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? _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
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:
I wasn't comparing apples with pears. You were castigating Mr Blair and I thought it was grossly unfair.
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.
loic wrote:
I think credit should be given where it is due and I am not ashamed to sound the gong when it is wholly appropriate.
I don't see why you should be ashamed...
loic wrote:
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.
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.
loic wrote:
I have also criticised him although it was far from a damning verdict.
My criticism of him might have been a bit of deprecation, albeit by no means a damning verdict.
loic wrote:
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.
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.
loic wrote:
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.
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...
loic wrote:
Who would you have nominated instead? Jacques Chirac?
Quite honestly, how does he come into the picture? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Last edited by Liz on Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:53 pm; edited 3 times in total
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.
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.
Liz wrote:
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.
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.
Liz wrote:
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?
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.
greg wrote:
Will he convert to Labour one day ?
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:
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'
That's true. However, it's still more advantageous for the English to have Scottish unionists than Scottish separatists, I presume.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry...my mistake! Thanks for enlightening me on that.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
Is he a man? With the name "Ruth"...?
Opus Dei...? A religious fanatic in the government? Quite nice. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
That was my assumption, too. Gordon Brown has already made an attempt to crush the exuberant spirits of Scottish nationalists through emotional blackmail. He isn't ashamed to make an oblique reference to their alleged English relatives whenever he feels a need for it.
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.
Liz wrote:
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.
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.
Liz wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
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.
Is he a man? With the name "Ruth"...?
Opus Dei...? A religious fanatic in the government? Quite nice.
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...
Benjamin wrote:
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?
Politician talk!
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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...
Benjamin wrote:
This is all part of the 'who is Scottish' question, which will undoubtedly become more of an issue if/when independence becomes a reality.
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).
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
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.
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...
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.
Liz wrote:
So you have to wait for a while...It'll take donkey's years, I reckon...
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.
Liz wrote:
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).
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.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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.
Liz wrote:
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?
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
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.
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.
Benjamin wrote:
All I can say is that it's very obvious to me that it will happen eventually.
When and how?
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
Oh, the odium of democracy...
Point taken. My mistake.
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
All I can say is that it's very obvious to me that it will happen eventually.
When and how?
I've no idea. But I simply cannot imagine the UK in its current form lasting forever. We will see.
Liz wrote:
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.
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?
Liz wrote:
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.
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.
But I simply cannot imagine the UK in its current form lasting forever. We will see.
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...
Benjamin wrote:
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.
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? _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
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? _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
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. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
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. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
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.
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 répčte, la religion de Blair est au mieux une hypocrisie de petit-bourgeois.
loic wrote:
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.
Yep, but he wouldn't lend his modulation to serve US slanted propaganda in the Middle East. That's a difference between Chirac & Blair.
loic wrote:
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.
Ha ha. Non, il fait exactement ce qu'il fallait faire : frapper lŕ oů ça fait mal. Sinon ça n'aurait servi ŕ rien. L'États-unien lambda a 3 ans de retard sur l'Iraq. Le monde ne l'attendra pas pour se faire une opinion.
loic wrote:
Honestly, I think Mr Blair is a poor candidate.
Nous sommes d'accord. Son cas est aggravé par sa pseudo-candidature ŕ la présidence de l'UE. Blair est pitoyable : il me fait penser ŕ un toxico en manque.
loic wrote:
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.
C'est exactement ce qui va se produire. Les chiens ne font pas des chats. La posture de la troďka Bush, Blair & Olmert dans la crise du Moyen-Orient est ultracaricaturale et complčtement 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 déjŕ plus... Quelle folie !
It seems to me that your definition of "Scottishness" is one who is inclined to vote for independence.
No. When did I say that?
loic wrote:
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.
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.
loic wrote:
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 process would take a long time, yes. It's more of a long-term aim for me anyway.
loic wrote:
The North Sea oil is not a panacea to any economic woes now that the world is rapidly moving towards alternative sources of energy.
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.
loic wrote:
It is wishful thinking to imagine that economic prosperity would automatically accompany fully-fledged sovereignty.
Not immediately. But I think that it would be for the best in the long term.
loic wrote:
an exodus of Unionist-minded Scotsmen south of the border as they worry about the direction which the country would take.
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.
loic wrote:
How many Scotsmen are there already working in London and the other major financial centres throughout the length and the breadth of the land?
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.
loic wrote:
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?
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.
loic wrote:
In short, your definition of a Scotsman is arbitrary and faintly despotic.
What is my definition of a Scottish person? (Sorry, but 'Scotsman' makes me cringe since we're not just talking about men here).
loic wrote:
What happened to the venerable notions of jus solis and jus sanguinis?
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.
loic wrote:
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.
Of course. But Alex Salmond isn't stupid either. Neither is Robin Harper, the parliamentary leader of the Scottish Green Party.
loic wrote:
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.
Emile Noęl, 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.'
(Admittedly, Emile Noęl 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).
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:
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. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Last edited by Loic on Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
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.
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.
Quote:
Yep, but he wouldn't lend his modulation to serve US slanted propaganda in the Middle East. That's a difference between Chirac & Blair.
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. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
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:
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.
loic wrote:
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.
The SNP are simply repeating what they were told by the Secretary General of the European Commission.
loic wrote:
Of course, nobody doubts that an independent Scotland would eventually become a fully-fledged member.
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.
loic wrote:
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.
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?
loic wrote:
Scotland as part of the UK can punch above her weight in the world.
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.
loic wrote:
In contrast, what would an independent sovereign Scotland be?
Very similar to Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland etc.
loic wrote:
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?
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).
loic wrote:
but I reckon you would probably have to demonstrate a competent knowledge of the future Scottish anthem in order to become a Scottish national.
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.
(...) its [the US'] unquestioned loyalty to Israel and its perceived prejudice towards all of Israel's neighbours.
Agree. The US has clearly lost the war on minds. The war for hearts is unwinnable. See Vietnam.
loic wrote:
Now, I am largely pro-Israel and I cannot muster any sympathy within me for her enemies.
You mean you can't muster any sympathy for the entire Arab world ?
loic wrote:
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.
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.
loic wrote:
However, she has to pay a price for this policy and that is a loss of any credibility with the Arabs.
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.
loic wrote:
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.
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 ?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
(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.
