| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Gordon BrownEnough about Sarkozy...Gordon Brown, currently Chancellor of the Exchequer, becomes the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom tomorrow. He is Scottish, and is the Labour MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in Fife, Scotland. Together with Tony Blair, he has been a major architect of 'New Labour'. 
I'm not really expecting any significant change from this. What will be particularly interesting for me though is how he works (or doesn't work) with Alex Salmond, the recently elected First Minister of Scotland who supports Scottish independence. Unsurprisingly, Gordon Brown is strongly 'unionist' (i.e. opposes Scottish independence), has been attempting to emphasise 'Britishness' and wants to introduce a British 'national day', similar to 14th July in France, or 4th July in the United States. He didn't contact Salmond until after four weeks of him (Salmond) having been elected, even though he was extremely quick to congratulate Sarkozy. The deputy leader of the Labour Party, who may or may not be made Deputy Prime Minister, has also just been elected — Harriet Harman: 
During her election campaign, she said that she though that the Labour Party should apologise for the war in the Iraq. However, for some reason, she is now denying that she said this. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Re: Gordon Brown
True...  Anyway, I might have mentioned somwhere on this forum that I loved the way French people pronounce his name, giving his name a new meaning, i.e. "someone from the shit alley". 
To be perfectly honest, I don't expect much change from him, either...I can only hope that he will be less economical with the truth than his predecessor. However, I can't really speak with authority as I don't know him well enough. I can recall the first time I've ever heard him speak. It was a public speech, an awfully long one, I have to say. As the Chancellor of Exchequer, he was talking about fiscal issues and about the so-called sleaze-busting package but I don't remember what exactly he said. What I know is that he kept reiterating the same things ad nauseam, which all sounded well but I wasn't sure if he really meant it. It sounded sort of demagogic, like most of the public speeches delivered by polticians (the Nicol Stephen syndrome, which seems to be endemic - all unionists suffer from it. LOL). Funnily enough, he seemed to slowly but surely get tired of his own monologue or probably simply by himself. His speech was divided into two parts, so there was a break in the middle. Before the break, he had been able to introduce his ideas without looking into his papers, but after the break he couldn't be bothered to talk freely. Thus, his speech descended into a rather lacklustre performance.
As for the unionist-separatist conflict, I don't know how he is going to handle it. I think it will be a never-ending debate...without any prospects for real independence... Anyway, Labour PMs in general have a peculiar penchant for congratulating other PMs as soon as possible, and in as flattering a manner as possible. However, I thought it only applied to certain cases, namely, when the newly elected PM happens to be their "comrade". But Sarkozy is a fierce conservative, for aught I know... 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Gordon Brown
Yes, that's definitely Gordon Brown. People often say that Tony Blair is more about 'personality', whilst Gordon Brown is more about 'policy'. I've posted this quotation on this forum before, I think, but I'll post it again — it's from Faintheart – An Englishman Ventures North of the Border by Charles Jennings, and I think it sums Gordon Brown up perfectly: On the upside, however, was the fact that [the hotel] was on the edge of Edinburgh's magnificent New Town and shared with the buildings of that eighteenth century masterpiece many of their finer architectural points. Even though the place I was in — once a private home of great style and splendour — was Victorian in origin, it had the same stately ashlared façade and dignified classical proportions and motifs as the Georgian quarter. It had the same pediments, pilasters and mouldings. It also had the same huge rectangular windows as the best of the New Town — windows through which I had been randomly staring at Edinburgh life ever since I hit the city. So far I had seen a drum kit; a number of offices with grey steel filing cabinets and dreamy-looking staff prising the lids of yoghurt pots, and shuffling envelopes; a surprising number of claret-coloured walls; and an old lady trying to get a telly to work while two teenage girls looked on, anxiously. I had also witnessed several apparently perfectly preserved Victorian interiors, full of sombre paintwork, dado rails, old-fashioned potted plants like mother-in-law's tongue and aspidistra, paintings in gilt frame, stuffed birds mounted on little artificial outgrops of rock and covered by bell-glasses, vases and urns of fantastic size and ugliness, bookcases filled with Royal Automobile Club-style uniform bound volumes and surmounted by classical broken pediments. It was impossible to tell whether they were kept this way out of aesthetic conservatism or stinginess. Sometimes there would be an old man, seated in a leather armchair, reading a newspaper, sometimes scratching his leg. My own gaff had a monumental hall and staircase, the sort you don't get in London any more unless you're hugely rich and can afford a full-sized period London townhouse. If my place was at all typical, then your average Edinburgh hotelier, unlike a rich Londoner faced with such space and prodigality, will leave the staircase very much in the nineteenth-century mould. The paintwork will be dark to the point of blackness. The lights will never be more than 60 watts. The woodwork will bear the same morbid varnishes of 140 years ago. There will be strange mesh trays hanging over the upper banister rails, either to put plants on or to stop people committing suicide by hurling themselves down on to the tessellated floor of the entrance hall. The hotelier will also have a door marked Cocktail Lounge on the landing of the first floor. Every time I tried this door in my hotel, it was locked. And then, one evening, it fell open and I found inside a medium-sized room with all the lights on, and with some Formica tables dotted around. One of these tables had a half-finished game of chess on it. An anorak had been slung over the back of a neighbouring chair. There was no-one there. It was like reading a book and finding a chapter from another, wholly unrelated book intercalated about halfway through, thanks to an error at the binder's. Over time, I realised that all this was pure Edinburgh, inside and out. It was like being inside Gordon Brown: rigorous, solid, lumpily handsome, old-fashioned, forbidding, short of élan, humourless, stuffy, imposing, suffocating, defiant, prim. I decided that in fact the bad bits — the shortage of light, the vertigo, the unease, the strong reek of the past — were so glumly Edinburgh that they were good bits after all, and that everything was really as perfect as it was going to get.
New Labour seem to have a habit of cosying up to shady right-wing politicians — George W. Bush, Silvio Berlusconi, and now Nicolas Sarkozy. What next? Coalition with the Conservatives? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Re: Gordon Brown
Okay...then it wasn't only *my* impression...
In a way, yes. Tony Blair is an excellent actor and a charismatic person, which doesn't necessarily make a good poltician but he has all the characteristic features which are likely to make him seen as such...at least at first sight. Gordon Brown is not such a person by any stretch of the imagination, making the impression of a somewhat dull and a bit stiff character. However, I'm not sure if he is that much different from Blair as far as policy and politics are concerned, but let's hope the best...
An interesting piece, Benjamin. It definitely conjures up the image of Gordon Brown, even before his name is mentioned. I was wondering to what extent this image is compatible with the idea of "Labour", especially that of "New Labour" - the "New Labour" which has largely contributed to the creation of "Cool Britannia", which has descended into "Cruel Britannia". Wasn't it their main aim to eliminate stereotypes of Britain such as being old-fashioned, stiff, hypocritical, having crooked teeth (well, I'm not insinuating that Gordon Brown has croked teeth ) etc. Well, Gordon Brown conjures up the image of an old Conservative. Tony Blair wasn't the perfect epitome of a Labour MP/PM, either, but...
Absolutely. It's an interesting and at the same time frightening tendency to be observed in Hungary as well. Left-wingers heading in the right direction and vice versa. I'm afraid to think of what comes next... By the way, what about the Conservatives...they seem to keep a low profile nowadays...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Re: Gordon Brown
It's certainly very different from the image which Tony Blair was trying to achieve 10 years ago. I remember the aftermath of Labour's victory in 1997 — everything seemed so positive then, what with the Millennium coming up, Tony Blair talking enthusiastically about a 'New Britain' and pledging to put Britain at the heart of Europe... my god, where did it all go wrong? The MP for where I live is Labour. However, she has opposed almost all of Tony Blair's main policies, and could best be described as a 'traditional socialist'. To be honest, I think there's too much diversity of political views within the Labour Party, with the leadership being rather more right-wing than the core membership.
They've traditionally been seen as the 'nasty party' by many people. Their new leader David Cameron has taken an approach very similar to that of Tony Blair, and has attempted to make his party more socially liberal (he spoke in favour of gay unions, for example). For the past few months, they've actually been ahead of Labour in the polls. As for the Liberal Democrats... Gordon Brown has expressed an obvious desire to bring them into government, by offering the job of Northern Ireland secretary to former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown (his full real name is actually Lord Jeremy John Durham Ashdown, Baron Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon). However, this was rejected by both Paddy Ashdown and the current Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, and was also opposed by many people in the Labour Party. Incidentally, Sir Menzies Campbell is the MP for where I'm hoping to move to next year. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Benjamin,
Is it true that Tony Blair is soon expected to announce that he is going to convert to Roman Catholicism? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Apparently, yes. His wife is a Roman Catholic, his children went/go to a Roman Catholic school, he is currently an Anglo-Catholic (i.e. an Anglican who is sympathetic towards the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church) and he has apparently expressed interest in converting to Roman Catholicism in the past. He has also announced his intention to establish an organisation that will bring together Christians, Muslims and Jews, and has spoken to the Pope for endorsement. So yes, it seems likely. His flirting with Roman Catholicism has been going on for years though — I don't understand why he hasn't become a Roman Catholic already. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Well, politics... 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I think it is not an exaggeration to say that today is a capstone as far as British politics is concerned. In future, all Conservatives can look upon this day as the darkest hour before the dawn, the beginning of the end of Labour dominance.
Perhaps I am a romantic at heart and I am loathe to speak ill of the Right Honourable Anthony C Blair now that he has vacated the corridors of power. However, for the sake of an informed analysis, I must give my tuppence worth. My own view is that Mr Blair, a usually likeable man, has convictions to which he hold strongly - while he holds them. His convictions can be pretty malleable and change on issues as disparate as fox hunting, nuclear deterrence, civil liberties, the constitution, the euro, the casus belli for Iraq, partly to reflect what he genuinely believes to be the prevailing public mood. I do not deny that Mr Blair had shown considerable courage from time to time, sticking his neck out to defend a policy he has decidedly to wholeheartedly pursue. Iraq falls squarely into this category. The PM and his advisors had probably expected a quick victory to turn opinion around and that the toppling of the ruthless Saddam Hussein would be seen as the liberation of an oppressed nation suffering under the Baathist yoke. For all his intelligence and foresight, he failed to foresee the bloody quagmire which Iraq has since descended into. His critics would have a field day, but whatever his changing positions, there can be no questioning of Mr Blair's integrity. His veracity, decency and dedication to a higher good than vulgar pragmatism have to be explicitly and grudgingly conceded. He has to be accepted as a man of unchallenged honour; it is heresy to suggest that, like most politicians, he has behaved like a charlatan. Mr Blair's integrity stands crystal clear for all of us to see and it has to be defended at all costs. Some would deride his foreign policy as muddled; many more sniggered that he is a mere Poodle instead of a strategic partner. Certainly, Mr Blair was keen on preserving and strengthening the special transatlantic relationship which both the UK and the USA share. He believes that a healthy and robust alliance with the USA can allow Britain to project its influence globally. Mr Blair hence decided to commit British soldiers in Iraq because he believed that it would be perilous for Britain, indeed for all of America's true allies, to leave America to fight alone. What is the definition of a friend? A friend in need is a friend indeed. As much as I now deplore the original reasons for going to war in Iraq, I equally deplore the shrill cry which emanated from Paris, Berlin and Moscow denouncing the invasion as nothing but an american adventure in the pursuit of oil. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; I was and remain sceptical of French commercial interests in Saddamist Iraq. Clearly, nobody's hands are clean even if they want to wash it off like Pontius Pilate. At any rate, America would have gone on to invade Iraq with or without the support of Britain. Blair was merely playing the role of a supporting extra in the script; the protagonist was President Bush himself. But if Mr Blair had chosen to stay out of the conflict and watch dispassionately from the sidelines, what would have been the ramifications? It is possible that British hesitation would have encouraged doubts in the American establishment. The failure of Britain, her closest ally, to muster support for this enterprise would effectively convince America that a unilateral mode of action is the only way in all future expeditions. It would have confirmed what Bismarck once observed about geopolitics when he pithily said that there are no permanent allies but interests. Anyway, it is too early to tell if Iraq would turn out to be a timid success or a resounding failure. For the sake of her people, we must ferverently hope for the latter. What I heartily dislike about many peaceniks is their desire to sabotage all reconstruction attempts in Iraq. Now that the deed has been done, it is only sensible and responsible to dig in for the long run. Honestly, I like Mr Blair. He is eloquent and never fails to enliven the House during parliamentary sessions. In contrast, Mr Brown's dour oratory is nothing to write home about. But he was at least a very keen footballer and rugby player in his youth so that could be a strong plus point for the new Prime Minister. This shows that he is a team player. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Which incidentally is what I'd secretly hope for (a Conservative victory in 2009), although for rather corrupt and 'un-noble' reasons. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Lol. Benjamin, it doesn't take a mindreader to discern your rather perverted motives for a Tory victory.
Let's not forget that they are officially the Conservative & Unionist Party and it is not very likely that they would concede independence to Scotland without fighting tooth and nail over it. Over my dead body, I can imagine the PM in waiting David Cameron snorting. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
The Conservatives are frequently the fourth party in Scotland. And actually, their vice-chair has declared his support for an independence referendum, and claims to have the support of at least five Conservative MSPs. Equally, there are rumours that support for independence within the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party is increasing. I suspect that there are actually quite a lot of Conservatives in England who would love to wave goodbye to Scotland — I know several Conservative supporters who would, anyway. And although they are officially 'unionist', the fact that they have 'Unionist' in their official title historically has little if anything to do with Scotland.
David Cameron said: 'I want to keep Scotland and England together, but if the result [of an independence referendum] went the wrong way, from my point of view, then I would have to honour that because that is the only way to be open and honest with the people of Scotland, but I desperately hope it doesn't happen.' |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I beg your pardon??? Quite honestly, I'm a wee bit flabbergasted..."veracity", "integrity", "unchallenged honour", "higher good"...these are expressions I've never heard in connection with Mr Blair. You seem to be implying that Mr Blair is perfection personified...Don't you think it's a slight exaggeration on your part? I would certainly assume that you are being ironic, if I weren't aware of the fact that you tend to be exceedingly empathetic towards anybody who is subject to public criticism, which is indisputably a noble quality in you. However, I'm inclined to think that you romanticise Blair and fail to acknowledge that he isn't any better than the average politician as far as integrity is concerned. I'm not insinuating that Blair is pure evil as no-one is. He is a human being with positive and negative features who happens to be a politician. Most politicians are devious and opportunistic regardless of their alleged or real good intentions, and I'm afraid Blair is no exception to the rule, either. It has recently been proven by your dear Tony himself, for aught I know.
Don't let appearances deceive you, Loic. Eloquence is power but by no means a virtue.
Imagine what would you do if all the potential candidates for the new PM had played football or rugby in their youth. Honestly, whom would you vote? Fortunately it's just a figment of the imagination that will never come true, thus you don't have to rack your brain to decide whom to elect...
PS: Sorry...I always forget that you can't vote British PMs...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Not really! Technically, I am able to vote in the British General Elections as I am a Commonwealth citizen. This privilege is spelt out pursuant to Section 3 of the British Nationality Act 1981. I just do not have a right to abode. Yes, I think all Prime Ministers should have sporting blood in them. The last peer to live in 10 Downing Street Sir Alec Douglas Home, originally the 14th Earl of Home before he was obliged to renounce his peerage to sit in the House of Commons, played first-class cricket for the MCC as well as the Oxford University Cricket Club for a few years. As you can well see, his cricketing abilities were put into good use in the hustle and bustle of elections campaigning in his political years when his nimbleness ensured that he caught an egg hurled at him without breaking it. As for my glowing report of Mr Blair, I did mention that I am averse to speaking ill of any departing statesman. Besides, I honestly feel that the outgoing Prime Minister genuinely had a reformist agenda for the country. Would you rather have him or say, Robert Mugabe? Benjamin: Thank you for pointing that out. If I have anything further to comment on the state of Scottish independence, I would. Not for the moment, though. I am feeling knackered and maybe a potent mixture of cocktail would be sufficient to revive me. Do you know how to concoct one, by any chance? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I don't quite see your point here, other than that Tony Blair could have been worse. But it seems a bit of a false argument, because someone with policies comparable to those of Robert Mugabe (e.g. Nick Griffin from the BNP) was never even remotely likely to become British Prime Minister after at least the last three general elections. Directly following the past three general elections, the main possible resulting prime ministers were: 1997 Tony Blair, Labour John Major, Conservative Paddy Ashdown, Liberal Democrat 2001 Tony Blair, Labour William Hague, Conservative Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat 2005 Tony Blair, Labour Michael Howard, Conservative Charles Kennedy, Liberal Democrat Any other outcome would have been so extremely unlikely that it doesn't even seem worth thinking about what would have happened if, say, the BNP won the election, or the Greens won the election, or whatever. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Je ne parviens pas à me décider : lequel des deux est le pus vulgaire — Blair ou Sarkozy ? Lequel des cinq devrais-je dire : Aznar, Bush, Berlusconi, Blair ou Sarkozy ? Je ne compte même pas les deux bouffons de Pologne...
L'Occident est tombé si bas qu'après avoir osé proposer Blair comme "président" de l'UE, il suggère Blair comme sous-plénipotentaire auprès du Moyen-Orient. Quel mépris pour nos voisins méditerranéens... Blair après Wolfovitz. La guerre est pour bientôt, je le crains. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Pardonne-mois mon cynisme, mais je crois que il y a une differance profonde entre Blair et Sarkozy : le francais de Blair n'est pas aussi horrifique que l'anglais de Sarkozy ...
D'ailleurs, je ne pense pas que "vulgaire" est le mot juste pour décrirer la personalité blairenne ... mais "bouffon", oui ...
Agreed completely. Loic, this argument of yours seems to be the prime example of comparing apples and oranges. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Gordon Brown has now announced his cabinet:
Gordon Brown — Prime Minister; First Lord of the Treasury; Minister for the Civil Service; Leader of the Labour Party 
Alistair Darling — Chancellor of the Exchequer; Second Lord of the Treasury 
Jacqui Smith — Secretary of State for the Home Department 
David Miliband — Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 
Jack Straw — Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain; Secretary of State for Justice 
Harriet Harman — Lord Privy Seal; Leader of the House of Commons; Minister for Women; Chair and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party 
Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland — Lord President of the Council; Leader of the House of Lords 
Those are the 'main' ones, I suppose. Incidentally, this now means that both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are Scottish. No-one has been appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. Here is the rest of the new cabinet: Des Browne — Secretary of State for Scotland; Secretary of State for Defence Peter Hain — Secretary of State for Wales; Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Shaun Woodward — Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Alan Johnson — Secretary of State for Health John Hutton — Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; President of the Board of Trade James Purnell — Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Douglas Alexander — Secretary of State for International Development Ed Balls — Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families John Denham — Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills Hazel Blears — Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Hilary Benn — Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ruth Kelly — Secretary of State for Transport Ed Miliband — Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Minister for the Cabinet Office Geoff Hoon — Chief Whip; Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury Andy Burnham — Chief Secretary to the Treasury |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Browsing through the pictures, I've arrived at the conclusion that an open mouth or strange teeth are prerequisites of members of the new government. 
I'll ask you some questions if you don't mind. Do you see any logic behind the decision to have two Scottish people in a prominent position in the cabinet? If it was a conscious decision at all... Well, at least there will be no serious clash between the two politicians as both are Unionists. I'm not entirely sure about Mr Darling's affiliation but considering his Anglo-Scottish background and his occassional challenging of the SNP, it seems logical that he has become if was not predestined to be a unionist. Speaking of Catherine Ashton, doesn't the very presence of an aristocrat in the Labour Party make the whole idea of "Labour" a bit inauthentic? I wouldn't cast doubt on the noblewoman's empathy towards and sympathy for the "plebs" but I'm not sure if she truly knows what being working-class or even middle-class is all about. (Not that Tory...erm...Tony Blair has first-hand experience of it, which he obviously doesn't.) That said, I would naturally assume an aristocrat to be an ardent Conservative...or furtively left-wing but to never admit to it in public, let alone join the party. Do you *really* have a Minister for Women? (That was a rhetorical question, of course. I'm asking you because the very idea sounds extremely amusing, albeit perfectly justified.) Is it possible for a man to obtain such a position? PS: Sorry for my occassional tongue-in-cheek remarks...I know that politics is too serious an issue to make light of.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Will he convert to Labour one day ?
Blair ne manque pas de culot ! How dare he think he might do something not negative regarding interfaith issues (note that non-faith doesn't seem to be considered at all...) knowing that he triggered a bloody confessional war in Iraq ? Blair est un véritable Tartuffe ! 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Liz:
I wasn't comparing apples with pears. You were castigating Mr Blair and I thought it was grossly unfair. I think credit should be given where it is due and I am not ashamed to sound the gong when it is wholly appropriate. Besides, Mugabe and Blair do have some things in common. Both of them were popular in the beginning. One, however, still clings tenaciously on to power while the other has willingly stepped down. I think it says a lot for a man's character when he willingly abdicates in favour of an orderly succession when he is still obviously intelligent and canny enough to lead the country. I have also criticised him although it was far from a damning verdict. At least I can lay claim to being at least a disinterested observer watching from the sidelines. My summary plausibly contains both good and bad about what was Mr Blair. I have never ever heard the likes of Greg speaking well of Mr Blair before. For someone who prides himself on seeing the world in shades of grey, he can be damned inflexible and obstinate when he chooses to be. Like a proverbial ass, I suppose. Greg: Come now. There's no need to get your (girlfriend's) knickers into a twist over Mr Blair's new portfolio. Who would you have nominated instead? Jacques Chirac? Besides, we need a genuinely practising Christian or Muslim to reconcile the two main civilisations. This is a quality that is lamentably absent in many other luminaries. Do you think the Muslims would listen to an atheist who probably holds self-righteous convictions about the banality of religions? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
You're mixing everything loic, as usual. Today islam & christianity are no civilisations, just religions. There are christian Arabs living in Lebanon or Palestine. To which civilisation do they "belong" ? Same for Rachida Dati : is she living in a "christian" or "muslim" civilisation ?
Blair isn't a "practising" christian, just a hypocrite. How can a real christian send troops to invade a country and bomb its population ? Behind the "civilisations" you mentioned, there's politics to make those so-called "civilisations" clash. All kinds of terrorism (Ben Laden, Bush, Blair etc) thrive on religions perverted by big money. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
That's true - you were comparing them with oranges. (By the way, I always want to write "apples and pears", too. Is it "oranges" or "pears" then? You made me slightly confused...) Furthermore, I wasn't castigating him at all. I was merely trying to point out that it's an exaggeration to claim that he is a paragon of virtue.
I don't see why you should be ashamed...
Not necessarily...he is intelligent and canny enough to resign because he wouldn't be pleased to be seen as another pathetic liar who clings tenaciously on to power until he is given his marching orders. It's often wiser to make the first steps yourself and avoid being forced to do so. It seems the PM of my country doesn't follow the good example of his friend and role model and is going to willfully and cheerfully accept the role of the failed leader in the world's history, though...How sad.
My criticism of him might have been a bit of deprecation, albeit by no means a damning verdict.
Oh, really? Well, if I were malicious enough and had more free time, I would copy-and-paste your tirades about Mr Blair and highlight the positive features with red and the negative features with black. You would clearly see that there is no equal representation of both sides - an abundance of "red" and a ridiculously exiguous number of "black". Of course, I don't consider Greg's peculiar aversion towards Blair and Sarkozy perfectly justified but I'm convinced that you most definitely fall into the other extreme.
Well, it's much more sensible to see the world in shades of grey than in pure pink or black. At least there *are* shades...
Quite honestly, how does he come into the picture? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Interesting. You're right — this now means that the two most powerful British politicians are MPs from Scottish constituencies. This probably won't go down too well with many people in England, due to the currently unfair situation known as the 'West Lothian Question' — whereby English MPs are unable to vote on specifically Scottish issues, because they're dealt with by the Scottish Parliament, whilst Scottish MPs can still vote on specifically English issues, because they're dealt with at Westminster. Of course, the main reason why this issue hasn't been resolved yet is because the Labour Party have vested interests in keeping the current situation — 39 Scottish MPs are Labour, whilst only one Scottish MP is Conservative (and it's a swing seat); then 12 are Liberal Democrat and six are SNP. But this issue has contributed to the recent rise of 'English nationalism' — something which was largely unheard of until a few years ago. I do wonder though whether part of Gordon Brown's motivation in choosing another Scottish person as Chancellor was to encourage Scottish people to identify more to the UK government — he obviously doesn't want Scots to start seeing Alex Salmond as their only political leader. But equally, this could be entirely coincidental.
She's actually not an aristocrat. She was made a Baroness in in 1999 because of the work she's done during her life — she's been director of Business in the Community, which is an organisation that works with business in order to tackle equality, she established the Employers' Forum on Disability, Opportunity Now, and the Windsor Fellowship, an organisation which runs personal development and training programmes, targeting black and Asian students. She has also chaired the Health Authority in Hertfordshire, and has been vice president for the National Council for One Parent Families.
I don't know if it's possibly for a man to obtain that position, but I don't think that's ever happened in the past. The previous Minister for Women and Equality was Ruth Kelly — who incidentally is a member of Opus Dei.
Lol. It would be nice though, in my view, to see a return to proper old Labour politics at Westminster — like Rhodri Morgan, First Minister of Wales: 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
That's true. However, it's still more advantageous for the English to have Scottish unionists than Scottish separatists, I presume.
That was my assumption, too. I often have the feeling that Gordon Brown is eager to draw the Scottish public into the English sphere of interest. He has already made an attempt to crush the exuberant spirits of Scottish nationalists through emotional blackmail. He isn't ashamed to make oblique references to their alleged English relatives whenever he feels a need for it. Nonetheless, at the same time one has to acknowledge the fact that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and the like are not usally seen as Scottish by the Scottish public, not even from the remotest distance. Although they have well-nigh exclusively Scottish ancestry, they seem to have been almost entirely anglicised.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry...my mistake! Thanks for enlightening me on that.
Is he a man? With the name "Ruth"...? Opus Dei...? A religious fanatic in the government? Quite nice. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
That's right — at one point during the Scottish election campaign, Gordon Brown called for people to 'come home to Labour'. What sort of talk is that? As for his rhetoric about English relatives becoming 'foreigners' after independence — it's all nonsense. The same is very much true for Ireland — and very very few people in Britain would view the Irish as 'foreigners' or see Ireland as a 'foreign country' anyway. Not to mention the fact that millions of people in Britain have relatives from all sorts of other countries.
That's right. Gordon Brown, despite having grown up in Scotland, despite having gone to the University of Edinburgh, despite being a member of the Church of Scotland, and despite being an MP for a constituency in Scotland, is frequently not seen as Scottish by a large part of the Scottish public. On the other hand, some high-profile Scottish politicians (e.g. Annabel Goldie) have been happy to embrace J. K. Rowling as a a 'Scottish achievement', even though she was originally from England and only moved to Scotland about 15 years ago. This is all part of the 'who is Scottish' question, which will undoubtedly become more of an issue if/when independence becomes a reality. I remember reading the comment pages of one of the main Scottish news websites (either the Herald or the Scotsman), where someone originally from Scotland but had moved to Canada was arguing that they should be able to vote if there was ever an independence referendum, because they considered themself to be 'Scottish'. The overwhelming response from the people on that forum living in Scotland was a resounding 'no' — you've chosen to leave Scotland and make your life elsewhere, you're not really Scottish anymore etc. On the other hand, most people on that thread seemed very happy for, say, Polish migrant workers to vote in such a referendum. It almost seems as though, to many Scottish people, the primary definition of 'Scottishness' is someone who lives in Scotland and is committed to trying to make it a better place for all, even though economic prospects are usually better elsewhere — regardless of ancestry or where they were originally from. This arguably doesn't really apply to Gordon Brown.
No, Ruth Kelly is a woman. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Oh Dear...I seem to have woefully ignored this part of your sentence: I don't know if it's possibly for a man to obtain that position, but I don't think that's ever happened in the past. My functional illiteracy has been proven again...
Politician talk!
Basically, I have nothing against unionism per se. As I said on another thread, I don't think the idea of full independence is either entirely plausible or sensible at the moment or even in the foreseeable future. Still, I understand those fully well who are in favour of Scottish independence. Having said that, I don't feel like going into details concerning this issue as it is none of my business - I'm not British after all. However, these populistic, demagogic chlichés about "becoming a foreigner in your own land" seem to me a little elusive and specious, to say the least.
It's rather interesting...a bold if not slightly preposterous claim, if I may say so. Should the Americans claim Rod Stewart for themselves? Or will Madonna be declared to be English after fifteen years of residence in England? Let's not be ridiculous...It's high time some high-profile politicians woke up to reality from their twenty years' slumber like Rip van Winkle. It's better late than never...
So you have to wait for a while...It'll take donkey's years, I reckon...As long as you have Scottish unionists in both key positions, the chances for a split are somewhere around zero, converging to minus infinite, even if further unionists are excluded from the cabinet (which is, in all honesty, far from being conceivable under the present circumstances).
Just because you don't live in your native land doesn't mean you deny or you have lost your national identity. There can be a plenty of other reasons for not living in your own country. As for me, I do and I'm positive I always will wholeheartedly retain my Hungarian identity, no matter where I live, even as a long-term resident.
This was my impression, too. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go so far to claim that this is what the vast majority of Scottish people think. Besides, this way of thinking is by no means quintessentially and exclusively Scottish. By the way, does Gordon Brown fully identify with Scottishness or does he feel rather English? Or does he possibly prefer defining himself in terms of the elegant, albeit somewhat superficial umbrella term "British"? May I hazard a guess and say I'd go for the last option? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Well, J. K. Rowling has written virtually all of the Harry Potter books in Scotland — so in that sense I suppose that they could be described as 'Scottish'. I don't know what national identity (if any) J. K. Rowling has, but if she wishes to identify as 'Scottish', then I doubt that many people would complain or find it particularly surprising or unusual.
All I can say is that it's very obvious to me that it will happen eventually. Arguably, devolution was ultimately always going to be a one-way street to independence anyway — and it seems to have turned into a motorway over the past few weeks, to a large extent due to the response of the British government.
Actually, no. It doesn't matter what the UK government thinks. All recent British Prime Ministers, including Margaret Thatcher, have accepted that Scotland can have independence if they vote for it in a referendum. If that happened, then Gordon Brown would have no choice but to give way.
I still don't think that someone who has emigrated permanently to Canada should be allowed to vote in a referendum on Scottish independence, even if they still consider themselves to be 'Scottish'. There are at least a million (even 2 million, according to some estimates I've seen) people originally from Scotland currently living outwith Scotland — and there are only 5 million people living in Scotland now. Allowing such people to vote would give the diaspora far too much influence — and could potentially change the result of the referendum.
He was asked this in an interview a few weeks ago actually, and he said that he was 'Scottish and British'. However, his emphasis on 'Britishness' (such as 'advising' people to fly the Union Jack in their gardens — my God!) during his political career suggests to me at least that he sees himself as 'British' first — in contrast to how most people in Scotland identify themselves. There are surveys on this subject all the time about how people in Scotland identify themselves; here's a recent one from January this year: 32% — Scottish, not British 28% — more Scottish than British 22% — equally Scottish and British _3% — more British than Scottish 10% — British, not Scottish _4% — none of these / not sure |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
I wouldn't find it surprising or unusual, either. However, embracing her as a Scottish achievement is, well, a bit much, even though most of her books have been written in Scotland. It might have been more accurate to denote her oeuvre as a Scottish achievement, or rather an achievement in Scotland.
When and how?
Devolution is not even remotely synonymous with full independence. There is a considerable number of people who are in favour of devolution but don't support full independence.
Oh, the odium of democracy...
Point taken. My mistake.
I didn't say that they should be allowed to vote in a referendum on Scottish independence. I don't think it would be sensible to vote in a country that you left several years or decades ago. If you don't live there, you can't really be au fait with the current issues of the country. Influencing the future of a country is far too serious a matter to leave at the mercy of a bunch of de facto outsiders. PS: Last night I was listening to a sort of a summarising report of Tony Blair's career as a politician. The funny thing is that they seemed to be preoccupied with Mr Blair's accent change from "northern flat vowels to the glottal stops and dropped aitches of Estuary" (sic!) instead of focussing on his political deeds. Isn't the title of the programme "BBC:Poltics", by any chance?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I've no idea. But I simply cannot imagine the UK in its current form lasting forever. We will see.
That's right. However, I do think that independence will ultimately end up being a consequence of devolution anyway, even if it isn't achieved overnight by referendum. Four of the five parties currently represented in the Scottish Parliament officially support increased autonomy for Scotland in one way or the other, and even Jack McConnell has now admitted that increased devolution is 'inevitable'. Realistically, it won't be long before the objective of increased devolution of power to Holyrood is achieved. But after that, how long will it be before the Scottish Parliament start calling for even more devolution of power? How long will it be before so much power has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament such that Scotland effectively runs itself (like Bermuda, for example) and has to all intents and purposes become an essentially independent country through a gradual process?
Haha. Gordon Brown's speech has changed as well — he seems to sound less and less Scottish (and more and more Southeast English) every day. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Liz |
Haha. I can... Of course, not *exactly* in its current form. However, it's rather difficult for me to conjure up the mental image of a totally independent Scotland, functioning...and it's a lot more difficult to imagine an independent Britain, devoid of Scotland, functioning...
Well, that's an indisputable fact! He certainly wants to advocate unionism through his accent as well. LOL! 
Anyway, this quintessentially English (not really British, rather English) obsession with accents remains an enigma to me for good. As for me, I don't really give a toss how our politicians speak, what kind of accent they have, to be more specific. All accents are just fine by me as long I can understand them perfectly well. Why is it so much of an issue over there?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Benjamin:
It seems to me that your definition of "Scottishness" is one who is inclined to vote for independence. Oh, I suppose the means justify the ends here and it does not matter how independence is achieved. Even criminal means would probably justify such a dubious aim in your opinion. We are all taking eventual Scottish independence for granted. I, for one, am confident that it would not happen anytime soon, indeed in the next two decades or so. Changing the status quo requires immense courage as well as force and many vested interests would be broken in the process. The North Sea oil is not a panacea to any economic woes now that the world is rapidly moving towards alternative sources of energy. It is wishful thinking to imagine that economic prosperity would automatically accompany fully-fledged sovereignty. In fact, I think the reverse would hold more water: an exodus of Unionist-minded Scotsmen south of the border as they worry about the direction which the country would take. How many Scotsmen are there already working in London and the other major financial centres throughout the length and the breadth of the land? Isn't our resident Scotsman here himself residing and working in London already? What do expatriate Scotsmen residing in England think about Scottish aspirations for independence? Are they to be ignored if they have the temerity to express Unionist opinions? In short, your definition of a Scotsman is arbitrary and faintly despotic. What happened to the venerable notions of jus solis and jus sanguinis? There are many intelligent and right-thinking Scotsmen who are of the opinion that Scotland's interests are best served by being under the aegis of the United Kingdom. Besides, automatic entry to the EU is not a given. If devolution were to occur, the remaining home countries of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be seen as the legal heir to the defunct UK. They get to keep their seat in the EU, the UN Security Council and a plethora of other international organisations by proxy. Scotland, as a newly formed legal entity, have to apply membership individually. It is a painstaking process that might take months, if not years. It just needs any one member of the EU to veto a hypothetically independent Scotland's membership. Have those wags at Holyrood been more truthful in their assessment of a post-Union future for Scotland? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Greg:
I am not confusing anything. The notion of a civilisation is not geographically defined; it is a state of mind. I can belong to the Islamic civilisation even if I reside within the boundaries of what was once Christendom. When I speak of the clash of civilisations, I am merely borrowing the metaphor of Samuel Huntington and Francis Fukuyama -viz. conflict and disagreement between the two main pillars of values in the world. As for whether Mr Blair is a 'true Christian' or not, that is not up for an atheist to decide. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Liz:
You asked what Mr Jacques Chirac has to do with it when I suggested if Greg would propose his former President as a better Middle East envoy than Mr Blair. I wasn't being mischevious when I tossed his name into the ring. Both of them have recently retired and both of them have invested a lot of time and energy in the Arab world during their terms in office. In fact, why not Mr Chirac? He is at least seen more favourably by the Arab world for his strident opposition to the war - or rather, the 'Great Satan' in America. Personally, I think Mr Chirac might make a better candidate. I'd also have more opportunities to listen to his beautifully modulated French whenever he addresses the international press. However, he rubbed Washington the wrong way and even many americans who are disillusioned with the current administration are also not necessarily warm to the idea of Mr Chirac taking up any high-profile position. Besides, he got himself into some political imbroglio during his stint as mayor of Paris and I am sure he would have his hands full fending off any judicial inquiries. Honestly, I think Mr Blair is a poor candidate. It is not for want of capabilities here; his reputation in the Arab world is in the gutter. His appointment smacks of a golden handshake to me, courtesy of his allies in Washington. I hope Mr Blair's new role does not degenerate into a sinecure position in which he is obliged to fulfill american requests. That would be nothing short of disastrous. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
I don't know if civilisation is a state of mind. To me, civilisation is a collective artefact that's concrete & intangible as well. And I'm not quite sure neither Hutington nor Fukuyama have written anything sensible about civilisations. But their academic output is certainly telling about US civilisation. Merci de ne pas me coller d'étiquette. Je te le dis, et te le répète, la religion de Blair est au mieux une hypocrisie de petit-bourgeois.
Yep, but he wouldn't lend his modulation to serve US slanted propaganda in the Middle East. That's a difference between Chirac & Blair.
Ha ha. Non, il fait exactement ce qu'il fallait faire : frapper là où ça fait mal. Sinon ça n'aurait servi à rien. L'États-unien lambda a 3 ans de retard sur l'Iraq. Le monde ne l'attendra pas pour se faire une opinion.
Nous sommes d'accord. Son cas est aggravé par sa pseudo-candidature à la présidence de l'UE. Blair est pitoyable : il me fait penser à un toxico en manque.
C'est exactement ce qui va se produire. Les chiens ne font pas des chats. La posture de la troïka Bush, Blair & Olmert dans la crise du Moyen-Orient est ultracaricaturale et complètement idiote. Ils prennent une massue pour écraser un insecte (Abbas, Arafat, l'OLP) — et le ratent ! Mais entretemps l'insecte est devenu un loup affamé (le Hamas). Et aujourd'hui Bush, Blair & Olmert voudraient négocier avec l'insecte qui n'est déjà plus... Quelle folie ! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
No. When did I say that?
What sort of 'criminal means' are you talking about? If you mean terrorism, then no, absolutely not. The only acceptable way in my view for Scotland to become independent would be a 'yes' vote in a referendum. I support an independence referendum, and if I'm living in Scotland at the time of such a referendum, then I would vote 'yes'. But I don't understand why you describe independence as a 'dubious aim'. Independence is supported by the First Minister of Scotland, all of the Scottish Executive, and about 40% of MSPs. This is not some wildly eccentric extreme minority opinion comparable to support for an independent Cornwall; it's actually very much a mainstream view.
The process would take a long time, yes. It's more of a long-term aim for me anyway.
The argument about North Sea Oil is frequently used by the SNP, but I'm not an SNP supporter. I totally agree that reliance on oil is unsustainable.
Not immediately. But I think that it would be for the best in the long term.
I have no reason to assume that. But then again, there's been a mass exodus from Scotland over the past few decades anyway — to a large extent due to the economic problems experienced by the country in the 1980s as a result of the policies of Margaret Thatcher.
I looked at the statistics for this anyway, and there are about a million people originally from Scotland who are currently living in England, and about another million living in Canada and Australia.
People originally from Scotland who are currently living in England would probably not be allowed to vote in an independence referendum, no. On the other hand, I would. To vote in elections in Scotland, you have to be a British, Irish, European Union or Commonwealth citizen who has an address in Scotland as their primary residence. I assume that these regulations would apply to any independence referendum since the referendum would be called by the Scottish Parliament.
What is my definition of a Scottish person? (Sorry, but 'Scotsman' makes me cringe since we're not just talking about men here).
Unfortunately, there is currently no such thing as 'Scottish nationality'. The only official definition of a Scottish person is a British citizen who lives in Scotland — appropriate or not.
Of course. But Alex Salmond isn't stupid either. Neither is Robin Harper, the parliamentary leader of the Scottish Green Party.
Emile Noêl, former Secretary General of the European Commission, said: 'Scottish Independence would create two new member states out of one. They would have equal status with each other and the other 11 states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland.' http://www.snp.org/independence/questions/europeandtheworld/europe/ (Admittedly, Emile Noêl said that a few years ago, but I don't think that this has changed considerably since then — feel free to provide more recent counter evidence to this, preferably from someone of a comparable position). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
As for whether Scotland can seamlessly join the EU without any form of negotiations, this is wishful thinking. Refer to the article on The Scotsman for more details:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=35012007 I think the SNP are doing a huge disservice to their supporters by harping upon how Scotland would continue to have automatic access to the EU market upon the achievement of independence. I don't blame them for this marketing campaign though. It is a clever ploy: painting a picture of plucky Scotland stepping foot independently into the wider world while continuing to enjoy the reassuring embrace of the European Union. Unfortunately, legal advisors have pored through thick books and raised some searching questions. Basically, what is left of Britain would remain an EU member but Scotland would have to submit an independent bid for membership. This seems like a easy process on paper, but you are forgetting that some member countries might then veto a Scottish entry, for some reasons or another. As it is, France is already constitutionally bound to hold a referendum on any sort of EU expansion. Who knows, referendums would become even more popular a decade or two down the road. Of course, nobody doubts that an independent Scotland would eventually become a fully-fledged member. I am just saying, as do many other legal scholars, that this process is not as straightforward as the SNP claim to be. The Spanish government might be hesitant, if only because recognising Scottish membership might be misinterpreted as giving the green light to the separatists in Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque country and the other disparate regions which are drifting away from the centrifugal pull of Madrid. As you would probably know better, it just takes a nay from any single country to throw a wrench into the membership process. With regards to what constitutes a Scotsman, you challenged me to identify anything you have said in which the definition of a Scotsman is one who is sympathetic to independence-minded aspirations. However, you have stated many times before that overseas Scotsmen should be politically disenfranchised in any referendum on the question of independence. This is because they would be presumably more inclined to vote for independence and you find it unacceptable. However, this does not take away the fact that they are still Scotsmen through and through. To me, whether one is a Scotsman, an Englishman, a Welshman or an Irishman can all purely be a state of mind. JK Rowling makes an excellent example: born in England, she considers herself Scottish now and is rightfully regarded as one. What about overseas Scotsmen and women who still consider themselves to be the sons and daughters of Alba? Is it democratic to deny them the right to vote on their country's future? Not everyone packs up their bags and move out of the country for good. Many are just expatriates who are temporarily working overseas because of a myriad of reasons. These overseas Scots are probably less insular and more worldly minded. They are probably more able to see the bigger picture instead of the petty internecine strifes happening at home. Ambitious Scotsmen would much prefer to remain part of the Union: Scotland as part of the UK can punch above her weight in the world. She gets to sit in the UN Security Council by proxy as a permanent member due to her British legal identity. In contrast, what would an independent sovereign Scotland be? She would definitely not have an army save for a few Highland regiments such as the famed Atholl Highlanders. She definitely would have little political clout on the world stage. As an outsider, I think the premise of a Scottish independence is underpinned by romance and an unrealistic belief that going it alone is a panacea to all their woes. The UK is not a despotic government that rules all the home countries by fiat. In contrast, it is a benign and democratic government that listens to its people. But if certain sections of its electorate continue to insist on cutting its nose to spite its face, there is nothing much Her Majesty's Government can do. I think that it is an irony that you, as someone whose is committed to a form of quasi-communism, is advocating so ardently for the concept of an old-fashioned nation-state. Isn't the whole concept about socialism/communism being one of expressing solidarity with the fellow proletariat regardless of his nationality? You cringe at the sight of the Union Jack but wholeheartedly embrace the Flag of St Andrew, itself a relic of the old nation-state. You would probably be caught stealing from a poor box than to be found standing at attention to the national anthem, but I reckon you would probably have to demonstrate a competent knowledge of the future Scottish anthem in order to become a Scottish national. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I think both our definitions of a civilisation can both carry water in entirely similar and dissimilar situations. But I am speaking of civilisation here as a standard bearer of values.
Yes, America has made quite a mess out of her reputation in the Arab world in recent years. To be fair, this process did not start with the current President, but much earlier. To me, it probably does not matter if the White House is controlled by a Republican or a Democrat; the influential Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill would still have its voice heard loudly and clearly. Herein lies the impotence of any decision that seems to have the backing of America: its unquestioned loyalty to Israel and its perceived prejudice towards all of Israel's neighbours. Now, I am largely pro-Israel and I cannot muster any sympathy within me for her enemies. I think that America has been right to give unconditional support to Israel over the years, the only stronghold of democracy in an otherwise undemocratic neighbourhood. However, she has to pay a price for this policy and that is a loss of any credibility with the Arabs. Hence, the fact that Mr Blair's appointment has the backing of President Bush is itself a bad sign. I much rather wish the President had been more discreet about it when it comes to pulling strings. But I suppose it must be a very american thing to do: the willingness to claim credit where credit is due. However, I think that your kneejerk opposition to any american-sponsored political plan to be slightly distasteful. I think good ideas can come out from Washington. We should always be open to all suggestions instead of automatically dismissing any idea that has been tarred with the american smear. Indeed, your strident opposition to Bush and Blair makes me wonder if your opprobrium is reasonably justified. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I've seen that article before. I do accept that some negotiation would need to take place before Scotland became a fully-fledged EU member state.
The SNP are simply repeating what they were told by the Secretary General of the European Commission.
Precisely. If anything, I imagine that the EU would be more worried that Scotland might turn around and say 'no thanks' and follow Norway's example. Keyword: oil.
I assume you mean that they would presumably be less inclined to vote for independence. I've never actually given much though to what the political views of Scottish-born people currently living outwith Scotland might generally be. But I agree with Liz here — de facto outsiders should not be given such a large influence over the future of Scotland. And in the case of Scotland, it really would be a huge influence. Not to mention the fact that I cannot imagine how the Scottish Executive would be able to hold a referendum in which 'expatriate Scots' could vote. My understanding was that referendums are generally voted in by the electorate who voted for the government that holds them; it is not possible to vote in the Scottish Parliament election unless you actually live in Scotland. And who would be defined as an 'expatriate Scot'? Anyone born in Scotland who now lives elsewhere? Anyone who has lived in Scotland at any time? Anyone who sees themself as Scottish for any reason?
Really? Would you say that Scotland currently has more global influence than Denmark? Or that Bavaria has more global influence than the Netherlands? Or that Texas has more global influence than Australia? There is also the argument that it is not desirable for a small country of 5 million people to have a large amount of global influence anyway. It would be rather unfair on the rest of the world if it did.
Very similar to Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc.
Green politics emphasise decentralisation of power such that matters are controlled by the people who are most affected by them. However, I do believe that certain things should be decided on a global scale — issues concerning human rights and the environment, for example. Most relatively mainstream 'proper left-wing' political parties support Scottish independence. However, this might not have been the case if the British government hadn't been so right-wing, neo-liberal and neo-conservative for the past 28 years. (This is arguably the real reason for why there are so many people in Scotland who support independence).
If you mean Flower of Scotland, then I know it already: O Flower of Scotland, When will we see Your like again, That fought and died for Your wee bit Hill and Glen, And stood against him, Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward Tae think again. The hills are bare now, And Autumn leaves Lie think and still, O'er land that is lost now, That those so dearly held That stood against him, Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward Tae think again. Those days are past now, And in the past They must remain, But we can still rise now And be the nation again That stood against him, Proud Edward's Army, And sent him homeward Tae think again. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Agree. The US has clearly lost the war on minds. The war for hearts is unwinnable. See Vietnam.
You mean you can't muster any sympathy for the entire Arab world ?
Israel is no beacon of democracy. It's behaving like an occupation force in Palestine and like a destuction force in Lebanon. It's doing its best to prevent Palestinians from their most elementary right : get a State for the miserable crumbs not yet stolen by Israel.
This is not the price the Arabs will get. The price they'll demand will be of the very sort the Pieds-Noirs paid 45 years ago in Algeria : la valise ou le cercueil. The loss of credibility is only the price paid by Israel to the rest of the world.
Sorry but the US foreign policy in the Middle East has been totally predictible, incredibly primitive and poorly conducted by big mouths with no results to exhibit except continuous worsening and loads of half-measures, bald-faced lies and a dreadful series of perjuries. You don't expect me to send flowers, do you ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
It's not hard people. All this pro-Israel vs. pro-Arab crap is a bunch of bologna. It's all about drugs and oil. Afghanistan is entirely about the opium trade (which the CIA dominates and controls and uses to its benefit), and the construction of vital Central Asian pipelines. The primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was oil as well. The CIA is currently working on destablizing the Saudi regime, as it can't overtly topple the regime in a mass invasion, because of close political connections between American elites, Wall Street, and the Saudi royal family, who have massive investments in American financial interests.
The U.S. has turned the Central Asian republics into a de-facto American protectorate, bulding permanent, large military bases and stationing troops all along the routes of crucial pipelines. France, Germany, and Russia opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq because of their own vested financial interests in the country. Iraq was in the process of switching its oil reserve cash to the Euro, and Franco-German and Russian investments would be lost in the event of a U.S.-U.K. controlled Iraq. Because of the conquest of Iraq, the U.S. and U.K. together now control another 11% of the world's oil reserves. Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy, and the world's elites are doing everything in their power to prevent the transition to alternative sources of energy, while paying lip-service to such green endeavors. Whoever control's the world's oil controls the world. That is why U.S. foriegn policy officials are so obsessed with controlling the Middle East and gaining access to their oil. All other energy alternatives thus far presented are not economical, and any transition from petroleum to another form of energy would be a long, painful process, leaving millions upon millions of people unemployed, millions starving, and at least 20 years of severe recession. The elites who rule America are driven to maintain the status quo with regard to energy for two reasons: 1. - Most of these elites are either from or have close connections to the Oil and/or Defense industry and would therefore in the interests of self-preservation, do everything in their power to protect their product. 2. - So long as oil remains the chief source of energy for the world's population and the U.S. controls it, the U.S. alone will remain the world's sole, permanent, and unchallenged superpower, despite the fact that China and India will have far larger economies and populations in the near future. If the U.S. controls oil, it can decide who has access to the oil, and it would certainly not allow its main rivals or competitors to have its oil, thereby strangling their economies and effectively eliminating any chance of challenging U.S. supremacy. And mark this down. Regardless of who controls the British parliament, the U.K. will always adopt a friendly stance toward the U.S. Rhetoric from current British politicians might lead many to believe otherwise, but in the long run, the U.K. will always side with the U.S. over the EU in foreign affairs. The same interests which control American government likewise control Britain, and the two countries share mutal interests. For all intensive purposes, the U.K. is a mere satelite of the U.S. I find it to be a rather funny coincedence that in the wake of the recent departure of Blair and the arrival of the new PM, a string of terror attacks have ravaged the U.K. Terrorism serves to frighten a citizenry, and spurs people to patriotism, nationalism, and support of aggressive foreign policy, thereby allowing politicians to get away with inconcievale acts of agression such as the invasion of Iraq. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Greg:
When I was younger and did not completely understand the situation, I was very sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians. In fact, I still sympathise with the ordinary victims who are made to suffer the vagaries of Israeli occupation. However, I also deeply sympathise with the ordinary Israelis who have been threatened with extinction since their tenuous founding in 1948. The right to exist for Israel is an inalienable and an unalterable one. The failure to recognise this right on the part of the Palestinians resulted in their long interminable hardship and suffering. When someone shoots himself in his foot, who do we blame? You are surely jesting when you scoff at Israel's democratic credentials. Free and democratic elections are a constant staple of local politics. The Knesset also represents the local Arabic community and they are not persecuted, contrary to media misrepresentations. Nobody can deny that the Israeli-Arabs are sometimes regarded with suspicion and opprobrium by their Jewish neighbours. However, the freedom that they enjoy is still a source of envy for their Arabic-speaking compatriots in the region. This brings us to the new role of Mr Blair as the Middle East peace envoy. One of the arguments mooted in his favour was his allegedly good working relationship between both the Israeli and the Fatah-led leadership in Palestine. That can only be his real source of strength, though. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Porthos:
I inveigh against the over-simplification or 'dumbing down' of what is happening in the Middle East. I regard any CIA sponsored conspiracies with a healthy dose of scepticism. I look askance at any theory which proposes that the premise of american foreign policy is founded upon oil. Probe a bit further and you'd find gaping loopholes. If Iraqi oil is now under the jurisdiction of America, directly or indirectly, you should be happy. Petrol would continue to be a very affordable commodity for you and your children. However, it is instead more likely that the price of petrol would continue to spiral upwards in a trend that is not likely to slaken off for the foreseeable future. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Not everyone is motivated primarily by such vested self-interests. This sort of attitude seems comparable to when some rich people support lower taxes simply because they want to keep more money for themselves. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Then a inquiry needs to be conducted: why is someone who should have known better been caught spouting nonsense?
You conveniently forgot to mention my concerns. Would the ordinary man on the street care about something as dull as oil when he is voting for or against Scotland's membership? I said that as it is, France is already constitutionally required to hold a referendum whenever new countries are admitted into the club. Besides, the entry of any new member would bring forth a completely different set of problems. Maybe Poland might take advantage of this opportunity to press for more concessions before agreeing to Scottish entry, who knows?
Yes to the first; yes to the second; yes to the third. 1st Question: We can all name famous Scotsmen who had wielded global influence by virtue of being a British subject; the most influential Danish, on the other hand, would probably have to be the Shakespearean Hamlet. 2nd Question: Bavaria was the birthplace of national socialism and served as an incubator for many of the nascent Nazi ideas that were later unleashed upon the world. Of course, Bavaria also has many notable and positive accomplishments in its own right, but the point I am making here is that this southern German state, through its association with Germany, has left a deeper imprint on the world than the Netherlands. 3rd Question: Need I mention who is currently a resident of the White House?
Did you just score an own goal? Are you tacitly admitting that Scotland, by virtue of being part of the Union, wields a disproportionately large amount of global influence?
All of them have their own armed forces. Swedish armaments are also world renowned to be of high calibre. In contrast, Scotland would not be able to lift a finger to defend herself.
I still find 'green politics' a very woolly idea. What exactly is the ambit of decentralised power? Should the Outer Hebrides then also vote for independence as they would presumably chafe at being ruled from 'faraway Holyrood'? After all, this isolated region would presumably form a distinct community with separate local interests. Why should they then not clamour for independence as well? Scottish aspirations for independence would have been noble and maybe even a little romantic if they are not so rabidly anglophobic. I once read disturbing reports about a football fan in Scotland wearing the flag of St George and who was roughed up by the local mobs for having the temerity to do so. To me, that's not cricket. It's not a very gentlemanly thing to do. Even the English cheer lustily for the Scottish-born Andrew Murray at Wimbledon. I don't think England-born Tim Henman can expect a similarly rousing reception north of the border. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Sometimes, I think the tax rate is too high, not just for the rich but for everyone. But this is an entirely different kettle of fish. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Probably not.
Which I think is absolutely outrageous. But seriously, I can't imagine why many people in France would vote against it. Of course, this is all assuming that an independent Scotland would actually want to join the EU — or whatever the EU is by the time Scotland is independent (which will almost certainly be another 10 years at the very least, and probably twice as long if not more). There may need to be a referendum on this subject, and although the SNP might be strongly pro-EU, not all of the Scottish electorate necessarily are.
I don't know, and I don't really care either. My support for Scottish independence is not motivated by the desire to increase or decrease Scotland's global influence.
Why not? Too impoverished? Too stupid? (The essence behind many of Labour's unionist scare tactics). This seems to go against your claim that Scotland presently has a lot of global influence.
They can if they want. Greens are usually sympathetic to most 'separatist' movements. In the European Parliament, there is a coalition between the European Green Party and the European Free Alliance — which includes parties such as the SNP. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
Are you blind, man? 6 out of 7 CIA directors all came from Wall Street backgrounds. The predecessor of the CIA, the "Office of Strategic Services" (OSS) was headquartered on Wall Street! Where do most ex-CIA executives go upon retirement from the agency? Wall Street! As for the current White House administration, look at the key players, and tell me their main focus isn't oil. Condoleeza Rice, former executive and Central Asian expert with Chevron. Dick Cheney, former chariman of Halliburton. Bush himself, with family ties to the Carlyle group and the oil industry. The list goes on and on. How many "coincedences" does it take to rouse you out of your stupor? I'm not anti-Capitalist, or a supporter of socialism or anything of that sort, but what I cannot do, is ignore obvious facts. Take the veil off your eyes and see for yourself. You can't be so gullible as to believe that those who control the White House are benevolent figures, looking out for the best interests of the American people, and incapable of crime. You see it that way. I look deeper, and I see a bunch of politicians, notorious for being crooked, who have to answer to campaign donors and big-business interests, as well as powerful-lobby groups. Money talks, and bullshit walks. That's the way this world is, and it's no different in the upper echelons of government.
There's no if in that above sentence. American companies have confiscated Iraqi oil, and they own it, yes. This is a fact. In some cases, because of agreements with the Iraqis, U.S. and Iraqi companies share joint ventures in some of Iraq's oil, usually with the American companies controlling 60+%. But by and large, American oil companies are now in control of Iraqi oil.
Not true at all. We have about 20-25 years before we run out of petroleum. In the meantime, U.S. energy giants are still going to sell their oil on the global market, and as long as China and India's booming economies continue to go through the roof, world demand will continue to to skyrocket, and in the absence of new discoveries and increased supply, prices will inevitably continue to rise for American and global consumers alike. Government support of the seizure of oil in sovereign lands isn't for the purpose of benefiting the everyday American citizen. It's about lining the pockets of the major corporations. American consumers won't realize any benefits until we reach peak oil stage. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
(Sorry, I meant to respond to this before). One shouldn't confuse this sort of behaviour and attitude with support for Scottish independence. Although it might seem reasonable (especially to an outsider) that those Scottish people with anti-English attitudes would be pro-independence, this really is not necessarily the case at all. On a sort-of related note, I'll also point out that people living in deprived areas of Glasgow (where violence of any sort is most common, be it anti-English or otherwise) largely don't vote SNP. Rather, the SNP's core support is found in the Northeast, and has recently extended such that it's now the main party in Tayside, Fife, the areas in and around Stirling and Perth, and also in the Highlands. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
This I agree with. Higher tax rates do not necessarily go hand in hand with higher tax revenues. The taxation of capital and the taxation of entrepreneurship (i.e. - upper-income tax brackets which disproportionately affect small business owners) hampers economic growth. When the economy grows and more jobs are created, everyone benefits, not just the rich. Of course, this could result in lop-sided growth that increases the rich-poor gap, with the rich benefiting the most, but that does not mean that the poor don't benefit as well. I advocate the elimination of the capital gains and dividend taxes, as they disrupt the capitalist system and the free market's allocation of resources. I think income taxes are at a reasonable level in this country as they are right now. But eliminate the taxation of investment and you will see a marked increase in economic growth, and thus higher tax revenues from the taxation of income, which would cancel out any of the losses reaped from the elimination of the taxation of capital. I'm somewhat of a libertarian leaning individual, who also supports socialized healthcare. Go figure.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Essentially like the Conservative Party (and New Labour?) in Britain then. And actually, I think you'd probably be to the right of most Scottish Conservatives. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
It's quite the opposite for me. Although I was shocked by the brutality and violence endured by the Palestinians, I used to be inclined to view Israel favourably. I no longer am. I even think a two-Sate approach is no solution to the problem. This is why I suscribe to the dissolution of Israel and its replacement by the State of Palestine without that either future ex-Israelis (including Arabs) or Palestinians (to the lesser meaning of that word → Gazaouis, Cisjordanians & the Palestinian diaspora) be forced to leave their homes. There is no other solution.
No. Israel's accession to Statehood was largely fortuitous and based on spoliation and terrorism. What is more, unconditional pro-Israel support by successive Western powers has led to gradual confiscation of Palestinian rights and lands up to such a point that Israel is now behaving as a declared outlaw (despite all the usual propaganda).
Palestine is a dismantled, occupied country. You can't ask the victim the "recognise" the "right" of the invader.
Free and democratic elections for whom ? For the citizens of Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians, who still are nowhere's subcitizens ?
The local Arabic community, as you put it, is just the tiny fraction of the Palestinian population allowed to reside in the areas of former Palestine that are known as Israel. But where has the rest gone ? Why don't the Israeli parliament want to represent them too ? Isn't massive, forced exile a barbaric form of persecution ?
Yep, like the Amerindians in the US. You are free, but your people and your country isn't there anymore. Strange freedom.
I think what the region least needs is another Brit to make things worse. Le mandat britannique a laissé une saveur acide en Palestine. L'idée de laisser Blair s'occuper un tant soit peu de cette région est une forfaiture sans nom. Quant à Blair, son aveuglement et sa folle vanité en font un pitoyable personnage. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Josh Lalonde |
Greg, I agree with you 95% (approximately). I also find the two-state solution lacking, even though it's essentially the only serious proposal around these days. The biggest problem with the two-state model is that Palestine would basically just be the leftovers from Israel, not to mention the logistics problems of running a country divided into two non-contiguous sections. The ideal solution for me would be a single state without any basis in Jewish, Arab, or Muslim culture/religion: call it Mediterranea, say. The Palestinean refugees in neighbouring countries would be allowed to return, and then the right of return would be cancelled and immigration would preceed as usual with no preference for ethnicity or religion. Of course, this state would be overwhelmingly Arab and/or Muslim, and would therefore never happen. Where I differ from you Greg, is that I think the two-state solution is the only way to achieve peace in the short term. Peace is a prerequisite for justice and freedom, in my opinion. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||