I was a person involved in organizing this, so throw rotten fruit in this direction please.

It seems to me that the bailout is not deeply unpopular at the moment. Savings have been guaranteed and it is pretty easy at this stage for the government to claim that they have taken an audacious move to sure up the 'economy', which is all black magic to most of us. Note how markets rose for a few days after the bailout, and then realities reasserted themselves and the bubble continues to deflate this week.

Fact remains that the government protected shareholdings by buying into banks rather than waiting for them to collapse entirely (like bradford and bingley or northern rock), and then nationalising them.

It's easy to criticise. Why don't you organise something, instead of attack people who have made an effort?

I thought the demo was a great starting point to build resistance against the attacks on the living standards of ordinary people. I think it is an excellent idea to deliver the messages people wrote to Alistair Darling's surgery. Thanks to the organisers for making an effort.

or it didn't happen

Well, from my phone, here's mine.  (mostly pretty crap, and taken right at the end)

http://scotland.indymedia.org/sites/default/files/SP_A0111.jpg " />

http://scotland.indymedia.org/sites/default/files/SP_A0113.jpg " />

http://scotland.indymedia.org/sites/default/files/SP_A0118.jpg " />

My personal impression was that the demonstration was about what I had expected, namely somewhere around 50+ people, outside the offices of HBOS, on a (freezing!) Friday night.  The organisers took contributions from those attending on what people felt about the financial crisis.  I'm sure some of those responses will be made public in due course.

The demonstration was organised in a few weeks, with small resources, and publicised on indymedia Scotland, and in a small number of fliers.  There have been lots of small demonstrations up and down the country.  As it happens people came from across Edinbrigh, and a few from Glasgow to attend this.

I think Friday night in central Edinburgh was always going to be a hard one to get folk along to, but I think what we can take away from this is that (1) it is possible for an ad hoc group of people to organise demonstrations, and to get some press attention, and (2) even with only a few thousand fliers and some short notice publicity a fair wee number of people will turn out.

Certainly the authorities were taking no chances on the day, and HBOS and the mound had their fair share of the local constabulary in attendance, so somebody somewhere was obviously worried about seething resentment towards the enormous handouts for failed capitalists.

 hey caz, maybe i do organise stuff maybe i don't, don't mean i can't throw shite at the fan when i like, it's called critical analysis (even if it was mega bitchy in tone) my comments were constructive as well as destructive though that's how i got away with it

meanwhile does anyone have owt to say about the 'people will see our signal fire for miles' crack about dilution of message. what inspires me to make that comment is reports of seattle ages ago. the message coming from people at that summit was radical. they were saying capitalism not only doesn't work, we need to fuckin destroy that shit. lots of people were attracted to that. subsequent summits were less inspiring to people (eg gleneagles, make poverty history coldplay sponsored event) as they were subject to extensive 'recuperation' ops by HM GOVT. does anyone think this opinion has any credability? if not why not? and no wind up merchants! alroight?

bawbag

Well Bawbag Mcmink of the Anti-Farming Alliance. The romantic ultra-left rhetoric of revolution and insurrection that you prefer would have been even less inspiring for ordinary people.

In fact I think we made a pretty good stab at a protest that might, for once, have connected with the issues facing regular people. Most non-activist people I speak to are not interested in revolution or attacking the banks: they are much more bothered by their rising fuel bills, their mortgage, and the potential for job losses and public sector cuts.

With respect comrade, these issues might not inspire you, but that probably shows how disconnected you are from most people in this town. It perhaps shows a certain callousness to argue that fuel poverty isnt an issue we should be inspired to organise on, given that many people die in Scotland every winter as a result of fuel poverty, and still many more are cold and struggle to pay their bills.

I agree with you that the protest wasnt very successful, very few ordinary people made it along for a number of reasons. Primarily because, as Tomm said, most people are not directly affected or especially worried by the recession yet. The government appears to most people to be handling the situation adequately.

We will learn from our mistakes, and try again, continuing to promote useful politics that normal people can relate to. Fun as it might have been, to charge into HBOS while wearing balaclavas, and telling people to abolish capitalism, It would have been worse than irrelevant, but a joke for most people. This would have been the real farce!

At the protest, Edinburgh Coalition Against Poverty was talked about, and the Solidarity Union which aims to provide practical support and solidarity for people hard hit by the recession was announced. This is the very radical measure of creating a union of people ready to resist sheriff officers evicting people, or aggressively chasing up council tax arrears, amongst other issues. Several people at the protest took leaflets and said that they were interested in the organisation as a result.

"Employment" and " fuel bills" mean class oppression and capitalist value.  In literal terms, being against the bail out and "making the rich pay for their crisis" means a massive destruction of industrial capital, in return for lower inflation and maybe lower taxes.   If you said, the latter (collapse) should destroy the former (functioning capitalism) that would be some kind of a coherent ultra-left position.  I would support it if any reasonable group was actually saying that.. but they're not.  What's actually being said?

Demanding that everyone should have a job, while demanding that there be no bailout, so the credit system should collapse, so that credit to support demand and employment collapses.  Ie. crazy "fiscal conservatism" with oxymoronic leftist posturing.

Demanding that the price of fuel should come down, as if it's actually OK that heating has an exchange value as well as the use value of keeping people alive....  OK windfall taxes on energy companies are good.  Nationalisation would be better.

So these are the only sort of demands the working class can understand?  That's your problem right there..

"If you said, the latter (collapse) should destroy the former (functioning capitalism) that would be some kind of a coherent ultra-left position.  I would support it if any reasonable group was actually saying that.. but they're not."

So, you would support a position of, "let capitalism collapse"? It might be coherent, but would anyone apart from ultra-leftists support it? I dont think so. The ultra-left are not credible, and so very few would support this position, because they would not trust the ultra-left to deliver security and prosperity.

"Demanding that everyone should have a job, while demanding that there be no bailout, so the credit system should collapse, so that credit to support demand and employment collapses.  Ie. crazy "fiscal conservatism" with oxymoronic leftist posturing."

In fact the message of the organisers was not "dont have a bailout", but rather, lets have a different bailout. This perhaps reveals your intentions to "flame" rather than have a discussion of the protest. Anyway, the organisers were proposing a bail-out where the things that people value (jobs, pensions, homes etc.) are safeguarded, rather than merely a bailout that safeguards the position of the wealthy and powerful. 

"So these are the only sort of demands the working class can understand?  That's your problem right there."

Im not sure what you mean here. I wasnt making any statements about what people can understand, or their intelligence,  merely what they are interested in. And I judge that people are interested in stopping their home being reposessed, avoiding losing their job, and not having to pay a huge proportion of their income fuel bills. I think that they are not interested in ultra-left rhetoric about, "let capitalism collapse".

It is unfortunate that your post is confrontational and aggressive, rather than constructive and supportive: but it is in-keeping with the lack of solidarity shown to people in the comments sections of indymedia, and on most leftist or anarchist internet forums!

hey mackno, remember that you were totally dismissive of the anti farming alliances timely critique of domestication and the dominant cultures love affair with industrialism and 'growth' / destruction branding it "irrelevant" so please don't start blubbing over the lack of 'solidarity' you face when people earnestly critique your maneuvering. Try listening instead of lecturing. 

Bawbag