Tomorrow, tomorrow

Tomorrow sees the announcements from today's STFC science prioritisation meeting (hilariously title "Investing in the future: 2010-2015" [my emphasis]), which will describe how UK funding for Astronomy, Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics will be distributed over the next few years. Due to certain issues there are likely to be some big cuts in many areas where the UK has been doing excellent science, and many people are on tenterhooks waiting to see if their area (and in many post-docs cases their jobs) are on the line. Other people have written in more informed, and better ways, about this, so I'm not going to add anything other than the obviously selfish thing of hoping that my area of gravitational wave research fares well. I hope things aren't as bad as predicted and most people (in all STFC-funded areas) see their funding at least kept at its current level, but that's probably hoping in vain.

[Update: The report can be found here. Gravitational waves fared well, but even we can expect to have to deal with cuts of order 10% (maybe more) - I think we'll do this through various efficiency savings. There is a lot of discussion online of the aftermath of this report and its effects over all the STFC areas (for example see the comments on Peter Coles blog, or the #sftc tag on twitter.)]

The real G20

This BBC article pointed out something I'd yet to notice (not that it's a particularly pertinent thing to notice) - my home postcode, G20, is the same as the name of the big meeting starting in London today between the Group of 20 top economic nations. Wow! That's such an amazing coincidence isn't it! The article throws into contrast the difference between the expected topics of discussion at the G20 meeting and the real life issues that the decent folk of Maryhill (i.e. me) are having to face on a daily basis. It's a depressing and gloomy place is Maryhill, with barely a shop left open; all of us living in boarded up, piss-stinking hi-rises; spending our lives shuffling between the bookies and the pub, with only a thin drawn-out roll-up (that has to be smoked outside in the dirty, rain sodden street) as meagre comfort; tripping over the homeless and destitute as we queue for any work we can get at the job centre; giving in to the syringe as the only release from our miserable existence; lying by the side of the road covered in vomit with a smashed bottle of Buckie and your last shred of self-worth seeping into the gutter. Compare that to the lives of these leaders of nations, with their fancy suits and cars and staff of thousands. They don't know what it's like! Damn them, damn them all.

It's the time, it's the place, it's the motion...

Today has been an historic day. A day that many people thought, or imagined, would never come. But the prospect of hope and change meant that anything was possible... yes, it became the day that I first played pool volleyball.

The net represented the challenges to overcome (and a literal net) and the ball (other than being a ball) was the American spirit of forging a better future from determination, hard work and high ideals - unfortunately in the game I was playing the ball didn't manage to make it over the net most of the time, but we can only hope that Obama's a better volleyball player (and President) than me and, obviously, Bush.

[As a more serious aside to this post I do hope that Obama can live up to at least part of his hype (which is obviously far too high at the moment) and restore some credibility to the US political system in the eyes of the world. I did like his specific nods towards science in his inaugaratuion speech, but other than that I would like him to live up to his promises of a transparent and open government.]

Bye by-election

Following all the US election excitement of earlier in the week I thought I'd live blog the Glenrothes by-election result as it comes in - can you just feel the tension and excitement of such a historic world event! Then I thought "Nah, don't be stupid". However the current state of play looks like Labour have held the seat after earlier predictions of an SNP win. It looks like Gordon's back on the up.

[Update: I said I wouldn't live blog but I'm still up and the result is in: Labour have won with a total of 19946 votes, beating the SNP by over 6000 votes. Turnout was 52% which is down by 4% from the last general election (so the excitement over the US elections hasn't really turned around voter apathy over here then.) It was a very poor show for the Conservative and Lib Dem with only 1381 and 947 votes respectively - that really is impressively bad going, although I don't really know if either party's been campaigning very hard for this one.]

It's in the limbs

On watching the highlights of last night's US presidential debate one thing stood out above all others. That thing was the length of John McCain's arms! They're tiny! To hold the microphone near enough to his mouth his elbows had to be almost at shoulder level. His legs aren't much better either. When he was perched on the stool the dangled off it like a ventriloquist's dummy's legs. I'll be looking out for more disproportionate body parts next time I see him.

Changing priorities

A while back I briefly posted about the release of STFC's programmatic review in which it ranked the priorities of varies particle physics and astronomy research projects (much, much more can be found all over the internet e.g. here and here.) The programmatic review was based on the advice of the Physics, Astronomy & Nuclear Physics Science Committee (PPAN) which was made up of a relatively small group of physicists and astronomers. This process was highly criticised by the wider UK physics and astronomy community for not being informed by a much broader consultation of experts. So for the last few months the priorities have been reassessed by a variety of ad hoc panels with the aim of giving a more truthful representation of where the community believes the UK's priorities should lie (although even this process has not been entirely well received, due to it's untimely and hurried nature.) Obviously it would be nice, and most profitable scientifically, to see everything being given a high priority, but with the current climate some hard choices have to be made. For the projects receiving high to medium priorities I think things should be reasonably safe funding-wise at least until the government's next comprehensive spending review, however it does leaves the projects with the lowest priority facing the very harsh reality of having funding completely pulled. The reason I'm writing this post is that yesterday the reports from these ad hoc consultation panels were released. I've not read all of them, but from this BBC article it's seems that things are in pretty similar shape priority-wise to how they were after the programmatic review. However, various things like eMerlin and some solar projects seem to have been slightly bumped up the list (although I think it's mainly a result of another tier being added to the bottom of the priority scale and they've been moved off the bottom one.) The one report I have looked at is that for Astro-particle physics, in which gravitational wave research lives, and it seems to have been kept at the highest level of prioritisation. According to the report there had been some grumbling from the wider community that there were too many high-to-medium priority gravitational wave projects in the list, but I think the report answers the that criticism well. For the relatively small level of funding that we (the UK) put into gravitational wave research (a few million pounds) we get a disproportionately large amount back i.e. we have access to all the data from the current GEO600, LIGO (a billion dollar scale project!) and Virgo detectors, as well as that which will come from the next generation of detectors. Also the potential reward for being the gravitational wave game is very high. People may well disagree and cite the fact that nothing's been detected yet, but I think these are very valid reasons to keep up the funding of these projects. Of course I would say this as it's my field of research. These reports aren't yet the final outcome though and we'll have to wait until 8^th July until the final version of the programmatic review is published.

For US 2008 look elsewhere

My blogging plans for this year generally didn't involve keeping up with the whole US 2008 electioneering (what with all the caucuses/primaries and so forth), but if they had I think I'd probably have had to become a professional blogger - and also become someone with some actual insight/knowledge/personal experience into American politics. I may make the occasional (un)informed US election post, but if you're interested in some of the competition I would have had (if I'd taken up the professional-blogger mantle) then there's veteran political blogger Andrew Sullivan, who managed a massive 48 posts/links mainly on the Iowa caucuses today(!), and the slightly less prolific Justin Webb of the beeb (there'll be many more blogs devoted to it, but I'm sure you web savvy people can find them if you want.)

On a sombre note there is a rather poignant posthumous blog from a US soldier killed in Iraq yesterday posted here (via CV.) If you're opinion of the US military was that they're all a bunch of meatheads then I recommend you read it and I hope it'll help change your mind.

No mercy for Ming

Well it's been coming for the last couple of weeks, but Sir Menzies Campbell has given in to all the recent talk and quit as Liberal Democrat leader. Was it just an age thing, or was there pressure from inside the party? Well I think Ming just realised that he wouldn't be able to sustain another couple of years as leader of the Lib Dems before the next election, especially if his age kept coming up as a media issue. There's obviously been a lot of pressure on the party since the high profile that the main two political parties have come out with from their party conferences and the fight back that the Conservatives have made in the polls. Labour have a newish leader and Cameron has got a bit of a new lease of life. The probably was a lot of talk amongst the higher ranking Lib Dem MPs that Ming should go, but I don't think anyone out and out pushed him - although that said there was one quote on Newsnight last night, from a Lib Dem MP, saying that they thought the people talking against Ming were a "shower of shites"! I think getting a new leader will actually help the party in that a leadership election will keep them on the news agenda. I don't really have a clue who'll become the next leader, in fact there are several people who's names I don't recognise at all that have been speculated about, but it might provide a bit of excitement. Maybe they'll get Charlie back :)

Cameron's big ideas

Last night on Newsnight the Conservative leader David Cameron was being quizzed on his views and Conservative Party policy. Frankly it was a bit embarrassing to watch, even by the normally very poor performance standards of politicians in interviews. Now I've never been a Tory supporter, but when Cameron was chosen as their new leader it did seem a like a bit of a nice change from the previous couple of leaders (probably not as much of a change as if Kenneth Clarke had got in, but some change at least) with the prospect of a decent opposition party - ok, so Cameron was totally playing the Blair card, but he was trying to sound a bit caring. However, after having a bit of a battering in the last few months, and with Brown actually seeming to be quite popular, he's done the old appeal-to-the-Daily-Mail-reader change of heart by showing he is tough (and Tory) on crime, immigration and family breakdown - there's "anarchy on the streets of the UK" apparently! In the interview he was maintaining that his views have been consistent over his 18-19 months as leader, but even if they've not actually changed that much he's certainly changed emphasis a lot! His talk of having the most disadvantaged people as his main priority were particularly exposed when he was questioned about the Tories insistence on sorting out inheritance tax as a first goal, which would help the middle /upper classes most, so I wont complain, but would be of very little practical help to the poorest families. His talk of having £20 a week of extra benefits for married couples was also quite laughable - as if that's going to be an incentive for people to stay in broken relationships or encourage unmarried couples to wed! Then his talk of the Tories idea for green taxes was just stupid - he complained that under Labour such taxes would be implemented as stealth taxes, but the Conservatives would impose green taxes (e.g. an extra few quid on air travel) by dropping taxes in other areas i.e. you end up paying the same amount of taxes, but it is just shifted in name - is that really a disincentive to flying!?

My main thought was that David needs to do a hell of a lot better, especially if Brown calls a general election in the next couple of months.

Number 4

Tomorrow it all changes! Will Britain fall to ruin? Will nightmares from our worst imaginings blight the world? Will the very fabric of the universe tear itself assunder?

These are all possibilites of what'll happen as Tony Blair resigns as Prime Minister, but I may be being a bit on the alarmist side. The only real short term change will be that we'll have to remember to say Gordon rather than Tony when refering to the PM.

At the age of 26 it is quite strange to note that Tony's only the third PM I've experienced during my lifetime. First there were the horrors of Thatcher stealing our school milk (well that was actually back in 1971 when she was Education Secretary and she was actually against the move, but still, grrrrr!) - damn her big eighties hair for all eternity. Then there were the grey pants years of Major - such a nice guy now what with his love of cricket and all. Followed by 10 smiley, enthusiatic and earnest, but somewhat shallow years with Blair (or Big Tone as I like to call him). What will I have to expect from my number 4 Gordy B? Only time will tell, but he better not mess with no school milk!

You decide

After a last minute conversion to Scottish Nationalism and evangelical Christainity this morning I went to the polling station to place my votes firmly behind the SNP and SCP. I long for the days when I can live in an independent, fundamentally Christian, Scotland, without being bothered by those English bastards or any pesky gays...

...only joking ;)

I did go and do my democratic duty this morning, but my votes were cast slightly differently than above. I was expecting a last bit of electioneering by the local council candidates outside the polling station, but there was only one Labour leafleter and no-one trying to take any sort of exit poll. One thing I'll say about the voting is that a lot of the parties didn't half go out of their way to make the regional list ballot paper [this is the proportional representation part - courtesy of the Lib Dems - where you don't vote for a particular constituency candidate, but rather a party, and a certain number of parlimentary seats are made up proportionally from this vote] as confusing as possible. Rather than making things nice and clear by just having their party's name in the box many decided to spice things up a bit by adding their party leaders name, or their slogan. It just made the ballot look cluttered and annoying. The local council ballot was quite fun in that this time round you get to rank the candidates in your favoured order. I spent a short while considering who I thought was better out of the three Labour party candidates - mainly going by their pictures from the election material I'd had through my door. Oh, the excitement!

Equality for all, except...

Tonight I caught the end of a party political broadcast by the Scottish Christian Party (next week across the UK there are local elections and in Scotland there are also elections for the Scottish Parliament.) Now the SCP seem to be an angry bunch, but I wasn't quite prepared for the comment that their leader, the Rev. George Hargreaves, said at the very end of the broadcast. Now one of the SCPs main bugbears seems to be the Equality Law that is soon to be introduced across the UK, with their particular attention being on the fact that it means you can't discriminate against someone due to their sexual orientation. Being Christian's you might think "how can they be against something that says everyone is equal?", because isn't that how God views people. Well they don't quite see it that way. The law is in fact an affront to all Christians and is in fact discriminatory against them! Yeah, right! Now I come to what the Rev. George said. He compared the introduction of the anti-discrimination law to the Nazi's introducing a law banning the preparation of Kosher food. And then went on to make the statement that pretty much suggested that, as the Nazi's followed up this law with the Holocaust, the UK Equality law would lead to a similar fate for Scottish Christians! Comparing a piece of anti-discrimination policy to events that led to the Holocaust is really fucked up. Not that I was ever considering "placing my cross by their cross" (their slogan for how you should vote), but these guys will most definitely not be getting my vote!

United

Today marked the 300th anniversary of the Scottish parliament voting for the Union between the Scottish and English parliaments. This has of course been greeted by debate (sure to continue up to this year's Scottish parliamentary elections) over the place of the union and whether the United Kingdom should break up with an independent Scotland (and indeed and independent England - in a lot of these debates Wales and Northern Ireland get a bit forgotten about, but then they are only small). There are three main areas where these debates tend to focus, and they are used to argue, by various parties (not only meaning political parties), both for and against independence: the political arguments e.g. self determination in all areas of government including taxation and defense, the West Lothian question; the economic arguments e.g. other small independent European nations have vibrant economies, businesses thrive with close links to the economic powerhouse of London; and the cultural arguments e.g. we diminish/enhance our identities through the union. I've just given a few examples of some of the areas which arise from the independence question and there are many more. Each of them is very complex with no simple answer or conclusion, so I'm just going to give a bit of opinion as to why I favour keeping the union rather than delving into any one particular argument.

I'm English and have lived in Scotland for over four years now, so I have some knowledge of what it's like to live in both countries. Before moving here I liked the idea of the union, just because I thought it was a nice notion, although I didn't have any real idea of the strength of the Scottish national identity or of the differences throughout Britain. On moving to Scotland I've enjoyed the fact that there is a distinct cultural identity here, however I've never felt like a foreigner (ok, except during the football!). I don't know if it's just the shared language that makes it this way, and maybe I'd feel the same in, say, France if I spoke French, or them English. Then again, I do feel like a foreigner in America, where they speak English. I think the main reason that I feel like I'm at home in Scotland is that the union's been around so long that the links and commonalities between the nations are actually rather ingrained, and comfortable. Sure there are difference and it's nice to celebrate these things, and to show them to others, but on another level there are (again in my opinion) far more similarities. So my main reason for the retaining of the union is still that I like the way it feels. I like the fact that England and Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland are part of something bigger and that because of it they do have so many links and things in common. I suppose I'm arguing here that there is (in my experience) some sort of common British identity, which a lot of people don't like the idea of or get defensive about - maybe this is because they think it somehow dilutes or takes away from their narrower national (or regional) identity, or maybe it's just that they like being in a slightly more exclusive club, or maybe it's that they don't like the idea of a label or national identity at all, but I don't really know. I have to say that one aspect of the independence debate that I hate (and which thankfully you don't often hear) is one of racism, whereby the Scots, Welsh, Cornish are Celts and racially different that the Anglo Saxons and therefore are fundamentally different and should have independent (and maybe they're suggesting racially pure!) countries.

Anyway, these are the opinions of someone who's from England, or more specifically the South-East (London), so it would be interesting to hear other peoples views. Maybe you see the commonalities that I say run deep are actually the superficial things, whereas the differences are far more numerous and ingrained. Let's not get to divisive now though ;)

Back to the general starting point of this opinion piece:- The main thing I think that would be seen if independence were to happen is that a mixture of the pro and anti-independence predictions would be born out, with some benefits being seen as well as some loses (for both England and Scotland), plus some outcomes that no one expected - I know that's not a very insightful thing to say as it's pretty much stating the bloody obvious, but politicians tend to paint things as either one option or the other.

Ministry of experiments

Today Lord Sainsbury announced he would be quitting his position as the government Science Minister. His reason for leaving has yet to be revealed although there are murmurings of possible links to the whole cash for honours/peerages scandal, although he received his peerage before his own large donations to the labour party (some of which he might not quite have disclosed fully) were made. Over his time in this position he has overseen a large rise in the government spending on science and as far as I can tell has actually taken a fairly large interest in his job (apparently it's never been a ministerial brief that anyone's really wanted before). There also appears to have been a fair amount of respect for him among the scientific community (according to this article at least). He's definitely been the most prominent and visible Science minister I can remember, in fact I have no idea who any of the previous science ministers have been. A lot of his prominence has been down to his donations to the Labour party, his closeness to Tony Blair, and his Sainsburys supermarkets based fortune, but I have actually also seen him championing science on a fair few occasions. I don't really know if he's had much direct impact on funding within Physics and Astronomy, but I assume some of the extra money that's been put into sciences (from £1.4 billion in 1998 to £3.4 billion next year) must have come our way. The new appointment for the post is going to be Malcolm Wicks MP, who has been holding the position of Minister for Energy. I don't know if he has any science background, but from his biography he seems to have spent a lot of time working on issues for the aged and for carers. My main hope is that he is actually interested in taking up his new post, rather than dismissing it, and will be active in fighting the corner of science in general.