I have not stopped blogging, but I have moved.  My blog now has a new home which you can find here.  I hope you continue to visit my new home.

What is Scottish Labour For?

This post is a belated comment on Johann Lamont’s speech in Edinburgh last September.  I have read and reread her speech and still find it very hard to understand what she is trying to say.  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.  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 for Scotland amounts to little more than managing a decline in public services.  Scottish Labour seems to have no willingness to challenge the status quo in order  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 Johann Lamont's speech.

In her speech Johann Lamont makes some very pertinent observations.  For example when she states: “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.”  She then goes on to correctly in my view state that: “Once we have decided as a country what kind of public services we aspire to, then we must have an honest debate about affordability.”

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.

In her speech Ms Lamont was quite happy to highlight some of the gross inequalities that demean Scotland.  For example she asks: “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?”  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.  

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.

Ms Lamont concludes her speech with bit of a rallying call when she claims: “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.”  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.

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.

Austria and Germany - Better Together?

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.

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.  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.

Prosperity - Times are really tough at home and really turbulent internationally. In the future Austria's prosperity will be strengthened by keeping the German connection. 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.  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.  (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.)

Security - 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. (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.)

Interdependence - 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.  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.  (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.)

All in all is hard to argue against this scenario and the overall claim that, 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.

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?

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?

A 'Legal Opinion' is still just an 'opinion'

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.

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, "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 are 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.

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 '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.

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.

Negotiating Scottish Independence - A Lost Cause?

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 here.  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.”

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?

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?

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.

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.   

Independence Negotiations - The Czech and Slovak Experience

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 here.

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 before the referendum.  Note that this is not pre-negotiations, but simply agreeing a timetable and framework.

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.

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:

1. the military
2. succession to international treaties
3. level of post separation economic integration
4. currency
5. citizenship
6. division of assets and liabilities”

In the case of Scotland and the rest of the UK, a couple of other issues may merit specific negotiation:

1. demarcation of maritime boundary in North Sea
2. state pension
3. welfare benefits

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.

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.

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:

1. fixed property would be owned by the Republic in which it was located
2. movables would be divided on a per capita basis - this was agreed at 2:1 in favour of the Czech Republic.

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.

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:  “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?

Should Scotland be an Independent Country?

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 their 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.  

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, "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?

The Barroso has spoken - So What?

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 here.  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.

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.

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 this article.

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 here.  For a more detailed look at the implications of dual citizenship see this submission from Professor Jo Shaw, Salvesen Chair of European Institutions, University of Edinburgh.

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.  

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.

The Olive Harvest in Palestine

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.

Olive Harvest in Palestine

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. 

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. 

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." 

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.

Wedad Rami

EU Budget - Round 1

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.

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.  "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).  
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.

The financial framework requires unanimity in the Council of Ministers when it has been approved by a majority in the Parliament."

If you are really keen or sad, and would like to know even more about the MFF you can consult this 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.

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 (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 here.  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 here.  And it was a meeting of this Council which failed to reach agreement earlier today.  

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.

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.

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.

Killing 11 Month Old Babies is not Self Defence!

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. 

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, here and here.  For an analysis of the biased coverage provided by our own BBC see here.

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, here and here.  Finally for an Israeli perspective on the deaths of the three Israelis in Kiryat Malachi, see this article by Larry Derfner from +972 magazine.

Was Hitler a Charismatic Leader?

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.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

Obama - What Next?

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?  

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

Scotland and the EU

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 unilateral declaration of independence.  De Vigo claims that in the event of a unilateral 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, here, 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 not 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 not 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?

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 here.  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.

Defence Jobs - at what Price?

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!

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.

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.

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.

Nablus - It's the Occupation, the Occupation, the Occupation

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.

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.  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.

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 their 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.  

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.