The Scottish Government has published its White Paper (all 198 pages of it) on Scotland's constitutional future. It sets out the various choices the Scottish people could make about the country's future, with an obvious emphasis on desirability of independence.
The SG released a slick video to accompany the launch of the White Paper, which majored on how the contemporary debate fitted into the wider narrative of Scottish history. It was a case of "Bannockburn, the '45 and all that".
Which is a bit disappointing. I'm sure that there is a certain amount of emotional appeal and satisfaction in seeing the contemporary debate in the context of the sweep of Scotland's past and comparing the SNP's mission to the wars of independence all those years ago. But they are irrelevant to the current discussion.
Scotland's electorate has repeatedly demonstrated that it is sophisticated and it is unthinkable that a simple appeal to emotion and history would cause it to vote for a momentous change like independence. If the SNP wants to succeed then it must make a TECHNICAL case for independence not an emotional one. It needs to demonstrate how the government of an independent Scotland would be able better meet the expectations of Scotland's people in the main areas of domestic policy and address the strategic challenges Scotland will face in a globalised world.
The White Paper fails to make that case, which suggests a certain level of political maturity on the part of the SNP leadership. Independence will not (and should not) happen until that maturity is more evident.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Problems of our past
My recent travels, and the events that have dominated the news media over the past decade, have been a constant reminder of the contining legacy of empire. As I've noted before, most of the world's most difficult problems are a direct result of the way Europe'a empires were wound up. Look at Zimbabwe, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir - all the legacy of the end of empire.
A few years ago I had lunch with a proper old buffer who genuinely appeared to believe that the world's problems would be resolved if the clock was turned back three quarters of a century. There was all kinds of problems with his arguments - you had to share his hopelesly romantic view of thevage of empire, you had to accept that administering an empire was a realistic prospect for western European countries that, at times, appear to struggle hyo administer themselves and you had to forget that these same empires were, at best, very mixed blessings. When I pushed back he told me that I couldn't blame all the world's problems on empire, others were at fault too.
To be honest, I think he had the modern world in mind. He was that kind of man- the type who will always believe 50 years ago was better. But on reflection I think he had a point, even if it wasn't exactly what he had in mind.
To be continued....
A few years ago I had lunch with a proper old buffer who genuinely appeared to believe that the world's problems would be resolved if the clock was turned back three quarters of a century. There was all kinds of problems with his arguments - you had to share his hopelesly romantic view of thevage of empire, you had to accept that administering an empire was a realistic prospect for western European countries that, at times, appear to struggle hyo administer themselves and you had to forget that these same empires were, at best, very mixed blessings. When I pushed back he told me that I couldn't blame all the world's problems on empire, others were at fault too.
To be honest, I think he had the modern world in mind. He was that kind of man- the type who will always believe 50 years ago was better. But on reflection I think he had a point, even if it wasn't exactly what he had in mind.
To be continued....
Monday, 5 January 2009
A predictable debate about a deadly subject
Why is it so difficult to have an intelligent debate about Israel/Palestine?
It is virtually impossible in the MSM, let alone on-line, to find anything which isn't written on the basis of strongly held views which assumes one of the sides is on the side of the angels. The idea that this might be a touch more complicated than this simple dualicity is difficult to find. The phone in on 5Live this morning was no better - a hour of phone calls, the contents of almost all of which you knew before the caller had been put on air.
I think the fact that both sides (understandably) seems themselves as victims and the issues are so closely linked with identity politics of the most powerful kind, makes this a subject about which it is difficult to be dispassionate particularly if you identify strongly with one side or another.
For my part, I am genuinely conflicted about this conflict. I understand why Israel needs to respond to rockets being fired into its territory from across the border. But the level of human suffering, and the condition of Gaza as a result of its treatment by its neighbours (and government), does not seems proportional to the stated aims of the Israeli government. I think I have come to the conclusion that the Israelis are seeking to create a new strategic reality on the ground - weakening Hamas and thereby dealing a blow to Iran and securing southern Israel against rocket attack at the same time.
That is desirable but I am not sure that it is achievable, particularly at such a high human cost which will only perpetuate the spiral of violence.
It is virtually impossible in the MSM, let alone on-line, to find anything which isn't written on the basis of strongly held views which assumes one of the sides is on the side of the angels. The idea that this might be a touch more complicated than this simple dualicity is difficult to find. The phone in on 5Live this morning was no better - a hour of phone calls, the contents of almost all of which you knew before the caller had been put on air.
I think the fact that both sides (understandably) seems themselves as victims and the issues are so closely linked with identity politics of the most powerful kind, makes this a subject about which it is difficult to be dispassionate particularly if you identify strongly with one side or another.
For my part, I am genuinely conflicted about this conflict. I understand why Israel needs to respond to rockets being fired into its territory from across the border. But the level of human suffering, and the condition of Gaza as a result of its treatment by its neighbours (and government), does not seems proportional to the stated aims of the Israeli government. I think I have come to the conclusion that the Israelis are seeking to create a new strategic reality on the ground - weakening Hamas and thereby dealing a blow to Iran and securing southern Israel against rocket attack at the same time.
That is desirable but I am not sure that it is achievable, particularly at such a high human cost which will only perpetuate the spiral of violence.
He isn't president so he doesn't make policy...
Every UK news broadcast this evening has followed their initial reports about Gaza with a piece about Obama's 'silence' over the situation.
Note to news editors: this is a non-story. Of course he isn't going to say much. He isn't president, he doesn't make policy and he keeping to a long term convention that presidents-elect don't intervene in/comment on foreign policy.
Some here have compared his response to current events to those in Mumbai late last year but comparisons between comments on a controversial war in the middle east and condolences on a universally condemned terrorist attack don't hold.
Note to news editors: this is a non-story. Of course he isn't going to say much. He isn't president, he doesn't make policy and he keeping to a long term convention that presidents-elect don't intervene in/comment on foreign policy.
Some here have compared his response to current events to those in Mumbai late last year but comparisons between comments on a controversial war in the middle east and condolences on a universally condemned terrorist attack don't hold.
Some excellent news
Saturday, 3 January 2009
Thursday, 20 November 2008
In a moment of progressive triumph you can rely on the New Statesman to depress you.
This is Martin Bright's article on how the British left might ape Obama's triumph.
It's mightily depressing because Bright seems to think that a few potentiall popular policy ideas are the same as a credible policy platform and political philosophy, and far too many people with me on the left will rush to agree.
And as if unilateral disarmament is a new and credible idea. In the right context, I think it is goer, but that context involves a proper rethink about the UK's strategic posture (see previous post). And I also oppose ID cards, but simply cancelling them isn't a counter terrorism strategy.
The tragedy is that the financial crisis and Obama's triumph provides a unique moment in which the British left could re conceptualise itself and break free from the stale arguments of the past. Instead we get a list of half-baked policy ideas presented as a coherent philosophy.
It's mightily depressing because Bright seems to think that a few potentiall popular policy ideas are the same as a credible policy platform and political philosophy, and far too many people with me on the left will rush to agree.
And as if unilateral disarmament is a new and credible idea. In the right context, I think it is goer, but that context involves a proper rethink about the UK's strategic posture (see previous post). And I also oppose ID cards, but simply cancelling them isn't a counter terrorism strategy.
The tragedy is that the financial crisis and Obama's triumph provides a unique moment in which the British left could re conceptualise itself and break free from the stale arguments of the past. Instead we get a list of half-baked policy ideas presented as a coherent philosophy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)