all scenes of his exploits, and as a warning to others who dared raise up against the King of England.

If Edward I thought that his killing of Sir William Wallace would quell rebellion in Scotland, he could not have been more wrong.  Far from it, it created a grudge, and we Scots have always dearly loved a grudge. So it was that as the Wars of Independence dragged on, more and more recalling Wallace rallied behind Robert the Bruce, who having killed the Red Comyn, made himself King of Scots in 1306.  Edward I died at Burgh-le-Sands on his way to another attempted invasion of Scotland.  He was succeeded by his effeminate homosexual and ineffectual son, Edward II.  On Midsummer Day 1314 thousands of Scots stood and fought alongside Bruce at Bannockburn; a devastating battle which was to see the English never again attempt to invade Scotland.  In 1328 Edward III, King of England, signed the Treaty of Northampton, recognising Scottish independence from England in perpetuity.  That treaty has never been rescinded.

It is said by many that history is written by the victors.  Sir William Wallace of Ellerslie lost, yet in death he was ultimately victorious.  His story inspired the Scots to chase out the English in the 14th century.  His name has resounded down through history, voiced by countless millions of Scots, as it shall continue to be for generations to come.  In the 19th century a statue of Wallace was erected near Dryburgh.  This was originally painted white, so it could clearly be seen across the border in England.  In 1869 a high tower, the Wallace Monument was opened on the top of the Abbey Craig, recalling his famous victory at Stirling Bridge.  It affords wonderful views, has wonderful exhibitions and is home to the Wallace Sword, with the skin of Sir Hugh de Cressingham still around it's hilt.

Wednesday 21 August 2013

Shellfish or just Selfish? Gays, the Wee Frees and the Lewis fishing industry.

The Free Church of Scotland, colloquially known as the "Free Kirk" or the "Wee Frees" are one of the most Presbytarian and conservative Christian faiths in Scotland.  Extremely strict sabbatarians, even in my lifetime local authorities ran by Wee Free members have chained up children's swings and roundabouts in public parks late on Saturday evenings and not unchained them until Monday mornings, to prevent children playing on them on a Sunday.  I don't know if it is still the case but in their stronghold of Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, it was once impossible to buy drink on a Sunday.  Their 'doom and gloom' hard line Protestantism has been parodied by many, notably in the book by Compton Mackenzie, and subsequent movie, Whisky Galore and famously by the Scots comedian, the late Rikki Fulton, who had to change the name of his character of a dour, depressing Scottish church minister from "Rev W E Free" to "Rev I M Jolly".

Needless to say, to the Free Kirk gays are a complete no-no. They maintain that same-sex relationships are unnatural and a choice (funny how they don't state when they decided to be straight).  This of course, like many Wee Free teachings is based upon Old Testament Biblical teachings.  Particularly the Free Kirk will quote one passage in the Book of Leviticus against homosexuality; "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22, KJV).

Among other things the Free Kirk has been very vocal recently in Scotland concerning the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill, which will ratify the right to same-sex marriage in Scotland and which is currently at the discussion stage in the devolved Scottish Parliament.  A Free Kirk spokesman recently called for a conscientious objectors clause similar to that which applies for the 1967 Abortion Act and added that “the Free Church wants some reassurance that in the eyes of the state it will still be legal to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.”  They also want the Equalities Act amended to similarly "protect" those opposed to same-sex marriage on the grounds of religion.

The Marriage and Civil Partnerships Bill is the greatest ever reforming of marriage law in Scottish history.  Apart from recognising and legalising Same Sex Marriage, it will make full provision for the rights of transgender people and permanently ratify the rights of non-religious celebrants to carry out marriage ceremonies (previously each such celebrant had to be granted temporary permission to do so).  The sitting Scottish National Party administration in the Scottish Parliament, with cross party support, are making sure that this bill is inclusive of all.  This is why it is apparently taking so long, as the government wish to make it completely watertight against objection. 

Those of us who have actually taken the time to read the Bill carefully are fully aware that provision is already made for clergy who do not wish to be celebrants in same-sex marriage ceremonies.  Not that it was needed.  In law no-one can enforce a member of clergy to marry anyone, whatever their gender or sexuality.  Free Kirk, Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic clergy have been known to refuse to marry couples purely on the grounds that they are not regular church attendees.  The Free Kirk will be fully aware of this and one would imagine that they have already done their homework and read the Bill.  If so, they will be equally aware that provision has indeed already been made for objectors.  One can only assume therefore that this is merely an attempt at stalling the process of the Bill.  Is so, the Wee Frees are merely delaying the inevitable; the Marriage and Civil Partnerships (Scotland) Bill has overwhelming support from all sides of the Scottish Parliament and it shall become law, no matter whether they like it or not.

It is interesting to note however, that while the Free Kirk are so up in arms about same sex marriage, and homosexuality generally, they remain very silent upon the fishing and processing of shellfish, which is one of the mainstays of industry and biggest employers in their Isle of Lewis homeland.  This is despite that the Bible, in the same Book of Leviticus they are so fond of quoting against gay rights, also expressly forbids the eating of shellfish equally as strongly as gay sex; "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:10-12, KJV).  You'll notice here that Leviticus names shellfish not once as an "abomination" but three times.  That seems perfectly clear to me, yet the fishing of them has the full blessing of the Free Kirk.  There is a word for this; hypocrisy.

Macduff Shellfish recently agreed to buy the Stornoway Seafood Factory from Young's, thereby protecting the 33 jobs at the plant.  One of the major Shellfish processors and exporters, in 2012 Macduff purchased the UK's largest scallop fishing fleet, Scott Trawlers.  The work at the Stornoway Seafood Factory concentrates mainly upon the processing of langoustines, but also shells prawns to for the UK scampi market.

One can only wonder therefore if the Free Kirk would be so welcoming of the shellfish industry if they realised that the Northern Prawn found in the North Atlantic Ocean, Pandalus Borealis are in fact hermaphroditic?  They are born male but in the second year of life, their testicles turn to ovaries and they complete their lives as females. Should we be surprised?  Shrimps are so shockingly pink that they are FABULOUS!  Add to this that Macduff Shellfish may actually extend or diversify the Stornoway factory to include the processing of one of their mainstays, scallops, many of which are also natural hermaphrodites.

So, will it be business as usual with the Lewis Wee Frees, or can we soon expect some edict against abominable gay shellfish?

Tuesday 20 August 2013

Cyborg babies - an idea which has come of it's time.

Sitting on a long bus journey today, I had the joy of a mother on the bus whose baby was obviously tired, and possibly teething.  Let's up the ante; it is summer in Edinburgh, so naturally our dear local bus company have decided to turn the heating on on all the buses.  To say this little one was not happy would be an understatement, and she was letting the entire bus know about it.

No disparagement to the wee soul, who was obviously in some sort of discomfort, but a thought struck me.  In our modern age we already have a great deal of technology which can be implanted into humans to make enhance and save lives.  The day of the bionic human has been with us for quite a while now.  Surely it is time to take that technology further - and fit babies with volume controls.

Before anyone throws their hands up in horror at what a cruel brute I am, I would urge parents to think of the advantages.  Apart from quietening down a crying baby, as the children grow, volume controls would be worth their weight in gold to silence the chants of "Are we there yet?", and continually asking the question "Why?" to every statement.  I'm sure that my girl, Sheila, would agree with me that as the kids reach their teens volume controls would be invaluable, to either turn up the volume to make sense of their mumbling, or mute them completely when they start whining or throwing a strop.

Yes folks, I am of course joking.  It is well seeing that I am not a parent, nor was I ever cut out to be one.

(Composite picture by myself made from images found on Wikimedia Commons)

Monday 19 August 2013

Reducing a CV from a book to two pages

So, on the advice of an agency employment consultant, I decided to tear my CV to bits and come up with a new version.  Oh foolish person, why did you ever embark on such a mission?

I have had quite a few posts in my time, which has given me an enormous wealth of skills and experience.  Obviously this is a huge positive point in job hunting - or at least it should be.  Now try and take all that skills and experience, and put it down on two sheets of A4, with clear, concise, easy-to-read formatting.  Not possible.  Somewhere there is going to be a list of bullet pointed responsibilities in one job which is going to overlap to the next page.  And when that happens, if you have the entry within a cell on an inserted table, it is bound to leave a line at the bottom of one page.  I hate Word and I hate tables.  After three hours of playing with this thing, I gave up.  At least I now have a rough draft of what I want it to look like.

I have an appointment with an employment consultant in the morning, so I am going to run it past him for some input and play with it some more.  There is one thing for sure, there is no way I can reduce a full CV to two pages.  Three, possibly four, is going to be more likely.  Employers are too bloody picky by half.  I am well aware that they want experienced staff.  If that is the case, then they should either accept a two page skills based CV, or a four page CV with full employment history.

Has my Girlfriend turned into the Elfin Queen?

So, Sheila added my blog to her blogspot and I asked her how she did that, so I could add hers.  She replied "Follow this path..."  Suddenly I felt like the 13th Century Scots Seer Thomas the Rhymer, whom in The Ballad of Thomas the Rhymer the Elfin Queen tells,

See ye nocht thon narrow road,
sae thick beset wi' thorns and briars?
Thon be the path o' wrychtiswance*,

though efter it bot few enquiries.

And see ye nocht thon braid, braid road,
which lies across the lily leven?
Thon be the path o' wickedness,
though some wad call it the road tae Heaven.

And see ye nocht thon bonny road,
that winds aboot the fernie brae?
Thon be the path tae fair Elfland,

whaur ye and I this nicht maun gae.

 *wrychtiswance: Middle Scots; "righteousness".

Whatever, Sheila often thinks I'm away with the fairies, and she will always be MY Elfin Queen.

Facebook: Social networking or a holding pen for the Jerry Springer show?

My girlfriend Sheila is using Facebook increasingly less and I am beginning to understand why.  Today I posted a story about a stupid woman in the USA who was moaning about a painting in her kid's school with the quote "God is dead" on it.  The artwork is actually based upon the Arthur Miller play The Crucible and has nothing to do with religious belief, yet the said bint was moaning about prayer being banned in school (only communal prayer and it was removed before she was born) and saying it is an affront to her as her little daughter attends that school (no comment from the kid by the way).

No sooner had I reported this in a secular FB group I happen to be a member of and another member came back accusing me of trawling the internet for stories and being anti-religious and bigoted.  In fact, it was not the first time stories from the USA - and other parts of the world - have appeared in this Scottish group.  Sheila, an American (by birth, but Scots in both ethnicity and spirit), has actually been asked to post on US stories in there.  She certainly was not offended by the title I put on my post "Burn the books, burn The Crucible, get the lynch rope..." because she recognises that it was a humorous reference to the mentality of some Christian Americans.  By the way, my critic also claimed that the above title I put on the post was anti-religious - you'll notice there is no mention of religion in it.

The said numpty made the biggest mistake anyone can ever make with me - he wrongfully accused me of things I was not guilty of.  He duly paid the price for it when I showed him up to be the fool he truly is by using his own words against him.

Just for the record, I am not prejudiced against anyone, be it on grounds of race, creed, colour, sexuality, gender identity, physical ability, mental ability, social standing or any other grounds - I have equal contempt for all humanity.