tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54619367995945725972024-02-20T20:17:03.076+00:00Alister RutherfordAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.comBlogger352125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-6518695950634868662013-03-27T08:49:00.001+00:002013-03-27T08:49:29.778+00:00I have not stopped blogging, but I have moved. My blog now has a new home which you can find <a href="http://abrutherford.wordpress.com/">here</a>. I hope you continue to visit my new home.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-9395939742493051452013-02-25T13:10:00.000+00:002013-02-25T13:10:50.946+00:00What is Scottish Labour For?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMey18h0jY9wvpKdtqmZwV6C1uedctzDjRqciJBkOudAN8l8eY4z9PFqQYfo3VFEyCiUDJHB1BTkpgt6TUqQtYXgSI8h91oDw9gK-Q4JYUSCsEMZ90SYIfXqWcnes9FyjmPrgvSLfJYCc/s1600/A72XA7CCEAEy0_4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMey18h0jY9wvpKdtqmZwV6C1uedctzDjRqciJBkOudAN8l8eY4z9PFqQYfo3VFEyCiUDJHB1BTkpgt6TUqQtYXgSI8h91oDw9gK-Q4JYUSCsEMZ90SYIfXqWcnes9FyjmPrgvSLfJYCc/s400/A72XA7CCEAEy0_4.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This post is a belated comment on </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Johann Lamont’s speech in Edinburgh last September. </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I have read and reread her speech and still find it very hard to understand what she is trying to say.</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the hope of some clarification I wrote to our local Labour MSP. We eventually did meet, but there was no meeting of minds. The main substance of my critique is that Johann Lamont and the Labour Party as a whole are dishonest and defeatist. </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In particular Scottish Labour seems to be content for the Scottish Parliament to rely in perpetuity on a block grant from Westminster, with no questions asked. Thus it follows that Scottish Labour's vision </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">for Scotland </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">amounts to little more than managing a decline in public services. </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Scottish Labour seems to have no willingness to challenge the status quo in order </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> to maintain and if desired increase public services in Scotland. To my naive surprise the Labour MSP was in complete agreement with her leader. In fact she stated that accepting whatever the UK government condescends to give us is a price worth paying to stay in the UK. A Union dividend indeed! Below is what I wrote at the time on </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Johann Lamont's speech.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In her speech Johann Lamont makes some very pertinent observations. For example when she states: “<i>This is the stark choice that Scotland has to face up to: if we wish to continue some policies as they are then they come with a cost which has to be paid for either through increased taxation, direct charges or cuts elsewhere.” </i>She then goes on to correctly in my view state that: “<i>Once we have decided as a country what kind of public services we aspire to, then we must have an honest debate about affordability.</i>”</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Unfortunately the rest of her speech was to ignore completely the issue of affordability. For this reason I feel she is being dishonest. She repeats that there will be less money around. While this is true for the immediate future, it is not the result of some immutable law of nature. It is the wholly political and ideological choice of our current nasty government in Westminster. Yet at no stage in her speech does Ms Lamont challenge this situation. Her whole premise is based on accepting whatever Westminster decides to allocate to Scotland. We can argue and debate about who gets what, but we must never challenge the amount we get. This it seems to me is a most defeatist approach. So in essence I accuse of Johann Lamont of being both dishonest and defeatist.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In her speech Ms Lamont was quite happy to highlight some of the gross inequalities that demean Scotland. For example she asks: “<i>What is progressive about a chief executive on more than 100,000 a year not paying for his prescriptions, while a pensioner needing care has their care help cut?</i>” In parliament she continued with this line by exposing how much Nicola Sturgeon and her husband earn. Now, I agree with Johann Lamont on this. It is wrong and in my view indefensible that we have people earning £100, 000 and more a year while pensioners need care. But where I fundamentally disagree is that this iniquity can be solved by means testing or restricting universal benefits. The answer it seems to me is to increase taxes on high earners like Nicola Sturgeon. But of course Johann Lamont cannot do that because the Scottish Parliament has no real powers over fiscal matters. And it is her refusal to contemplate any serious debate about this issue that confirms to me that she is dishonest when it comes to talking about affordability. She is right that we cannot have a mature debate about what kind of public services we aspire to for our country without including affordability. But we equally cannot have a mature debate about affordability if we do not have the powers over taxation and the economy in general. </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This is not I hasten to add a call for independence, though of course that is one option. However there is a range of options within the UK for Scotland to be given control over significant areas of taxation to full fiscal autonomy. But on this Johann Lamont has nary a word to say. The only tax she mentioned was the Council tax. Which she apparently wants to increase. Probably the most regressive and hated tax of all.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Ms Lamont concludes her speech with bit of a rallying call when she claims: “<i>But we can change Scotland now. We have the powers in the Scottish Parliament now, to change radically education, health, public services. What we lack is the will.</i>” This again is to my mind another example of the basic dishonesty in her whole approach. Firstly a minor point, there are some radical changes going on in Scotland. I will mention only one - the Curriculum for Excellence. Whatever one thinks of this, it is certainly an attempt at radical change. And one that was initiated under a previous Labour government at Holyrood. So I find her belittling of what has changed and is changing in Scotland both insulting and surprising.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The more fundamental point of course is that it is manifestly not just the will which is lacking in Scotland. It is the money. As she herself admits, there will be less money around. Yet she makes no suggestion whatsoever as to how we might increase the money available for public services. Whether it is the UK or Scotland we are talking about very wealthy countries. To claim that we must content ourselves with whatever Westminster condescends to give us is to my mind both dishonest and defeatist.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-90190254986297675602013-02-19T14:01:00.001+00:002013-02-19T14:01:39.412+00:00Austria and Germany - Better Together?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I have always found it surprising that the Better Together campaign to keep Scotland in the UK, never mentions other small or relatively small countries in Europe. Well they do sometimes, but usually only to disparage or insult them. Overwhelmingly the message from the No campaign is that the benefits of being part of a larger and more powerful state are only needed by Scotland. Better Together is quite a powerful call, but if it is to have any meaning other than a PR slogan, it should be applicable to at least some other countries. Otherwise it is devoid of any real meaning and is simply a cover for the assertion that Scotland is too wee, too poor to be independent. The problem for the Unionists is that there are numerous countries in Europe that are much smaller than Scotland, both in terms of size and population - think of Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia, Estonia to name but a few. All independent and all now part of the EU as full member states. Tiny Luxembourg was even one of the original six founding members of the EU. So smallness is no barrier to independence nor to success. In fairness to the Better Together campaign they do not claim that Scotland could not survive as a separate country. Their claim is that there is a better choice for Scotland - namely to be part of the UK. But this better choice must logically be a better choice for other small countries.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7IcNLi6NsldklZVmG6UhG0Kry8w8jA5nJ7fGB9DtxUKQ9OfbntU0sXoLuERU5_vI40ih4i7yYB_vIj1BKkpqO4dsJ8W_E0vRifM8NkssUghC13EFSMYIEzTbbE0WKOY3AVuDWpJs7CtU/s1600/Flag-Pins-Austria-Germany.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7IcNLi6NsldklZVmG6UhG0Kry8w8jA5nJ7fGB9DtxUKQ9OfbntU0sXoLuERU5_vI40ih4i7yYB_vIj1BKkpqO4dsJ8W_E0vRifM8NkssUghC13EFSMYIEzTbbE0WKOY3AVuDWpJs7CtU/s320/Flag-Pins-Austria-Germany.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Let us take Austria as our example. While Austria is a little bigger than Scotland, it is not by much. The landmass of Austria is 83,855 square km and that of Scotland is 78,387 square km. The population of Austria is 8.5 million, while Scotland has a population of 5.3 million. So we have two relatively small countries, one lying to the north of a much larger country with which it has much in common and one lying to the south of a much larger country with which it too has much in common. So, surely Austria, just like Scotland would be better together with Germany. Why not? After all the two countries have a lot of shared history and customs and a common language - German. Both countries are Federal Republics, so it would be easy peasy for the two to come together. Germany already has experience of this, when the former DDR became part of the Federal Republic in the 1990s. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">We can take the key arguments from the Better Together campaign in relation to Scotland and see if they apply to Austria and Germany. The following text in italics is taken directly from the Better Together website, with the substitution of Austria for Scotland and Germany for the UK. In this context Germany would refer to a combined Germany and Austria. My comments follow in parenthesis.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Prosperity - </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Times are really tough at home and really turbulent internationally. In the future Austria's prosperity will be strengthened by keeping the German connection. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large; font-style: italic;">In these tough and turbulent times, the size, strength and stability of the German economy is a huge advantage for Austria's businesses. Austria's largest market is Germany. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Austrian businesses are increasingly having to win orders against smart, efficient and productive firms in foreign markets. These competitive challenges will only get tougher in the years ahead. Germany is better placed than a separate Austria to help our businesses find and win new orders across the world. </i>(Hard to disagree with any of this, after all Germany on its own is much, much bigger, stronger and more stable than the UK's economy. Becoming part of Germany has to better for Austria.)</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Security - <i>In an uncertain world Austria's security will be strengthened as part of Federal Germany. The German Armed Forces that protect us are the best in the world. As part of Germany we have real clout in the UN Security Council, NATO, the EU, and we have Embassies around the world. (</i>We are happy to concede that the German Armed Forces may not be the best in the world - the UK can keep that accolade. The German Armed Forces though are likely to be pretty powerful and reliable. Equally Germany does not have a permanent seat in the Security Council. However I am sure Germany has more than enough Embassies around the world and has without a doubt much more clout within the EU than the UK does, or even aspires to. So, all in all, a good choice for Austria to benefit from all these German strengths.)</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Interdependence - </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>As Austrians we believe there's nowhere better, but we understand there's something bigger. By contributing to and benefiting from the multi-national, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Federal Republic of Germany of the years ahead, Austria's society and culture will be enriched. </i></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Hundreds of thousands of Austrians and Germans have made their homes in each other's nation. Half of us have German neighbours. Hundreds of thousands of Austrians were born in Germany. This interdependence - the coming together of family, friends, ideas, institutions and identities - is a strength not a weakness, and is an ideal worth celebrating. The truth is we're better together. </i> (While many Austrians and Germans will have made their homes in each other's nation, it is unlikely to be as many as in the UK. However I am not sure that there is meant to be some threshold here. Even if only a few thousands have exchanged homes, surely that is still a good thing. And it is hard to argue that Austria's society and culture would not be enriched by being part of something bigger.)</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">All in all is hard to argue against this scenario and the overall claim that, <i>A strong Austrian Parliament within the Federal Republic of Germany gives us the best of both world: real decision making power here in Austria, as well as a key role in a strong an secure Germany.</i></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So why does no-one, absolutely no-one either here in the Better Together campaign, nor in Austria, nor in Germany make this claim? It sounds good after all. But, other than in the minds of Unionists in Scotland it is an argument which is simply risible in the rest of the world. I am quite sure that Austrians are well aware that there is something bigger than their beloved Austria. It is almost certainly the EU. Why would Austrians only want to come together with friends and family from Germany or any other one country? Many Austrians will have family, friends and working colleagues from many countries - Poland, Slovenia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, to name but a few. Why on earth would they want to limit themselves to links with Germany?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #003543; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Exactly the same of course applies here in Scotland. Most of us are happy to celebrate the coming together in Scotland of people from all over the world - Poland, Italy, India, Pakistan, Republic of Ireland and England. Just why oh why do the Better Together people want us to elevate the English above the others? For when it comes down to it, the Better Together campaign is just a rather parochial British nationalism. Or, given the latest claims by the UK government, should that be Greater English nationalism?</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-62982783073932826682013-02-14T14:40:00.000+00:002013-02-14T16:57:16.841+00:00A 'Legal Opinion' is still just an 'opinion'<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The recent publication by the UK government of the advice it received on "the status of Scotland and the rUK in international law after Scottish independence" has generated quite a lot of heat and comment. Part of this heat was around the use of the word 'opinion' to describe the report and the advice contained within it. Supporters of a Yes vote have frequently argued that this report, however distinguished the authors, is one opinion among many. On the other hand most Unionists have been adamant that this is not just any opinion but an authoritative and commanding piece of work. One Unionist commentator on a blog even went so far as to say this was not an 'opinion', but a 'legal opinion'. One almost felt this should have been followed by a 'so there!' It is quite touching this faith in the addition of the word legal to opinion, as though this one word turns the advice into something else. To my mind it seems rather to suggest that many Unionists have so lost the plot and the argument that they are reduced to crying slogans in the hope that debate can be ended. We now have conclusive 'legal' advice, so why don't you unruly Independentistas just go away and shut up. This seems to be their message.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is all rather strange, for the advice from Professors James Crawford and Alan Boyle is when all is said and done, an opinion. You don't need to take my, non legal opinion on the matter. The good professors state it themselves. Just read the cover page of their advice. It begins with the word Opinion. Now as professors with a legal training and wide experience, their opinion is likely to carry more weight than mine, but nevertheless it remains an opinion. The fact that their opinion was commissioned by the UK government does not in itself confer any added validity to their advice. On the contrary, at least according to Ian Davidson, Labour MP, this more or less confirms it as unreliable. For Ian Davidson, MP is on record as stating, "</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">if you hire a lawyer to fight a case for you he will fight that case, that’s the point of paying lawyers." Now of course Ian Davidson was trying to undermine the opinion of someone in favour of independence, but his argument presumably still stands. So unless the two Professors did their work for nothing, we can dismiss it as worthless. Not an argument, I hasten to add, with which I concur. However it does show the lengths to which some Unionists are prepared to go to denigrate their opponents. The key point is that there <b>are </b>other opinions on the 'status of Scotland the rUK in international law after Scottish independence'. And some of these opinions, by distinguished lawyers, have been given unsolicited and for no fee. So they at least are untainted by any whiff of compromise for filthy lucre.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As regards the substance of the advice from the two professors, it is fascinating that at bottom they offer nothing conclusive. While they outline a number of legal considerations that may affect the outcome, they state in paragraph one of their executive summary that, " In practice, its (Scotland's) status in international law and that of the remainder of the UK (rUK) would depend on what arrangements the two governments made between themselves before and after the referendum, and on whether other states accepted their positions on such matters as continuity and succession." In paragraph seven of this executive summary they go on to state that, "In any event, Scotland’s position within the EU is likely to be shaped more by any agreements between the parties than by pre-existing principles of EU law." So on the substantive matter under review, namely </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">'the status of Scotland the rUK in international law after Scottish independence' they agree that the main determinants of this status will be the result of negotiations and agreements between the two governments rather than legal precedents. Wow, I hope the UK government think their, or rather our money was well spent.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">It is also quite amazing that this conclusion is very much in line with what the Scottish government has been claiming for a number of years now. Indeed when questioned on BBC radio, Jame Crawford made it clear that even if his opinion was to prove correct - that is Scotland is treated as a new state - it would not be a big issue and that the 18 month timetable suggested by the Scottish government for concluding the negotiations for independence, including Scotland's continuing membership of the EU was realistic. Maybe the UK government should offer more shillings when they next ask for advice.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-90976801964400839902013-02-07T18:24:00.000+00:002013-02-07T18:24:07.738+00:00Negotiating Scottish Independence - A Lost Cause?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"></span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggh0kXzi9352WS52_02sWQvEVeMT7HhTwUGOvAO8DdHIy-JU0DBk5vl8CE1f9AyeVdEo2ZKnVjyPgdk_QrsJ4V1FuiF9-bXNNcP96OM5Hbc-VLSnz8lr2qJjyUrYP4T1AjqPeyoBLg_bQ/s1600/Alex+Salmond+and+David+Cameron.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggh0kXzi9352WS52_02sWQvEVeMT7HhTwUGOvAO8DdHIy-JU0DBk5vl8CE1f9AyeVdEo2ZKnVjyPgdk_QrsJ4V1FuiF9-bXNNcP96OM5Hbc-VLSnz8lr2qJjyUrYP4T1AjqPeyoBLg_bQ/s400/Alex+Salmond+and+David+Cameron.jpeg" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A recent post in the Scottish Review raises the question of "whether Scotland has the human resources and institutional capacity to negotiate a successful independence settlement if the referendum delivers a ‘Yes’ vote.” The whole article can be read <a href="http://www.scottishreview.net/JamesAitken57.shtml">here</a>. The author, James Aitken, a former Whitehall civil servant, thinks the answer to the question is no. Indeed, given the title of his article - Sleepers in St Andrew’s House? They may already be embedded - it is clear that James Aitken is firmly of the view that Westminster will take a stridently hostile approach to any post referendum negotiations. The UK government will play hardball and the small, inexperienced Scottish team will be steamrollered into accepting a poor settlement. Aitken’s pessimistic conclusion is that, “it is hard not to conclude that, in its present state, Scotland does not possess the capacity to negotiate an independence settlement which would maximise the benefit to the people of Scotland.”</span></span></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 29.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Aitken’s article is a very useful contribution to the independence debate as it focuses on the crucial aspect of the post referendum negotiations. He helpfully outlines just how detailed and overlapping these negotiations can be with, “sectoral committees eg defence, economic, energy etc, themselves subdivided into specialised subcommittees on eg the national debt, banking regulations, intellectual property rights etc.” So having an experienced team able to staff all these committees will be vital for the Scottish government. But just how valid are James Aitken’s pessimistic conclusions?</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 29.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">His view that the Scottish government would be incapable of negotiating a “successful independence settlement” is based upon two assumptions, both of which are at the very least challengeable. The first is that the government of the rest of the UK will play hardball in any negotiations. While they may indicate that now, in the hope of frightening people to vote no, will they do so in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote? Is it in the long term interests of the rest of the UK to force an unequal settlement on its nearest neighbour? How would such an overtly hostile approach be viewed by the UK’s current allies? Is such an approach compatible with the EU’s guiding principles? Both the Queen and David Cameron have recently celebrated the UK’s friendly and co-operative relationship with the Republic of Ireland - “a firm friend and an equal partner”. According to James Aitken while this may be the case with the Republic of Ireland, Scotland somehow would be treated differently. Is he seriously suggesting that Westminster would negotiate on the basis that Scotland was an enemy and a second or third rate country? Not exactly the way to win friends and influence people. For James Aitken seems to have ruled out the possibility that Scotland may have some useful cards to play in the negotiations. For example how secure is Westminster that the rest of the UK would be regarded as the sole successor state and thus in no need to renegotiate any UK treaties and deals? It might only take one member state of the EU to challenge this assumption for the whole of the rest of the UK’s position in the EU and perhaps in the Security Council to become open for public scrutiny. Might it not be in the interests of the rest of the UK to reach a quick and mutually acceptable settlement with Scotland in order to avoid any third party challenges?</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 29.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The second assumption in James Aitken’s case is that the Scottish government will only have at its disposal the current team in St Andrew’s House. But what about the large number of Scots who currently work for UK departments, for example the Treasury, Defence and the Foreign Office. Either there are no Scots working for these departments which seems unlikely, or James Aitken is privy to exactly how all of these civil servants will respond to a ‘Yes’ vote. There must be a fair chance that at least some of them will choose to work for and towards an independent Scotland. While there may be UK sleepers in St Andrew’s House, might there not equally be some unofficial Scottish sleepers within UK departments? The prospect of helping to secure a beneficial independence settlement may be very inspiring for at some Scottish civil servants. Not to forget that once independent there will be lots of promotional opportunities within an expanded civil service in Scotland. Actively opposing this outcome is not the best way of advancing your career prospects.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 29.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span><br /></span></div>
<div style="font: 24.0px 'Helvetica Neue'; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A final point, James Aitken mentions Michael Moore by name in his article as the author of the playing hardball claim. He omits to consider what the likes of Michael Moore will do in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote. If he wished to continue his career at Westminster he would have to resign his current seat and hope to get selected for a constituency in England. Which may be difficult if Scotland is about to become independent. On the other hand if he resigns from the UK government and announces that, respecting the democratic will of the Scottish people, he wishes to become part of the Scottish negotiating team, then he achieves two positive outcomes. Firstly he strengthens the Scottish negotiating team with his intimate, inside knowledge of how Westminster will approach the negotiations. Secondly and happily for him, he greatly strengthens his chances of getting elected to the Scottish parliament. As a bonus, given our PR system for elections, he might even be in line to become a Minister in the first government of an independent Scotland. </span></span></div>
</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-28771192448878124922013-02-04T09:36:00.000+00:002013-02-04T09:36:12.843+00:00Independence Negotiations - The Czech and Slovak Experience
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXRlW59COhVH3bghiiQI3-47dc9esQqFbSdnzuS0HOrOusb70pZyG8sEFjW-u-woQr5saCoR-arbVw2vsfz067Ppx31WcomWi7FtlW5ghztQ0lx8wDnecRfF6qeX-OZjKs8H-S8Od29kk/s1600/A+copy+of+the+Referendum+on+independence+for+Scotland.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXRlW59COhVH3bghiiQI3-47dc9esQqFbSdnzuS0HOrOusb70pZyG8sEFjW-u-woQr5saCoR-arbVw2vsfz067Ppx31WcomWi7FtlW5ghztQ0lx8wDnecRfF6qeX-OZjKs8H-S8Od29kk/s400/A+copy+of+the+Referendum+on+independence+for+Scotland.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The UK Electoral Commission has recently called for both the Scottish and UK governments to provide clarity about what will happen after the referendum, whatever the result and called for both governments to agree a joint position. This post only looks at some of the options for providing clarity in the light of a ‘Yes’ vote. The vote on independence will be a momentous one, and a first for all of us in Scotland. However we will not be the first country to go through this process. Dozens of countries in Europe have become independent in the past twenty years or so. The case most relevant for Scotland is that of the independence of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This was a peaceful process and is often referred to as “The Velvet Divorce”. So what lessons can we learn form the Czech and Slovak experience? In preparing this post I have made use of a study on The Breakup of Czechoslovakia by Robert Young, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, 1994. The full study can be found <a href="http://www.queensu.ca/iigr/pub/archive/researchpapers/Researchpaper32TheBreakupOfCzechoslovakia.pdf">here</a>.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The first thing to note is that when independence did come, it all happened relatively quickly. As Young points out, “Having accepted that separation would take place, the leaders quickly established a timetable and a basic framework for the event.” Secondly, Young noted that, “Overall negotiations involved very few essential items.” This is pretty much what the Electoral Commission wants to happen <b>before</b> the referendum. Note that this is not pre-negotiations, but simply agreeing a timetable and framework.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the case of Scotland what might this look like? As regards a timetable, the Scottish government have already made public their view that negotiations should be complete in time for the next elections to the Scottish Parliament. These are due to be held in May 2016. In this case the timetable would be for the negotiations to be completed by, let us say the middle of April 2016. This allows for a little leeway over any particularly contentious issues. If the referendum is held in autumn 2014 as everyone expects, this allows around 18 months for the negotiations. Will the UK government respond to this suggestion? If there is a ‘Yes’ vote it will be in the interests of the rest of the UK to get the negotiations over with as soon as possible. I imagine the business and financial sectors will be pushing for a quick resolution to the negotiations. Uncertainty is bad for business we are repeatedly told. As will various outside bodies, such as the IMF, the EU and no doubt the USA. Each for their own particular reasons will not want the negotiations to drag on.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">When it comes to the framework for the negotiations there will be two parts to this. This could be termed the What and the How. As regards what the negotiations will be about, according to Young, in Czechoslovakia the big issues were:</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">the military</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">succession to international treaties</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">level of post separation economic integration</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">currency</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">citizenship</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">division of assets and liabilities”</span></span></li>
</ol>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the case of Scotland and the rest of the UK, a couple of other issues may merit specific negotiation:</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">demarcation of maritime boundary in North Sea</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">state pension</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">welfare benefits</span></span></li>
</ol>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This gives nine big issues to be negotiated. There will be other issues to resolve such as diplomatic representation and the future of broadcasting and the BBC. However these and other issues are more the stuff of political debate within an independent Scotland.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It should not prove too difficult for the two governments to come up with their own list of the most important issues to be resolved. They do not need to agree at this point on everything. Where they agree it goes into the joint, agreed statement. If their are differences we can be told about them. Remember the idea is to provide us the voters with as much clarity as possible about what will happen after a ‘Yes’ vote.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">When it comes to how these issues will be resolved - the how of the negotiations - there may be less scope for agreement in advance. However some general principles could be established beforehand. For example in the case of Czechoslovakia two principles were agreed on early in the process. These were:</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<ol class="ol1">
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">fixed property would be owned by the Republic in which it was located</span></span></li>
<li class="li1"><span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">movables would be divided on a per capita basis - this was agreed at 2:1 in favour of the Czech Republic.</span></span></li>
</ol>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In practice there were important exemptions to the first principle, as most of the Federal buildings and property were in Prague, the Federal capital, located in what was to become the Czech Republic. In recognition of this imbalance Slovakia received financial compensation in lieu. Something similar will probably be required here as the UK is one of the most centralized states in the world and most UK government buildings and property are located in London. The second general principle was based on population. It should not be beyond the wit of both the UK and Scottish governments to agree on something similar and to announce this publicly before the referendum.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p3">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s3">It would also be good and encouraging if the two governments could agree on some statement about the spirit in which any negotiations will be conducted. They need not further than the Queen’s recent visit to the Republic of Ireland, another former part of the UK. While in Dublin the Queen had this to say about UK-Irish relations: “</span><span class="s1">Together we have much to celebrate: the ties between our people, the shared values, and the economic, business and cultural links that make us so much more than just neighbours, that make us firm friends and equal partners.” It is certainly the aim of the Scottish government that Scotand and the rest of the UK remain firm friends and equal partners. Will the current UK government make such an explicit statement in regard to Scotland?</span></span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"></span><br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-86287721689964252672013-01-30T13:14:00.000+00:002013-01-30T13:15:25.754+00:00Should Scotland be an Independent Country?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgstzonGkkdvMsDsF3GmWOUYnpzoVh2r6ZkbicHHOyKMoBlhmHc-eyfE9eV-89UYF1cUmp4ZpQUsG-eU6jwzxV4hHLfQrCWax9sVh1BR52xyV4zy5uT5pHoxTTce_kOGS-TGSOTFrWN5pI/s1600/14814_559785524032362_970023889_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgstzonGkkdvMsDsF3GmWOUYnpzoVh2r6ZkbicHHOyKMoBlhmHc-eyfE9eV-89UYF1cUmp4ZpQUsG-eU6jwzxV4hHLfQrCWax9sVh1BR52xyV4zy5uT5pHoxTTce_kOGS-TGSOTFrWN5pI/s400/14814_559785524032362_970023889_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">At long last the wrangling and complaining about the wording for the referendum question is over. With a clear victory for the Yes camp. Though the Electoral Commission has rejected the Scottish government's preferred question - Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? - their alternative is pretty much the same. At great deal of fuss was made by Unionists over the phrase, Do you agree. However <i>their</i> alternative, which called for an I agree/I disagree responsive was dismissed out of hand. The key for all Yes campaigners is that the question, even in its shortened form still requires a simple Yes/No response. So much better to be campaigning for Yes vote. Especially when the Unionists still cannot come up with anything positive to offer for staying in the UK. Their campaign is all about how Scotland is too wee and too poor. No vision and nothing to inspire us. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It is also worth noting that the Electoral Commission has called upon both the UK and Scottish governments to provide clarity about what will happen after the referendum, whatever the result. To quote from their report, "</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">We will ask both Governments to agree a joint position, for example, on the timescales for negotiating independence and the roles of the UK and Scottish Parliament in agreeing it following a ‘Yes’ vote, or for taking forward discussions on the future of Scotland following a ‘No’ vote." Seems a very sensible suggestion to me. Worth pointing out how insistent the Unionists were in demanding that the Scottish government accept without question the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. I wonder if the Unionists will be equally insistent in demanding that the UK government accepts this recommendation from the Electoral Commission? Any bets? So far the UK government has strenuously refused to participate in anything that might bring some clarity to the debate. I wonder what they have to hide?</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-21071542463343596372012-12-11T08:45:00.000+00:002012-12-11T08:45:16.181+00:00The Barroso has spoken - So What?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg83JgR3tzG6WmFoK786r7eK-nxpHS5C1x6-qpQfucPt3UdHXesY-SMEREh-UPSEyJSeJ3dk1kOTYElkGjyI_nBbhnrHqgm3UwzMGLaw3wTpLiQTek4Sm8acI8erkjBDyYEoZA7N3_sFFk/s1600/jose-barroso_1482191c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg83JgR3tzG6WmFoK786r7eK-nxpHS5C1x6-qpQfucPt3UdHXesY-SMEREh-UPSEyJSeJ3dk1kOTYElkGjyI_nBbhnrHqgm3UwzMGLaw3wTpLiQTek4Sm8acI8erkjBDyYEoZA7N3_sFFk/s200/jose-barroso_1482191c.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So that's it then. The game is up, no need to bother with the referendum. Might as well concede defeat now. That seems to be the message from Unionists after the recent pronouncements of Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission. In an interview with BBC radio he stated in response to a question about Scottish independence that, "For European Union purposes, from a legal point of view, it is certainly a new state. If a country becomes independent it is a new state and has to negotiate with the EU." The full transcript can be found <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907">here</a>. In passing it is interesting to note that he uses the verb negotiate, while at other times he uses the verb apply. Seems to be a bit of confusion in Sr Barroso's mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
As regards the substance of all this, it is not at all clear why anyone is making a fuss about his remarks. After independence Scotland will become a new state! Wow, I never knew that. And this new state will have to negotiate with the EU. Wow! So many things I never knew before. Let us all bless the great and supremely knowledgeable Sr Barroso for bringing us all this enlightenment. Like all Unionist in this debate, Sr Barroso leaves out the key and salient fact that this negotiation will take place while Scotland is still part of the EU - ie from within the EU. For after a Yes vote and until such time as the details of independence have been settled and signed, Scotland will remain part of the UK and thus part of the EU.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Further to this there is the crucial matter of how the UK government, about to become rUK, will react. It is pretty much inconceivable that the rUK would not want to develop and maintain close and cordial relations with an independent Scotland, just as it does with the Republic of Ireland. Which let us not forgot was also once upon a time a part of the UK. So, following a Yes vote, it will be the rUK, led by David Cameron who will be contacting the Commission to inform them that the UK is changing and that Scotland will in, let us say, two years time become independent. He will also have the pleasure of informing the Commission that this new state wants to maintain its membership of the EU and could the Commission kindly make the necessary arrangements. What is the Commission going to say? Sorry old bloke, we are very busy, so come back in five years time? The reality is that it will be in the interest of the rUK for Scotland to become a full member of the EU and it will also be in the interests of the rUK for the negotiations to run smoothly. Any demands on Scotland that would impact on rUK, such as compulsory membership of the Schengen agreement would be strenuously resisted by rUK. Equally all talk about Scotland being forced to join the Euro is misplaced and betrays an ignorance of the EU treaties and procedures. For details see <a href="http://stephennoon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/euro-membership.html">this</a> article.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
There is also the rather important matter of EU citizenship to consider in relation to Scotland's continuing membership of the EU. While in theory EU citizenship is additional to member state citizenship, it may be impossible to disentangle this in practice. This is particularly pertinent in the case of the UK, which continues to recognise dual citizenship. The relationship of the Republic of Ireland with the UK is a factor in this. People in Northern Ireland for example can opt for either UK or Irish citizenship or both. In the likely event that an independent Scotland allows for dual citizenship, we would have the situation in which a large number of people living in an independent Scotland continued to have a UK passport and thus UK and EU citizenship. There is no precedent for the UK to take citizenship away from current passport holders. So, if the EU were to deny an independent Scotland full membership of the EU, they would have to work out how to deal with the millions of Scots who retained their UK passport, either instead of or in addition to a Scottish one. Even an arch Unionist like Eric Joyce, Labour MP regards all this talk about exclusion from the EU as nonsense. His views can be read <a href="http://wingsland.podgamer.com/scots-would-remain-eu-citizens/#more-25561">here</a>. For a more detailed look at the implications of dual citizenship see this <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/writev/ref/m8.htm">submission </a>from Professor Jo Shaw, Salvesen Chair of European Institutions, University of Edinburgh.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
As a concluding point it is worth noting that when asked about the position of the rUK and if it would have to renegotiate its terms, his reply was, "No, no in principle no." Interesting choice of words, for of course, no in principle usually means yes in practice. For the rUK will in fact have plenty to negotiate about - the size of its rebate, the size of its contribution to the EU budget, not forgetting the size of its representation within the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
All in all it is clear that the rUK will do everything possible to ensure a smooth transition for Scotland to full membership of the EU - in its own interests.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-80619079045725461632012-12-01T16:45:00.000+00:002012-12-01T16:45:10.230+00:00The Olive Harvest in Palestine<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This week I have the pleasure of presenting a guest post from Palestine. Wedad Rami is a young student at An-Najah university in Nablus. During our recent visit to Nablus we had the lovely pleasure of meetin Wedad, who in addition to her studies is a volunteer at the Hayat Centre for Civil Society Development-Palestine. This is an article she wrote for the Dundee-Nablus Twinning Association. In it she describes her recent experience of picking olives with some friends. As she makes clear even this peaceful activity is fraught with danger from the illegal Israeli settlers.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="p1" style="text-align: center;">
<span class="s1"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Olive Harvest in Palestine</span></b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5MuH2h5keXiMnAJ7Em_29DUoRvqCOtEqpxpB4VcJ4-UqqAiFxfwXgC0BsuRxuiryXuS5G7cALVD9e5u10Owbcjk6Js8XgnlS9PZNr8o3DliNJ70-yhcsw0V6hEbzwnjKr_YGopq05PT4/s1600/image01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5MuH2h5keXiMnAJ7Em_29DUoRvqCOtEqpxpB4VcJ4-UqqAiFxfwXgC0BsuRxuiryXuS5G7cALVD9e5u10Owbcjk6Js8XgnlS9PZNr8o3DliNJ70-yhcsw0V6hEbzwnjKr_YGopq05PT4/s400/image01.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Palestinian farmers start picking their olive trees in the autumn months (September, October and November). The whole Palestinian family participates in this tiring, wonderful, and joyful harvest. In fact, many Palestinian families depend for their livelihood on the olive harvest because they can make from the olive tree many productive things, such as olive pickle, olive oil, olive soap, and also they can use olive wood in manufacturing furniture. </span></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">My friend's family have land in Deeristia village – near Nablus - which is full of olive trees. She asked me and other friends to help her family in picking the olives. Actually, she asked us to do that because their land lies near a Jewish settlement and the Israeli soldiers gave them an exact time to finish their picking and If they don’t finish it in the exact time they will prevent them from continuing their picking. </span></span></div>
<div class="p4">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As I personally shared in this Harvest, I found it a very interesting, tiring and frightening one. It was a very wonderful experience because this was my first experience in picking olives, everyone is working, picking olives and talking at the same time. Then after we spent 7 hours in picking, my friend's mother prepared a very delicious lunch. In fact the ingredients are all from the land such as olive pickle, olive oil, yogurt, thyme, tomatoes, cucumber and tea. Also, it was very tiring because you have to wake up in the early morning at about 6:00 am in order to exploit time as much as you can and also to avoid the high temperature of the sun . Then we spent 13 hours in picking from 6:00 am to 7:00 pm. Certainly it's a long time but we do not feel it because we love what we do. In addition, it was very frightening because this land lies near a Jewish settlement and during our picking we kept hearing the sound of shooting because the soldiers were training. At first I felt a great deal of panic but my friend calmed me and I tried to forget what was happening. Then after we had picked almost 30 trees, we returned home very tired but holding memories I myself will never forget, as I murmured to myself "it was the first time but not the last time I will go to pick olives and help these farmers." </span></span></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As you know Palestine is an occupied country and as a result of the Israeli Occupation this interesting harvest can be miserably turned into an unpleasant one, simply because of the difficulties that the farmers are exposed to from Israeli soldiers. These range from preventing the farmers from harvesting their trees, expropriating land, to even uprooting their olive trees. Actually, after these abusive practices what do you expect from this poor farmer ??? Do you think he will leave his land ??? For sure No, he will insist to stay in his land, never giving up and willing to die for his irreplaceable and invaluable land – indeed as he called it his honor. Clearly, the reaction of Palestinian farmers towards zionist aggression reveals an important issue which is the strong relationship between the Palestinian farmer and the olive tree. Challengingly, Palestinian farmers stand in front of Israeli zionists just as the olive tree does. Although the Olive tree was exposed to harm from the zionist soldiers, it is still digging its roots deep in the earth and can regrow again and again. Indeed, Palestinians are still staying here in Palestine like the olive tree.</span></span></div>
<div class="p3">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8apU6VHe4M7H-fHPFFvsug2H_4k55I_DMtUPa2eyDRhyphenhyphen2Y6UdJVxhgJ8oBfdHkKVndNaKvuFmppJe6oyIDYvjAlqBLKUY_HfedtrSmTYXOOor9PxP6mCIGsIB0hl31ESSq4RVybzzHQY/s1600/image03.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8apU6VHe4M7H-fHPFFvsug2H_4k55I_DMtUPa2eyDRhyphenhyphen2Y6UdJVxhgJ8oBfdHkKVndNaKvuFmppJe6oyIDYvjAlqBLKUY_HfedtrSmTYXOOor9PxP6mCIGsIB0hl31ESSq4RVybzzHQY/s400/image03.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p3">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Wedad Rami</span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-88106505040325519162012-11-23T19:04:00.000+00:002012-11-23T19:04:29.837+00:00EU Budget - Round 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjTlwzl38tpUfkZC_N0bz9IKGZMhEDhqe6ZdltJ3FvcysReY7eloNu4t2Ce54c9SjxJw3HZ_ZHaQ7EDRjEZAhX1XgiRHii1wzw_0y2zwxusJRJxSxIlsVpi4VoXRNpVi44KfwTb0wX040/s1600/img_showcase_2_en.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjTlwzl38tpUfkZC_N0bz9IKGZMhEDhqe6ZdltJ3FvcysReY7eloNu4t2Ce54c9SjxJw3HZ_ZHaQ7EDRjEZAhX1XgiRHii1wzw_0y2zwxusJRJxSxIlsVpi4VoXRNpVi44KfwTb0wX040/s320/img_showcase_2_en.jpg" width="226" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The latest stushie over the budget for the EU is about par for the course. Remember this is the EU, all 27 member states trying to agree on a budget for the next seven years. Last time around it took three European Council meetings to reach agreement. So, failing to reach a consensus at the first attempt is no big deal. The process of agreeing a budget though does tell us a lot about the strengths and weaknesses of the EU as currently constituted.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Some background first, which may clear some things up a bit. This is not really a dispute about the budget, which is usually a one year plan. Rather this debate is about the MFF or the Multiannual Financial Framework. The Danish government usefully explained what this is, earlier in the year, when Denmark held the rotating Presidency of the Council. "</span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Since the end of the 1980’s the EU’s annual budgets have been laid down within the framework of multiannual budget agreements – the so-called multiannual financial frames, also abbreviated to MFF (Multiannual Financial Framework). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The frames constitute the expenditure ceilings for the main areas of expenditure determined by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission for a number of years. The current budget ceilings have been settled for the period 2007-2013, and as the next multiannual financial frames are to be negotiated for 2014-2020, talks are already under way.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="p1">
</div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The financial framework requires unanimity in the Council of Ministers when it has been approved by a majority in the Parliament."</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">If you are really keen or sad, and would like to know even more about the MFF you can consult <a href="http://www.consilium.europa.eu/special-reports/mff/10-things">this</a> helpful document provided by the Council. As can be seen from the Danish outline, the MFF negotiatons involve a lot of institutions and the Danish paper omits one of them, perhaps the most important one of all. For in addition to the Council; the European Parliament and the Commission, the MFF proposals have first of all to be agreed unanimously by the European Council. Confused? Welcome to the byzantine world of the EU.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The two Councils referred to above both represent the governments of the member states in the EU decision making process. The fact that governments have two bites at the cherry, as it were, says a lot about where the real power lies within the EU. The Council </span><span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">(full name, the Council of the European Union) is where the day to day decisions about EU policies are taken. If the issue is to do with finance, then the Finance Ministers of each member state come along and decide what to do, usually by qualified majority voting. If the issue is agriculture for example, then the Agriculture Ministers would make up the Council. The Council has a rotating Presidency, lasting six months and the current Presidency is Cyprus. The website for the Cyprus Presidency is <a href="http://www.cy2012.eu/en/page/home">here</a>. However for the really big issues, such as the overall budget ceiling or the MFF, it is the heads of state or government who meet and decide. When these august people meet they call themselves the European Council. You can get their website <a href="http://www.european-council.europa.eu/home-page?lang=en">here</a>. And it was a meeting of this Council which failed to reach agreement earlier today. </span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The two other European institutions, the European Parliament and the Commission are supposed to represent the common interest of all Europeans and not the interests of the member states. However as can be seen from the media coverage of the budget, all the power lies with the governments of the member states.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This imbalance of power within the EU can be seen as either a strength or weakness. As a strength it ensures that the EU in its collective actions and policies is subject to the member states. There are three weakness with this imbalance though. Firstly the need for unanimity or even a qualified majority means that decision making can be a very slow and laborious process. Often so slow that action when it comes can be too little and/or too late to make much real difference. The power given to the governments of the member states allows national politicians to indulge in lots of excessive posturing. The final weakness is that by giving the decisive powers to the governments of the member states there has been no development of a popular EU wide politics. Everything is approached and seen and reported in the media through a national lens.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This is unlikely to change any time soon. It is hard to see member states giving up any of the powers they currently have. So we can expect a lot more posturing and horse trading, all in the name of the well being of the EU as a whole.</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-83641163266762215312012-11-16T14:12:00.000+00:002012-11-20T19:33:36.648+00:00Killing 11 Month Old Babies is not Self Defence!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxXovIPCMimeus4o8qRak333m04l0kFJG6gY-dHphyuXUXEyp7SDDmlu_42VSlxVrNe9Y30tsXy_P858ad0FAa1oBPwjt6R6KSg8fwtaFk6jnHv4O4qL4X3N44uDMinLLrpaWm1DtPcTE/s1600/art-353-masharawi-300x0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxXovIPCMimeus4o8qRak333m04l0kFJG6gY-dHphyuXUXEyp7SDDmlu_42VSlxVrNe9Y30tsXy_P858ad0FAa1oBPwjt6R6KSg8fwtaFk6jnHv4O4qL4X3N44uDMinLLrpaWm1DtPcTE/s200/art-353-masharawi-300x0.jpg" width="194" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">There is an inevitable sense of déja vu with the latest Israeli murderous assaults on Gaza. The media here in the UK and the USA parrots without any checking the Israeli version of events. Which is always the same - Israel is only responding to rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. Often this is qualified as Hamas rocket fire, just to make sure we all know who is to blame. And of course, right on cue, our hapless Foreign Secretary, William Hague, duly appears on the wavelengths to blame Hamas for starting this round of violence. President Obama spreads the same message in the USA. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Yet even a cursory look at the evidence shows that no Israeli had been killed due to rocket fire from Gaza, before the start of the latest escalation of Israeli assaults on Saturday 10th November. Yet prior to then, at least two Palestinians had been killed by Israeli soldiers. On Monday November 5th Israeli forces shot and killed 23 year old Ahmad Nabhani. Then on Thursday November 8th another Israeli force invaded southern Gaza, in the course of which they killed a 13 year old boy, Ahmed Younis Khader who was playing football in front of his house. So much for targeted killing! How much coverage did these unjustified killings of innocent Palestinian civilians get in the western media? Where was William Hague and President Obama? No word of blame was uttered against Israel for these two murders. Yet when Palestinians in response to these killings do attack Israeli forces, Israel then unleashes hell on the whole of Gaza in a supposed right of self-defence. And our brave western media just laps it all up. The initial killings of a child and a young man by the Israelis cast aside in the rush to blame Hamas. For more information on the timeline for the recent Israelis attacks see these two articles, <a href="http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/11/11/israels-latest-assault-on-gaza-the-lie-of-who-started-it/">here</a> and <a href="http://imeu.net/news/article0023227.shtml">here</a>. For an analysis of the biased coverage provided by our own BBC see <a href="http://www.labournet.net/world/1211/gazabbc3.pdf">here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It is a rather strange kind of self-defence that causes the deaths of children including Omar Masharawi, the 11 month old baby referred to in the title of this post. Yet another triumph for the much vaunted precision bombing of the Israeli airforce! For of course this latest attack on Gaza has nothing to do with self defence. It was, as is the case with all Israeli wars, a war of choice. The nearness of the elections in Israel may have been a factor in the timing of the Israeli attacks. Perhaps though, it was the prospect of a long term truce agreement with Hamas that prompted Israel to attack. Many observers are of the view that Israel does not want peace. A long term truce agreement would weaken the power of the military in Israel and more importantly put greater pressure on Israel to enter into serious negotiations with all Palestinians, including Hamas. Not what most Israelis really want. Much better to keep up the pretence of an existential threat to Israel in order to justify their unwillingness to enter into negotiations to bring about a two state solution. Israel is doing everything possible, with its relentless expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to make a two state solution impossible. So Israel has every reason to avoid negotiations. And what better excuse than a little war of aggression against Hamas. So a few innocent civilians, including children, get killed. So what, in the greater scheme of things - securing a greater Israel, preferably free of all Palestinians. This is alas, what out leaders in the UK are supporting by offering diplomatic cover to Israel. Things do not look good. For a more detailed analysis of why Israel chose to attack now, see these two articles by Jerry Haber and American Jewish writer, <a href="http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2012/11/israels-pre-election-war.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2012/11/and-thats-why-israel-doesnt-want-cease.html">here</a>. Finally for an Israeli perspective on the deaths of the three Israelis in Kiryat Malachi, see <a href="http://972mag.com/tragedy-farce-and-denial-in-kiryat-malachi/59991/">this article</a> by Larry Derfner from +972 magazine.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-36911983559852218692012-11-13T13:31:00.000+00:002012-11-13T13:31:21.400+00:00Was Hitler a Charismatic Leader?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji-uVXioZvWxSeIOS-hRUg00hfOCX3M_I_VVy6J_Igd-IA-dUXBUeuC6JOdoWebvuqsIoZ6l2QvmedaJSbpuZtYqZQPO_QABdqCRQzwqNW-EEQNMiXbb25w6vk8lsMiQHakiv9SF1UG5Q/s1600/9780091917630-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji-uVXioZvWxSeIOS-hRUg00hfOCX3M_I_VVy6J_Igd-IA-dUXBUeuC6JOdoWebvuqsIoZ6l2QvmedaJSbpuZtYqZQPO_QABdqCRQzwqNW-EEQNMiXbb25w6vk8lsMiQHakiv9SF1UG5Q/s1600/9780091917630-large.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This question arises in response to the programme on BBC TV last night, titled the Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler. The tv series, three episodes in all, is based on the book of the same name by Laurence Rees. Judging by the first episode, I am far from convinced that Hitler possessed much in the way of charisma, even of the dark kind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The programme did not offer anything in the way of what might constitue charisma in a political leader, but simply focussed on Hitler himself. We were shown lots of footage of the great man in flowing oratory, usually accompanied by flashing lights as a way of alerting us - here comes a bit of charisma - you dumb viewers. Apart from the staring eyes and a penchant for long tubo-charged speeches, it is not clear just how Hitler was that different from other would be leaders.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">For the central point to bear in mind is that for most of his career, Hitler was a spectacular failure. He was a brave soldier in the First World War, but a complete failure as an artist, as a revolutionary leader - the botched attempt at a putsch in Munich - and a failure to win over many voters in elections. What changed things for Hitler was the Great Crash and the Great Depression. Now it seems to stretch things a bit to claim that Hitler's charisma caused the Great Depression. For no mistake without this depression Hitler was going nowhere. The response of the German elites - political, financial and business - to this catastrophe was to use mass unemployment as a policy tool. No wonder extremists began to flourish.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It is also worth remembering that Hitler and his Nazi party never won more than 37% of the popular vote. That was in the July election in 1932. By the time of the November election in the same year his share of the vote had dropped to 33%, while the vote for the communists increased. Not a lot of evidence of charisma here. It was after the November elections that Hitler was appointed Chancellor, thus giving him the levers to shortly thereafter assume dictatorial powers. It quite beggars belief that Hitler should have won the Chancellorship after losing votes! Yet this is what the leaders of the Centre Party did. In a vain effort to protect their own interests and out of their greater hatred of the communists. A good lesson to remember when people today extoll the virtues of moderates. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The programme itself was OK as a basic account of Hitler's rise, though it did flit around too much from the 1920s to the 1930s. This lack of a clear narrative framework lessens the value of the programme. Less about Hitler's charisma and more about the social and economic realities of German would have been welcome.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-57808244638034470052012-11-08T13:21:00.000+00:002012-11-08T13:21:18.706+00:00Obama - What Next?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhPE7F7l2H5IakV1eChNiJleA1wbj8joP8djtR3cfifzaOocqHaY2WOMEChrlQTyS16LxwDRGAm8vMzz0DYmd8yL0nQb0VXLoaNn0Nc1GLs4L0fGW-Oeh0Fk-UuUUQMNAfGnywCfVWm50/s1600/220px-BarackObama2005portrait.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhPE7F7l2H5IakV1eChNiJleA1wbj8joP8djtR3cfifzaOocqHaY2WOMEChrlQTyS16LxwDRGAm8vMzz0DYmd8yL0nQb0VXLoaNn0Nc1GLs4L0fGW-Oeh0Fk-UuUUQMNAfGnywCfVWm50/s1600/220px-BarackObama2005portrait.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Congratulations to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party for their victories last Tuesday. Obama retained the Presidency by a substantial margin in the electoral college, while the Democrats increased their lead in the Senate. The Republicans retained control of the House, but two wins against one is a very good result. But what might it mean for the next four years? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As a non American, I have not followed the internal political battles in the USA. My interest in American politics is primarily in its foreign and economic policies. While the USA is no longer the greatest economy in the world, it is still by far the most important and as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency, changes in US economic and financial policy have enormous repercussions for the rest of us. However my main concern here is with US foreign policy, as this is the area where the USA remains supreme in the world, in large part because it is the sole remaining military superpower. So can we expect any changes in US foreign policy now that Obama has been re-elected and no longer has to worry about a third term? Foreign policy is one area where there has been little change since Obama first won the Presidency. Particularly in the Middle East US policy under Obama has remained much as it was under Bush. In that part of the world the US seems to be stuck in a sinking mire. The first rule of politics when in a hole is to stop digging. Alas, under Obama the US seems intent on sinking even further into the mire. The three most important hot spots in the region are Afghanistan, Iran and Israel/Palestine.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">While the US has begun to get out of Iraq, in Afghanistan, Obama has increased the American military presence. To what end? Little of positive benefit seems to have come from this continuing military presence. Hundreds of US and allied troops have been killed or maimed, while thousands of innocent Pakistanis and Afghanis have been killed or maimed. Afghanistan is no more secure than under Bush, while Pakistan has become even more unstable, with a noticeable rise in extremism. Just what is the end game for the USA in Afghanistan? There seems to be no clear strategy beyond the current situation, which effectively amounts to Afghanistan remaining a bloody semi protectorate of the USA.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Iran is another country where Obama has simply pursued the existing policy and indeed with the imposition of punitive sanctions has been even more hardline than Bush. The US has never really accepted the existence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and has opposed it since its inceptions in 1979. The current punitive sanctions are supposedly in response to the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons programme. Now even if the Iranian regime was planning to develop nuclear weapons the simple response would be - so what! After all our close ally in the region, Israel, does have nuclear weapons and moreover has still not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (which Iran has). And of course Israel has never suffered any sanctions. So why Iran? The various international inspectors have never found any definitive evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons, never mind an actual programme to build weapons. Every Supreme leader of the Islamic Republic has pronounced on several occasions that it is against the tenets of Islam to possess nuclear weapons. Once again, what is the end game for the US in Iran. It seems that the US is simply determined to bring down the Islamic Republic in its entirety. Again to what purpose? It cannot be democracy as the US supports non democratic regimes in the area such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan etc. The imposition of these punitive sanctions does nothing to help the internal opposition to the current Iranian regime. US policy here seems to serve no purpose other than simply to punish Iran.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Israel/Palestine is another area where Obama has made no difference to previous US policy. The USA still offers unconditional financial, military and diplomatic support to Israel. Again there seems to be no purpose to this policy. The US is ostensibly and in public still in favour of the so-called two state solution for Israel and Palestine. Yet almost every day Israel destroys the whole basis for this two state option. If anything, the pace of illegal Israeli land grabs in the occupied West Bank and in occupied East Jerusalem has increased while Obama has been in office. And the USA has done absolutely nothing to hold Israel to account. Once more we wonder just what the US envisages as the end game in Israel/Palestine? The US does nothing to advance the two state option, quite the reverse. So what is going on here?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">These are for me three of the most crucial foreign policy areas where Obama could make a difference. It is not clear that Obama really supports the current US policy in these three areas. Now that he no longer has to worry about future re-election, will the real Obama stand up? Or is he too just as mired in the failed policies of the Bush era?</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-3855699183266719752012-11-04T10:39:00.001+00:002012-11-04T10:39:52.768+00:00Scotland and the EU<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYSch1SyVAd5U91BS0zDeyvKk73MVz33NY7Ld7ZQNssDzW26YN0x0vdW3gNxIec73Q-cFlp1nce9kmIozafN4GfxfDwj_u_RjBFQ1BU_ZSpNuayqrgtODbrytDWvb2VDBOnd7UToB6xpI/s1600/image001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYSch1SyVAd5U91BS0zDeyvKk73MVz33NY7Ld7ZQNssDzW26YN0x0vdW3gNxIec73Q-cFlp1nce9kmIozafN4GfxfDwj_u_RjBFQ1BU_ZSpNuayqrgtODbrytDWvb2VDBOnd7UToB6xpI/s200/image001.jpg" width="140" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">There has recently been yet another flurry of media comment about whether an independent Scotland would or would not be an automatic member of the EU. Leading to headlines along the lines of Further Blow for Salmond over Europe. The sole source for all this shindig seems to be a letter from Viviane Reding from the European Commission. This letter was in response to a question from Iñigo Mendez de Vigo, the European Affairs Minister in the Spanish government about independence for Catalunya. Reding's letter is very brief and merely states that she agrees with de Vigo's interpretation of what the current EU treaties mean in the case of a <b>unilateral</b> declaration of independence. De Vigo claims that in the event of a <b>unilateral</b> declaration of independence, Catalunya's independence would not be recognised by the EU. You can read her letter and the original request from De Vigo, <a href="http://ep00.epimg.net/descargables/2012/10/30/a1688dfbca8854a8f4744bc6b58f1c15.pdf">here</a>, in Spanish. It is also worth pointing out that the European Commission has since the publication of Reding's letter officially stated that the Commission has <b>not </b>issued any formal statement about the independence of a part of a member state. Furthermore the Commission would only do this in response to a formal request from a member state in which the precise constitutional framework for such independence was clearly laid. Also worth noting that the Spanish government has confirmed that it will <b>not</b> be requesting such a ruling. Now as observant readers will have noticed De Vigo's claim, even if true, has nothing whatsoever to do with Scottish independence. This eventuality will come about as the result of an agreed, legal process as established in the recent Edinburgh Agreement. The UK government has stated that it will respect the result of the independence referendum in 2014. All of which rather begs the question of why our media were so keen to misrepresent the context of Reding's letter. Can the Unionists be so desperate that they need to resort to this blatant lying?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">As regards Scotland, the process and legal framework for independence is quite clear. First, there will be the referendum, in 2014. Now despite the impression that some commentators want to make, even if we vote Yes in 2014, Scotland will not become an independent state the following day. A Yes vote merely signals the beginning of the serious, detailed negotiations that will lead to full independence. These negotiations are likely to take between one to two years to complete. The negotiations will cover everything that needs to be in place on the exact moment when Scotland does become independent. These negotiations will be primarily between the Scottish and UK governments, but some third parties will be involved, the UN, WHO and of course most important of all, the EU. As part of the independence negotiations, Scotland, the UK and the EU will have to work out the details of Scotland's representation within the EU. These negotiations will also at the same time have to work out the details of the representation of the rest of the UK within the EU. So the Westminster government will have every incentive to ensure that these particular negotiations reach a successful conclusion. While the details of Scotland's membership of the EU will therefore have to be negotiated, at no stage in this process will Scotland have ceased to be a member of the EU. For the simple reason that during this period Scotland will still be part of the UK. It is only if no agreement with the EU was reached would we face the prospect of Scotland being denied membership of the EU. In which case somebody should be asked to produce valid legal opinion on exactly how the EU could legally deny Scotland membership. For a fuller and more detailed analysis of the procedure for an independent Scotland to become a member of the EU, Graham Avery has provided us with a succinct and learned outline of the key issues, which you can read <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/writev/643/m05.htm">here</a>. This is his submission to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee's hearings on The foreign policy implications of and for a separate Scotland.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-24225988280100375852012-10-30T13:36:00.000+00:002012-10-30T13:36:09.347+00:00Defence Jobs - at what Price?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihDapPkpu_6W7gYgk1SA0o6_u-NLD6BusOpf4Zy95gFALR0wimSmcLem8OXCIoiC9Sguc3lnwBnFwZxYiiUMowKn-2RTuuo4xLDZSHUesFJgfKx2kJ_f4AJ956UtT067sOGIo4qsDLaMs/s1600/vanguard7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihDapPkpu_6W7gYgk1SA0o6_u-NLD6BusOpf4Zy95gFALR0wimSmcLem8OXCIoiC9Sguc3lnwBnFwZxYiiUMowKn-2RTuuo4xLDZSHUesFJgfKx2kJ_f4AJ956UtT067sOGIo4qsDLaMs/s200/vanguard7.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The UK Defence Minister, Philip Hammond was up in Scotland recently to visit the Faslane base for the UK's so-called independent nuclear weapons. During this visit he confirmed that the current UK government is determined to commission an upgraded replacement for the Trident nuclear weapon system. As part of this he announced a £305 investment on designing the new boats to host the weapons. All this before the government's own review has concluded. So much for open government UK style!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">A key plank of Hammond's defence of renewing Trident is that it will provide secure jobs for thousand of people in the Clyde estuary. Claims of up to 12,000 jobs are bandied about by the government and the clear message is that these jobs would go if we vote for independence. This of course is all rubbish. In the first place if Scotland does become independent, then we will still have a navy, army and air force. Just how big they will be and the precise configuration of these forces will of course be a matter for us, the electorate in Scotland. The first question to ask of a defence policy should be - against whom do we need to defend ourselves? Only then can we make appropriate decisions about what kind of navy, army and air force we need. As a relatively small north west European country with (hopefully) no dreams of invading other countries, we could get by with a much smaller defence spending that at present. Even with a smaller defence spending there will still be plenty of jobs in the defence sector in an independent Scotland.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Secondly, spending on defence is about the most wasteful kind of public spending you can get. It is outrageously expensive and in terms of job creation about as cost effective as space exploration. Every study has shown that defence spending creates less jobs than just about any other spending. Less money on trident means more money and more jobs for teachers, nurses, social workers, police etc. Jobs that are more likely to make a positive difference to more people than Trident related jobs. So for the same amount of public spending we can have more jobs in Scotland than the 12,000 that Philip Hammond like to crow about.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Thirdly it is interesting to note that the morality or ethics of this kind of job creation is conspicuous by its absence in the world of Philip Hammond and his ilk. This is perhaps not surprising from a Tory, but still it is a shame that Labour in Scotland is too willing to parrot this line. Jackie Ballie for one is keen to avoid talking about the ethics of nuclear weapons and will only talk about the jobs provided. Strange behaviour for a so-called party of the left and an self-proclaimed internationalist one at that. One wonders if the Jackie Ballies and Philip Hammonds of this world would have put up the same defence for concentration camps - they provided jobs and a boost to the local economy. Think of all those train journeys needed to get people to the camps. Must have been a wonderful job creation enterprise.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-8104099593617881512012-10-24T11:54:00.001+01:002012-11-01T14:05:40.865+00:00Nablus - It's the Occupation, the Occupation, the Occupation<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I am not long back from a visit to Nablus as part of a delegation from the Dundee-Nablus Twinning Association. We all had a wonderful time and some of the party are still there - the lucky ones. This post will focus on my initial thoughts on what this visit has told me about the overall political situation in Palestine.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">At first sight everything in Nablus looks fine and dandy. The place is very lively, lots of busy shops, full of all kinds of goods. The streets are full of cars and there do not appear to be any travel restrictions. So it came as a bit of a surprise to find the town covered in posters with photos of armed resistance fighters - dead fighters, all killed by the Israelis. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0HedgMXQg0SLFNWqjADGE4gkRPUYh3QPhsKpkW_xoR3ew0llnf6Z3Rqq195ExDs3aQ_9hMyPO51DB1oowfqMojtybD5n9CtwyzKCaoFP5I5NOG3F3vLwoSluOiDp9b4346FwWXkihx8Q/s1600/P1030185.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0HedgMXQg0SLFNWqjADGE4gkRPUYh3QPhsKpkW_xoR3ew0llnf6Z3Rqq195ExDs3aQ_9hMyPO51DB1oowfqMojtybD5n9CtwyzKCaoFP5I5NOG3F3vLwoSluOiDp9b4346FwWXkihx8Q/s400/P1030185.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Still these posters did seem a bit out of kilter with the rest of the town. That is until you look a bit more closely and ask a few questions. You then remember that Nablus was occupied by the Israeli army from 2002 during the second intifada. Though the soldiers are no longer in the town, evidence of their stay is everywhere. Even our hotel had windows with bullet holes, like this one.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbKNxaWftqFeJqDxVQcsMljRkvtjwRqeNdSgISYOCtNHI5PjB9I6djLIiq7ysCKJzwiFN2x0kFF_UFz6_uh3Fj5gw9E7MXGIaoIyVd3rKsZNeYlrH0hnNW7w3B9vOImCniPIULM-7TSpw/s1600/P1030113.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbKNxaWftqFeJqDxVQcsMljRkvtjwRqeNdSgISYOCtNHI5PjB9I6djLIiq7ysCKJzwiFN2x0kFF_UFz6_uh3Fj5gw9E7MXGIaoIyVd3rKsZNeYlrH0hnNW7w3B9vOImCniPIULM-7TSpw/s320/P1030113.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Even more disruptive was the destruction of whole houses. In the old town we met a Canadian woman who now lives in Nablus and she pointed out a newly rebuilt building just along from her house. This was a building that the Israelis had destroyed, claiming that a resistance fighter was inside. He may have been, but in the process the Israelis killed nine people, including a pregnant mother and her baby. So it is perfectly understandable that the Israeli occupation is never very far from the minds of Nabulsis. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It is not the case that the occupation has ended. It has just changed. The Israeli presence is everywhere and the effects of their presence is a constant factor in living in Nablus. During the week we were there, we witnessed Israeli military aircraft flying overhead, an unmanned drone crash landed just outside the town and soldiers invaded Balata refugee camp to arrest two young men. The Israelis keep a permanent watch over Nablus. This includes a military outpost on one of the hills above the town. The small watchtower where Israeli soldiers look down on the town can be clearly seen to the left of the red and white tower on the right of this photo.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSB5m2zJKJqMca0qvPlKQ60O3r-qnoZb3H3lPOLayRFTv7TYYagQWuKhpdJXeiMDONcx-lOC3NiijFa968rfvN7-oLWa-ANyS3gk3C07PI1zmQELSDNG-kl_atQuIUD1-bFgkK_Ft9OO0/s1600/P1030090.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSB5m2zJKJqMca0qvPlKQ60O3r-qnoZb3H3lPOLayRFTv7TYYagQWuKhpdJXeiMDONcx-lOC3NiijFa968rfvN7-oLWa-ANyS3gk3C07PI1zmQELSDNG-kl_atQuIUD1-bFgkK_Ft9OO0/s400/P1030090.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">While travel in Palestine is less restrictive than a few years ago, the checkpoints are still there, as are the guard posts. Cars still have to slow down due to the traffic slowing devices built into the road. At any moment the Israelis can close a road and staff the checkpoints with soldiers.</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> There is even a military camp just outside Nablus. Travel in and out of Palestine is of course completely controlled by the Israelis and it can be a terrifying experience to get in or out of Palestine through Israeli controls as we can personally testify. Goodness knows what it must be like for Palestinians. The Palestinian economy is, like travel, completely dependent on Israel. The two economies are bound by the some currency - the Israeli shekel, over which Palestine has no say whatsoever. We had the good fortune to visit the new Northern area Electricity Distribution company and see at first hand the modernisation programme they are carrying out. But, they are totally dependent on Israel for the supply of electricity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">And of course there are these twin sides of the coin - the refugee camps and the illegal settlements. While Jews from anywhere in the world can come and with Israeli government support illegally build houses on land stolen from Palestinians the Palestinians from Jaffa and other areas now in Israel, are forbidden to return to <b>their</b> villages and have to make do with living in a desolate, confined space in the camps. Many of the settlers around Nablus are not averse to using violence to harass and even destroy the olive trees of the Palestinian farmers lower down the hillsides. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So, while Nablus is a vibrant and lively town, you only need to spend a few days there to experience at first hand the debilitating and humiliating effects of the occupation. For make no mistake about it, however much things have improved for some Palestinians, Palestine remains under occupation. Two of the key demands of the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement are brought to life by just a short stay in Nablus - End the Occupation and the Right of Return for Refugees.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-41284305411601817692012-10-11T22:23:00.000+01:002012-10-11T22:23:38.240+01:00Eurozone Prospects<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR9sJpy5B0u81X83A-Tw1oD-qDyCVRqxnXKilIANu8GS7Ib-48r_4N4IgXpgcJtpnIZW-SWsySRRwHWWHx5eF9eeonZwQXSYdc2mw2weVoPWpfmUsPjHvbnTquqGMbjP2PboLveRDK8Mc/s1600/_57213772_eu3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgR9sJpy5B0u81X83A-Tw1oD-qDyCVRqxnXKilIANu8GS7Ib-48r_4N4IgXpgcJtpnIZW-SWsySRRwHWWHx5eF9eeonZwQXSYdc2mw2weVoPWpfmUsPjHvbnTquqGMbjP2PboLveRDK8Mc/s1600/_57213772_eu3.jpeg" /></span></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">It is getting a bit like Groundhog Day as regards the Euro and its future. Every month of so, some supposedly very serious commentator, economist or politicians steps up to warn us the there are only two or three months left in which to save the Euro. And yet two or three<b> years</b> later, the Euro is still there and nobody, not even the Greeks, has left the single currency. At one level it is all a bit of a laugh. Unfortunately this <b>is</b> a serious issue and the constant doomsayers are doing us all a major disservice.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Firstly because after a while most people simply cease to believe them and may wrongly, assume that all is well in Euroland. Secondly, the focus on the survival of the Euro comes at the expense of the underlying economic realties which affect the Eurozone countries. For the reality is that the main source of the woes affecting European countries is the application of more and more austerity. Policy makers in nearly all countries seem hell bent on pursuing policies which all the evidence confirms is only making the situation worse. Government debt is not coming down and most economies are either in recession or flatlining. That this is happening in the UK, which is not in the Euro, would seem to indicate that it is not the Euro per se, which is the problem, but the "austerity at all costs" policy which is the problem. Paul Krugman in a <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/euro-update-the-perils-of-pointless-pain/">recent post</a> outlines the crux of the matter. Many of our governments seem to want to inflict pain on the rest of us for their own political agendas.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Getting out of this current and long lasting mess will not be easy. Continuing with the current policy prescription is likely to kill the patient. It is hard to see how the populations of countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece and even Ireland can continue supporting the consequences of the these policies for much longer. What they face is a decade or more of deflation with high unemployment and the lost growth that this involves. Not an enticing prospect. At some point in the not too distant future something is likely to give. Either some countries leave the Euro or the current policies will have to change. Neither will be easy and all governments will try to avoid either happening. But there has to be a limit to how much suffering people are prepared to endure, especially as there is little prospect of improvement in the medium term.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">If the countries of the Eurozone want the Euro to survive there are various options available. None of them involves rocket science and they have been know about for some time. American economist Bradford DeLong provides a succinct summary of these options <a href="http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/northern-southern-europe-european-union-by-j--bradford-delong">here</a>. As he points out the most likely outcome is a combination of the following three measures:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<div class="p1">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Northern Europe tolerates higher inflation – an extra two percentage points for five years would take care of one-third of the total north-south adjustment;</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Northern Europe expands social democracy by making its welfare states more lavish;</span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Southern Europe shrinks its taxes and social services substantially.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Something along these lines is needed pretty soon if the Euro is to survive and the whole of the Eurozone gets a chance to rebalance its economy. At the moment nobody in either northern or southern Europe is prepared to engage with their electorates about what these measures would mean in practice. So the majority of Europeans are unaware of what lies ahead. The sad thing in all this is that to continue as now is more than likely to make things even worse. We are alas living through very difficult times with a bunch of scared politicians in nominal charge.</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-21966842099064045212012-10-04T14:48:00.001+01:002012-10-04T14:48:32.493+01:00Catalunya - On the Way to Independence?
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaVsR_OiNtrJ7-I4ynYcqozeJCK5UBoMDqRLmX_pUuCWjB-texEUgRaJzUNMg7bPhrR8_k-638Z1LVvJtQ-qUxhVhk2MNc3aClxHZ_D3QPqE_d9gpOj4yZ3A0TKX4pAwhar42YtTGSgw0/s1600/Supporters-of-independenc-008.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="384" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaVsR_OiNtrJ7-I4ynYcqozeJCK5UBoMDqRLmX_pUuCWjB-texEUgRaJzUNMg7bPhrR8_k-638Z1LVvJtQ-qUxhVhk2MNc3aClxHZ_D3QPqE_d9gpOj4yZ3A0TKX4pAwhar42YtTGSgw0/s640/Supporters-of-independenc-008.jpeg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">While the debate about independence for Scotland continues its slow march towards the referendum in 2014, things have suddenly become very heated in Catalunya. The nationalist government in Barcelona has called for early elections, set for 28th November and if it wins has vowed to hold its own referendum. In all this it is clear that there are many similarities between the situation in Catalunya and here in Scotland. However the differences may be even more significant.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In the first place the so-called Nationalists in Catalunya are not in favour of independence. The nationalists are made up of two centre-right parties, Liberals and the Christian Democrats. They have always worked together and present themselves as a coalition at elections, when they are know as Convergència i Uniò - simplified to CiU. They mainly represent the Catalan speaking middle class and want better status for their own language - Catalan - and more and more powers, including fiscal powers for Catalunya. There is a relatively small party - the Left Republicans, ERC, who do actively campaign for independence, but to date they have remained fairly small. This is one of the key differences with Scotland, where it is the Nationalists who lead the campaign for independence.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Another key difference with Scotland is that the centre left, represented by the socialists - PSC, and the smaller left wing parties are all in favour of more powers for Catalunya. Only the right wing PP, the party of the current government in Madrid opposes this. There is thus ample support throughout Catalunya and across the political spectrum for more powers - what might be termed DevoMax, here in Scotland. In particular the Catalans have pretty much united in calling for a new Fiscal Pact to give increased tax raising powers to the Catalan parliament. This has recently been resoundingly rejected out of hand by the Spanish government. And it is this point blank refusal in Madrid to even talk about more powers which has set alight the touch paper.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This all led to the massive popular demonstration in Barcelona in early September, when between one million and a million and a half people crowed onto the streets to demand independence, shown in photo at top. And here is another key difference with Scotland. All the recent initiatives seem to have come from the ground up. There has been a long standing campaign at local level in support of independence which has involved local councils holding local referendums about independence. With in most cases large majorities in favour. The recent big demonstration was itself not organized by political parties. But once they realized how big it was going to be, they quickly jumped on board. It is this massive demonstration calling for independence which seems to have been the game changer in Catalunya.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The nationalists, at least some of them, have started to talk about independence, or Catalunya acquiring the institutions of a state. They cannot, as yet, openly talk about independence. Even the proposed referendum will be about sovereignty as opposed to independence. The Socialists are now apparently all in favour of rewriting the Spanish constitution so that Spain can become a Federal state. In the hope of giving Catalunya sufficent powers, while preserving the unity of Spain. Apart from the right wing party, the Spanish governing PP, just about all the other Catalan parties are coalescing around the demand for more powers and in particular a new Fiscal Pact. What will happen if the Nationalists are returned to power with a mandate for a referendum and the Spanish government continues to say NO, NO, NO, is anybodies guess. Some nutters on the right - former politicians and retired military - have already called for the Guardia Civil to be deployed. This is another difference with Scotland. Despite the rhetoric on the Unionist side it is hard to imagine either David Cameron or Ed Milliband sending in the tanks to squash the unruly Scots. We can only hope that cool heads prevail in Madrid.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">However the opposition of Madrid to significant additional powers for Catalunya is something that is common to both situations. London is equally set against more powers for Scotland. Another similarity is that despite the best efforts of the SNP and the other pro-independence parties, the majority of Scots seem to want to stay in the UK. Like their Catalan colleagues however the overwhelming majority want increased powers, including financial and fiscal powers for Holyrood. The key difference is that in Catalunya the Socialists are also in favour of increased powers, whereas in Scotland the Labour Party has become entrenched in a “<i>this far and no further</i>” paralysis. The LibDems too, while they proclaim their federalist crudentials seem only too happy to align themselves with the staunchest do nothing Unionists in the Conservative and Labour parties.</span></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span class="s1"></span><br /></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Another all too depressing similarity is the negative posturing of both governments in Madrid and London. Both continually assert, with no evidence, that Independence will be bad for Scotland and for Catalunya. They also like to wield the EU card. Independence will entail leaving the EU and we (Spain and the UK) will veto any chance of joining. With supposed friends like these, who needs enemies? It is interesting to note that one EU Commissioner, Viviane Reding, has already come out and denied that independence would mean leaving the EU.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">For the pro-independence movement in Scotland, the changed political situation in Catalunya can only be a welcome shot in the arm. Much will of course depend on the outcome of the elections in November. But a renewed mandate for the Nationalists will surely provide some food for thought amongst the unionists over here. For what is most noticeable about the Unionist campaign so far is its complete refusal to think beyond the UK. One gets the impression from Unionists that independence has never, ever happened before. They seem stuck in their own little world of make believe. Events in Catalunya may just shake them up a bit.</span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-29366775176344697282012-09-29T21:01:00.001+01:002012-09-29T21:03:33.230+01:00Scottish Labour Going Down?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo71oLmfdgW2Sd7CN7KfeRxHAHA-51zBhZF0QkoGbpZYRKVxDmHvcnjz0bQ9eG5bBzmBEJvFY7u3FcN3L9gqqOphAB277iMyVotZXxOjbG2tQSuIwuwS7NGk1iXqk2652kx7JKiybwKmo/s1600/Johann+Lamont.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo71oLmfdgW2Sd7CN7KfeRxHAHA-51zBhZF0QkoGbpZYRKVxDmHvcnjz0bQ9eG5bBzmBEJvFY7u3FcN3L9gqqOphAB277iMyVotZXxOjbG2tQSuIwuwS7NGk1iXqk2652kx7JKiybwKmo/s320/Johann+Lamont.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I have not posted here for some time as I took a little breather over the summer. However Johann Lamont’s recent speech in Edinburgh has prompted me to put pen to paper again as it were. I have read and reread her speech and still find it very hard to understand what she is trying to say and more importantly perhaps, why she went to all this bother Her speech seems to be a very clear attack on the principle of universal benefits, despite some feeble attempts by her supporters to deny this. Most commentators have concentrated on this part of her speech.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In this post I want however to highlight what was missing in her speech and to argue that this makes her both dishonest and defeatist. To give her some credit she does make some very pertinent observations. For example when she states: “<i>This is the stark choice that Scotland has to face up to: if we wish to continue some policies as they are then they come with a cost which has to be paid for either through increased taxation, direct charges or cuts elsewhere.” </i>She then goes on to correctly, in my view, state that: “<i>Once we have decided as a country what kind of public services we aspire to, then we must have an honest debate about affordability.</i>”</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Unfortunately the rest of her speech was to ignore completely the issue of affordability. For this reason I feel she is being dishonest. She repeatedly insists that there will be less money around. While this is true for the immediate future, it is not the result of some immutable law of nature. It is the wholly political and ideological choice of our current nasty government in Westminster. Yet at no stage in her speech does Ms Lamont challenge this situation. Her whole premise is based on accepting whatever Westminster decides to allocate to Scotland. We can argue and debate about who gets what, but we must never challenge the amount we get. This it seems to me is a most defeatist approach. So in essence I accuse Johann Lamont of being both dishonest and defeatist.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">In her speech Ms Lamont was quite happy to highlight some of the gross inequalities that demean Scotland. For example she asks: “<i>What is progressive about a chief executive on more than 100,000 a year not paying for his prescriptions, while a pensioner needing care has their care help cut?</i>” In parliament she continued with this line by exposing how much Nicola Sturgeon and her husband earn. Now, I agree with Johann Lamont on this. It is wrong and in my view indefensible that we have people earning £100, 000 and more a year while pensioners need care. But where I fundamentally disagree is that this iniquity can be solved by means testing or restricting universal benefits. The answer it seems to me is to increase taxes on high earners like Nicola Sturgeon. But of course Johann Lamont cannot do that because the Scottish Parliament has no real powers over fiscal matters. And it is her refusal to contemplate any serious debate about this issue that confirms to me that she is dishonest when it comes to talking about affordability. She is right that we cannot have a mature debate about what kind of public services we aspire to for our country without including affordability. But equally we cannot have a mature debate about affordability if we do not have the powers over taxation and the economy in general. </span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This does not necessarily mean independence, though of course that is one option, and the one I personally favour. However there is a range of options within the UK for Scotland to be given control over significant areas of taxation to full fiscal autonomy. But on this Johann Lamont has nary a word to say. The only tax she mentioned was the Council tax. Which she apparently wants to increase. Probably the most regressive and hated tax of all.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Ms Lamont concludes her speech with bit of a rallying call when she claims: “<i>But we can change Scotland now. We have the powers in the Scottish Parliament now, to change radically education, health, public services. What we lack is the will.</i>” This again is to my mind another example of the basic dishonesty in her whole approach. Firstly a minor point, there are some radical changes going on in Scotland. I will mention only one - the Curriculum for Excellence. Whatever one thinks of this, it is certainly an attempt at radical change. And one that was initiated under a previous Labour government at Holyrood. So I find her belittling of what has changed and is changing in Scotland both insulting and surprising.</span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The more fundamental point of course is that it is manifestly not just the will which is lacking in Scotland. It is the money. As she herself admits, there will be less money around. Yet she makes no suggestion whatsoever as to how we might increase the money available for public services. Whether it is the UK or Scotland we are talking about very wealthy countries. To claim that we must content ourselves with whatever Westminster condescends to give us is to my mind both dishonest and defeatist.</span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-13790747931379538652012-06-12T08:51:00.000+01:002012-06-12T08:51:26.778+01:00Scotland is Already Independent (in some things)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBom3oVqzcFlQ8KxuWUwHS-l5vGmJ5lvjiTYt_4yRH_mA_VHiHc4Zo8yTzORofTH8HBwst3BZbgTHA0QRXkq0AIVvXFkBUVM6UAv7eMk0SctpAOGcyeRBQFXbLvL-mSRCTg5CT7ZSd2Oo/s1600/scottish_rugby_union.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBom3oVqzcFlQ8KxuWUwHS-l5vGmJ5lvjiTYt_4yRH_mA_VHiHc4Zo8yTzORofTH8HBwst3BZbgTHA0QRXkq0AIVvXFkBUVM6UAv7eMk0SctpAOGcyeRBQFXbLvL-mSRCTg5CT7ZSd2Oo/s1600/scottish_rugby_union.png" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This is something that may come as a surprise to lots of people, but in many areas of life Scotland is already fully independent. It is a fact nearly always overlooked by Unionists, who are so keen to demonstrate that independence will somehow damage us. Yet in areas as diverse as sport and religion, Scotland is and more important, always has been independent.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Let us start with sport, one of the most popular activities of humanity just about everywhere. In just about every sport, Scotland is, to use the Unionists' favoured term, already separate. It is not just in football, golf and rugby that we have our own independent, sorry, separate teams and governing bodies. Nearly every sport from cricket to volleyball is governed in Scotland by our very own, internationally recognised ruling association. And as far as I am aware, not even the most ardent Unionist argues that Scotland should give up its independence in these sports. Just look at the brouhaha over the fielding of a UK football team in this year's Olympics.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">When it comes to sports, everyone accepts our right to be independent - to run things for ourselves and to be represented in the relevant international bodies in our own right. It is also worth pointing out that in all sports we are fully independent or separate if you prefer. This means that we are not subsidised by anyone, certainly not by England or the UK government. Somehow we manage to successfully pay our way. We may not be the most successful team in some sports, but hey, nor is England. We accept with good grace and a few murmurs whatever we do manage to achieve and if it is not good enough then we try to work out how we can do better in the future. But virtually nobody thinks it a good idea to give up our separate football team for a UK one.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The same can be said for another, some might say even more important facet of life - religion. Here again it is an uncontested fact that all religions, or at least all Christian denominations, have their own, independent/separate lives and governing structures. This is clearly the case with the Church of Scotland, which as its name suggests is a wholly Scottish institution. Perhaps surprisingly to some, the same applies to the Catholic Church. Despite the universal nature of Catholicism, the Church is run along national lines. This means that the Catholic Church is separate/independent from the Catholic Church in England for example. Scottish Catholics have their own direct line to the Pope, without the inconvenience of having to go through London. Again the various Scottish religious groups manage to survive and provide services to their faithful, without the benefits of any kind of subsidy from England or the UK government.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Since devolution there is now a further range of public services in which Scotland is pretty much independent. I refer to education, the Health Service, local government, social work etc. All areas which are under the full responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Over the past decade or so, Scotland has become ever more different from the rest of the UK, especially from England. We are pursuing an independent/separate line in the above areas. And virtually nobody is advocating that we hand back power in these areas to Westminster. The key difference between let us say, education and football, is that in the latter we have full control over what we spend. Whereas with education, we can only spend what London condescends to give us. So in relation to public services we are only partly independent. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So why not go the whole hog and vote for full independence in 2014. It is amazing that we are proud of our independence in sport and religion and we are equally proud of our separate education and NHS, yet Unionists would have us believe we are still somehow too wee, too poor to take full responsibility for everything - just like all other independent countries manage to do.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-2773631077405318852012-06-08T16:04:00.000+01:002012-06-08T16:04:57.260+01:00Why pick on Syria? - Why not Israel?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLvAhFoHMgb1e9hqYs6eIGNaTZsO5AkxcUs69J3uwCkNSZyEqyggSQeJ41LPJMSFcki_TD8yLjWko2XDVmIEl3q3UUYb2edVv5RuLsnK5353EuouXBJUrUeqgPHc-i0WPn20jxhz6qmDY/s1600/palestinian-deaths.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLvAhFoHMgb1e9hqYs6eIGNaTZsO5AkxcUs69J3uwCkNSZyEqyggSQeJ41LPJMSFcki_TD8yLjWko2XDVmIEl3q3UUYb2edVv5RuLsnK5353EuouXBJUrUeqgPHc-i0WPn20jxhz6qmDY/s400/palestinian-deaths.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 4.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">I am somewhat amazed at the rather skewed media and political attention that is devoted to the situation in Syria. The uprising and the bloody response of the government has caused great suffering among many Syrians. Most of them civilians and some of them children. However bad the situation is for some Syrians, I am not sure how western intervention will lessen the violence and the bloodshed. Whether it is direct military intervention or supplying arms to the rebels, the result can only be even more deaths and serious injuries. However my main concern here is the double standards that are once again on display, both by our media and our western governments.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 4.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 4.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">However bad and appalling the violence is in Syria over the recent months it pales into insignificance compared with the violence inflicted on Palestinians by Israelis. This week alone the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights reported 3 killed, 23 wounded, including 8 children, by Israeli troops. Their report can be found <a href="http://www.imemc.org/article/63692">here</a>. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #252525; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Other <a href="http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=20000">reports</a> highlighted that Jewish settlers were on the rampage throughout the West Bank.</span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 4.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #252525; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #2100a7; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 13.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">These were not of course isolated incidents. Israel has been killing Palestinians for over 60 years now. It was only three years ago that Israel unleashed Cast Lead, their massive murderous onslaught against defenceless Palestinians in Gaza. This resulted in the deaths of over 1,400 Palestinians, including more than 300 children. Yet what was the thunderous response of the western governments to this slaughter of the innocents? Understanding of Israel’s right to defend itself - against civilians? Regret at the deaths and nothing more. No condemnation and no referral to the UN. And absolutely nothing about military intervention to protect the hundreds of dying children. Nor any chance of arming the Palestinians so they could better resist Israeli attacks. In this of course our wonderful investigative media was largely silent if not outright supportive of Israel.</span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The lessons of this seems to be crystal clear. The outrage against the deaths and sufferings of the innocent Syrians is permitted because the western governments don’t like the Assad regime in Syria. When the Kuwaiti government was killing its own citizens there was very little condemnation from the western governments. No surprise to learn that Kuwait is one of the West’s best friends in the Middle East. And of course Israel can kill as many Palestinians as it can manage with nary a word uttered against. Just to give a fuller picture of the violence committed by Israelis against Palestinians, here are the figures for the number of children killed since September 29, 2000. The figures come from <a href="http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html">If Americans Knew.</a></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #2100a7; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u><br /></u></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Israeli children killed <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- 124</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Palestinian children killed <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- 1,452</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">If there was any sense of justice within our western world, then it would be Israel that was in the dock for crimes against humanity. But which of our brave politicians in the west is going to challenge Israel?</span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-70206566099854371902012-06-03T19:18:00.000+01:002012-06-03T19:18:25.076+01:00The Euro - One of Two Unthinkable Things Will Happen<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrdGELtegR7t10JqHBfntUEug0d-peM7YLIGYYRjPMxF6iIoTqq_N3y8v_uR9jO66dqpOZ8YLKmubIAemyw_AKPIVW8MsidYtdthcJ_GtQCX2Cn4okzm80iSDFIi3pzSs4zvStz0YAzJ4/s1600/_57213772_eu3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrdGELtegR7t10JqHBfntUEug0d-peM7YLIGYYRjPMxF6iIoTqq_N3y8v_uR9jO66dqpOZ8YLKmubIAemyw_AKPIVW8MsidYtdthcJ_GtQCX2Cn4okzm80iSDFIi3pzSs4zvStz0YAzJ4/s400/_57213772_eu3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
It looks like things are going to get even more interesting for the Euro. The uncertain outcome of the forthcoming general election in Greece has captured most of the attention, but it is events in Spain that are most likely to provide the tipping point An exit of Greece from the Eurozone while very messy and of uncertain consequences for Greece, would not in itself prove fatal to the Euro. Damaging yes, possibly very damaging but nevertheless containable. This, on the economic and political assumption of "all other things being equal". Which of course is manifestly not the case. By all accounts Spain is in very serious trouble, with an enormous amount of money needed to clean out its banks. Where will this money come from? Even if the money is forthcoming, what effect if any will this have on Spain's disastrous economy? Massive and rising unemployment and further austerity measures do not add up to much in the way of growth. On the contrary further contraction is predicted and pretty much inevitable. <br />
<br />
Faced with this situation the key question is can the Spanish government continue with its austerity policy? Could any Spanish government? While a Greek exit from the Euro would be unfortunate and unwanted - from a Eurozone perspective - a Spanish exit would more or less bring down the whole ship. Neither Italy nor France could survive in the Euro faced with a massive Spanish devaluation - which is what would happen if Spain leaves the Euro. The competition would be too severe. A Spanish exit and devaluation would not be good new for German exporters either, while a collapse of the Euro is likely to be catastrophic for Germany.<br />
<br />
Which is why the way forward is likely to involve either of two currently unthinkable outcomes. Unthinkable that is to the members of the Eurozone. The two "unthinkables" are 1. the Euro is allowed to collapse or 2. Germany accepts lots of debt relief, inflation and monetary transfers to other Eurozone states. Neither is on the horizon at the moment, but things in the real economy can move at lightning speed. The phrase about one of two unthinkables happening is from Paul Krugman. He used it during a very interesting Newsnight programme on BBC2. The whole programme is well worth watching. You can access it <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jhlsz/Newsnight_30_05_2012/">here</a> via the BBC iplayer. The programme starts with the situation in Greece and the Krugman section starts at the 20.00 minute mark. He discusses the options with another US economist, Ken Rogoff and despite their different perspectives, both agree that the only way for the Euro to survive is for Germany to bear a lot of pain. Rogoff's view is that this will come anyway and it is up to Germany to decide which poison to take. His prescription is pretty much identical with Krugman's second "unthinkable" - default on loans owed to German banks, higher inflation and financial transfers. Some combination of all three is probably the optimum solution. Certainly higher inflation in Germany seems to be the key to any survival of the Euro. As Krugman points out, it is easier - both practically and politically - to improve Spanish competitiveness by raising the wages of German workers than by lowering the wages of Spanish workers.<br />
<br />
The jury is out as to which of the two "unthinkables" will prevail. The EU leaders will try to postpone any decision for as long as possible, but of course the financial markets may decide to take matters out of their hands and force the issue. Look out for further signs of capital flight from Spanish banks. The Newsnight programme also includes a wonderful section - starts at 31.36 minutes - in which Krugman single handed as it were demolishes the so-called arguments of two Neanderthals from the austerity and more austerity camp. One of them, Andrea Ledson is even a Tory MP - Lord help us!<br />
<br />
If the iplayer link above does not work,<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFgJ9C4cJQs&feature=related"> here</a> is a link via youtoube to the section where Krugman and Rogoff discuss the future of the Euro. Their discussion starts at 3.40 in. And <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r-AKruzmkk">here</a> is a link, also via youtoube to the section in which Krugman takes on the austerity monsters.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jhlsz/Newsnight_30_05_2012/</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jhlsz/Newsnight_30_05_2012/</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-73016302920000060402012-05-28T13:31:00.002+01:002012-05-28T13:31:29.512+01:00Yes, Scotland<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicAh_URMtGoep3Dupc_N4jrkPjYCzB_f74Kbgs0AcTvtEiWKbi3lbdNa1dC8R9XlT5TnLa6Mabfn-giOlQS16pHvfm5WdRLwuviOfSxXlzwpTMMkglcJFqxSPCOB4trcgH3XowsiZcIGA/s1600/306128_440087812668801_410177615659821_1711601_1907499534_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicAh_URMtGoep3Dupc_N4jrkPjYCzB_f74Kbgs0AcTvtEiWKbi3lbdNa1dC8R9XlT5TnLa6Mabfn-giOlQS16pHvfm5WdRLwuviOfSxXlzwpTMMkglcJFqxSPCOB4trcgH3XowsiZcIGA/s400/306128_440087812668801_410177615659821_1711601_1907499534_n.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The campaign to win Independence for Scotland has formally begun. Last Friday saw the launch of this new campaign - <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/">Yes Scotland</a>. Since the referendum is more than two years away, this was a fairly low key event. Only two of the speakers were active politicians, Alex Salmond from the SNP and Patrick Harvie from the Greens. This is important for a successful outcome. Though the SNP are clearly the main party campaigning for independence, they are not the only party. The Greens in particular could have a very significant role to play in convincing enough Scots to vote Yes. It is also clear that though the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties will remain staunchly anti independence, this is not true of all of their voters. So the Yes, Scotland campaign needs to appeal to as wide a range of people as possible.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Independence is not something to decide on lightly. It is not just for today, but for the long, long term. Therefore we need people to think carefully about what independence might mean - for them, their families and for future generations. Which is one of the many very good reasons for the two year timescale before the referendum. A majority of Scots need to be convinced that independence is the best option for Scotland. Preferably as large a majority as possible. Already commentators and bloggers are advancing their particular reasons for voting Yes to Independence. You can find a couple <a href="http://munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/ten-reasons-to-say-yes-to-independence.html">here</a> and <a href="http://burdzeyeview.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/ten-other-good-reasons-to-vote-yes-to-independence/">here</a>. Gerry Hassan has also chipped in with a more considered list <a href="http://www.gerryhassan.com/blog/state-of-interindependence-a-vision-for-scottish-self-determination/">here</a>.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Now I don’t want to demean any of these reasons, some of them I agree with myself. However they do seem to miss the fundamental reason for wanting independence. Independence will not in itself bring about any of the wish lists mentioned above, nor those of anybody else. What independence will do is ensure that it is us the people living in Scotland who get to decide what policies to pursue, for good or bad. You either trust us - the people living in Scotland in all our diversity - or you don’t. It’s pretty simple really. Who should decide on the key issues affecting Scotland - the people who live here or people living elsewhere in the UK? I am clearly with the Yes, Scotland campaign and this simple statement - </span><span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The people who live in Scotland are best placed to make the decisions that affect Scotland. I would urge all my fellow citizens living in Scotland to join in the Yes, Scotland campaign. Go to their website <a href="http://www.yesscotland.net/declaration">here</a>, and sign the declaration.</span></span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font: normal normal normal 14px/normal Arial;"><br /></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-21774620900307373062012-05-20T20:52:00.000+01:002012-05-20T20:52:17.739+01:00Palestine - The Struggle for Justice Continues<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0PLCVB7nwiVKqI6cTI5_y7xAdL2ZTFNujg93jn0uF4W-UXxj_-lGHsNE86y7Tf0dMc_Is3n6jZygTIHOMLAmDbA1uaRov6Y-82ra1YYfrNsIPU_HwLA5QILj2og1GMag2nbZOJpmIxSA/s1600/26.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0PLCVB7nwiVKqI6cTI5_y7xAdL2ZTFNujg93jn0uF4W-UXxj_-lGHsNE86y7Tf0dMc_Is3n6jZygTIHOMLAmDbA1uaRov6Y-82ra1YYfrNsIPU_HwLA5QILj2og1GMag2nbZOJpmIxSA/s320/26.jpg" width="236" /></a></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">15th May was Al Nakba Day, when Palestinians and their supporters throughout the world remember the”Catastrophe” that befell Palestinians in 1948. For the founding of the State of Israel in that year came at the intentional expense of the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. A tragedy that has remain unresolved to this day. I have written about Al Nakba before and this post is mainly about links to relevant pieces elsewhere that help to explain both Al Nakba and the current state of Israeli - Palestinian relations.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Starting with Al Nakba, Philip Weiss’ ever interesting site, Mondoweiss has <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/for-palestinians-the-nakba-has-been-perpetuated-for-decades.html">this piece</a> written by the Palestinian Council of Human Rights Organisations. The title of the article explains the piece perfectly - For Palestinians, the Nakba has been perpetuated for decades. The following quote succinctly illustrates this ongoing facet of the Nakba.</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333233; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 24.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">“While the term Nakba is seen as a reference to the murder, exile and devastation of the 1948 war, in reality, it could just as easily be used to describe the current belligerent occupation. It is an appropriate term for nearly six decades of demolitions, internment, the appropriation of land and the refusal by Israel to recognise and respect the basic human rights of the Palestinian people. It could very easily be used to describe the denial of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people. The Nakba did not end in 1948. The mass forcible transfer that occurred during and in the aftermath of the war was only the first stage in Isreal’s illegal policy of displacement that is being implemented with equal determination and precision to this day.”</span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 24.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #333233;">The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has another <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/recognizing-nakba-reaching-peace-1.430637">Palestinian perspective</a> on the Nakba. This one is written by </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Dr. Hanan Ashrawi who is a member of the PLO Executive Committee and head of the PLO’s Department of Culture and Information. Her piece is particularly interesting as she uses this article to demonstrate conclusively that in 1948 Palestine was, “a land with a vibrant society and rich culture. Palestine was one of the most developed Arab societies, boasting one of the healthiest economies under the British mandate and a high school enrolment rate second only to Lebanon” Much of the work in rediscovering this history has been researched by Israeli historians as Dr Ashrawi acknowledges.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">The third article on the Nakba is by Lisa Goldman, a Canadian journalist who for many years lived in Israel. Her piece is entitled <a href="http://972mag.com/on-the-nakba-jewish-identity-and-memory/45898/">On the Nakba, Jewish identity and memory</a>. This is a very moving article in which she tries to confront the Nakba from a Jewish perspective and in particular the memory of the Holocaust. Her key point is the different way in which the aggressors, the perpetrators of the injustice have reacted. As she puts herself, “The people who instigated the genocide of the Jews have acknowledged their crimes, asked forgiveness, made restitution payments, outlawed Nazism and made Holocaust studies part of their school curriculum. One can never really apologize for committing genocide, but acknowledgment and accepting responsibility are essential. Otherwise it’s not possible to move on.</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Very few Israelis and / or Jews are willing to accept and acknowledge the pain caused the Palestinian people by the Nakba. We deny, deflect, turn away, ignore. We get angry. We accuse those amongst us who wish to remember and record, like <a href="http://www.zochrot.org/en"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #2100a7; text-decoration: underline;">Zochrot</span></a>, of undermining the state of Israel or denying Jews their right to self-determination. Or of being traitors. How can the act of remembering be a betrayal?”</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Lisa Goldman’s article appeared in +972 a group blog about Israel and Palestine. As did the following <a href="http://972mag.com/the-one-state-reality-vs-the-two-state-idea/46151/">article</a> by </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #000000;">Noam Sheifaz, an Israeli journalist who</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> looks at the difficulties facing those, Israelis and Palestinians who want to challenge the status quo. He argues that for the vast majority of Israelis the status quo is preferable to all other options. So talk and arguments about possible political solutions are a waste of time. The need instead is to focus relentlessly on exposing the reality of the current situation as it affects Palestinians. As he puts it, “Instead of debating far-away solutions, political energy should be devoted in constant opposition to the military occupation of the West Bank and the isolation of Gaza, and to all forms of segregation and oppression that come with them. In other words, it should be directly aimed at the status quo and all those benefiting from it.”</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #2100a7; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #232323;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #000000;">In this he is supported by another regular writer on Israel and Palestine, Jerry Haber, a</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">n orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor, who divides his time between Israel and the US. He runs his own blog - The Magnes Zionist, where <a href="http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/2012/05/how-can-something-that-was-never-alive.html">this article</a> appeared. Dismissing the two-state solution as something that was never alive, he comes to the same conclusion as Noam Sheifaz. Namely that we all need to focus on the current injustices and use all non-violent tactics available to put pressure on Israel. He puts it thus, “</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #333233;">During the very long night ahead of us, the joint struggle of people from Israel/Palestine and from around the globe should continue to focus on civil and political equality, until more come to realize that the problems between the two sides are foundational. Non-violent tactics that exert pressure on both sides, including boycotts and sanctions, should be considered and adopted if they will further the aforementioned goals.” </span></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #1e1e1e;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px color: #000000;">I end with another <a href="http://972mag.com/the-fantasized-homeland-review-of-the-invention-of-the-land-of-israel/46048/">piece</a> from +972 magazine. This is a review by </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;">Yossi Gurvitz, a 40-year old Israeli journalist, blogger and photographer. In it he reviews the latest book by Shlomo Sand, entitled The Invention of the Land of Israel. It seems to be a very interesting book and I hope the English translation comes out soon. According to Yossi Gurvitz, Sands sets out to expose the falsity at the heart of the Zionist project - the notion of the Land of Israel as a physical, geographic place. A key quote from Gurvitz’s review, “The heart of Sand’s thesis is the intentional confusion in Zionism between the Halachic – Jewish law – concept of Eretz Israel (“The Land of Israel”, EI) and the concept of a place which is under Jewish sovereignty, and yearning for such a place. “Eretz Israel” is, originally, a Talmudic concept – not a biblical one – which delineates it as a territory that imposes extra religious obligations on Jews living in it, which Jews living outside of it are unburdened of. Talmudic legend grants EI various mystical qualities (wisdom, beauty and other nonsense which could only be written by people who haven’t lived here), but does not refer to EI as the “homeland ” of the Jews, and neither does it require them to live in it.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; min-height: 17.0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"></span></span></div>
<div style="color: #1e1e1e; font: 14.0px Helvetica; margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px;">
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Judaism is of no homeland. It is a religious movement which can exist anywhere, whose last territorial anchors were cut down with the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 AD. Were contemporary Judaism what Zionism later made it out to be – a people living in their homeland – it would have suffered a terrible shock. And while many were horrified by the destruction, and while a few haunting mourning poems were written in Greek or Aramaic, Judaism survived the destruction of the Temple amazingly well.” This is still the case today as Judaism continues to prosper throughout the world and most Jews do not live in Israel and have no intention of ever doing so.</span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5461936799594572597.post-22551809582017001572012-05-14T13:06:00.001+01:002012-05-14T13:06:36.998+01:00More Electoral Shocks for the Austerians<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibYjrRfJl1xR1S-Ds2Ouy1hPlfTtuFtC5MVcjxzU9XpYVf1tdPBnKWicVpghBRPDLDwR5Qnjn9Uh8HyXMXT_eEPmfBSmKMVkdtIKIGXfPBXfh3vm5FchBhMO_eM-EMB0pe9IP51u5XNxc/s1600/doc_28812_201041311256.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibYjrRfJl1xR1S-Ds2Ouy1hPlfTtuFtC5MVcjxzU9XpYVf1tdPBnKWicVpghBRPDLDwR5Qnjn9Uh8HyXMXT_eEPmfBSmKMVkdtIKIGXfPBXfh3vm5FchBhMO_eM-EMB0pe9IP51u5XNxc/s400/doc_28812_201041311256.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">After the recent triumph of François Hollande in France and the success of the anti austerity parties in Greece comes another major reverse for those in favour of austerity. In Angela Merkel's homeland her party, CDU has just suffered a calamitous defeat in North Rhine Westphalia, the most populous of the German Länder. Her party's vote declined by over 8%, while the main opposition party, the SPD saw their vote share rise. The SPD will now continue to run the state in coalition with the Greens, but this time with an overall majority. The photo above shows the victorious Hannelore Kraft the leader of the SPD in North Rhine Westphalia.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">This result while a clear set back for Angela Merkel, does not in itself weaken her in the Federal Parliament in Berlin, where she continues to enjoy a clear majority with the support of the FDP. However it is a further indication of the strength of those opposed to further austerity. It is worth pointing out that this was not a simple anti incumbent vote as the SPD and the Greens were the governing coalition in Düsseldorf. Most of all it is further confirmation that the tide is turning in favour of concrete measures across Europe to promote growth. None of the main parties anywhere is arguing against the need to bring down national debt or to reduce excessive government deficits. But more and more political parties and groups are vociferously arguing for a longer timetable for debt and deficit reduction and the absolute need to get all European economies growing again. The situation in Spain continues to worsen with one major bank already effectively nationalised. Will Greece have a national unity government by the end of today or will there have to be fresh elections next month? Uncertainty and worry everywhere, with more and more families suffering real reductions in their living standards. Austerity is manifestly not working. This week's meeting between François Hollande and Angela Merkel may give us the first indications of whether and how far Merkel is prepared to move. Alas, we live in interesting times.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16644642132002917428noreply@blogger.com0