Watching the Eurovision song contest last night - a rather sad but strangely compulsive thing to do on a Saturday evening - a thought crossed my mind about Scotland. Would an independent Scotland vote for the English (or would we still be called British ?) in the contest ?
The rules seem to be that small countries vote for other small countries, you vote for a traditional ally and you support a neighbour provided she is not an old enemy. ( The song is pretty irrelevant, of course. Britain could put up Adele and she would lose). The British and Irish tend to swap support despite our violent history of relations, so what about Scotland ?
It is a serious question in a way, because it would be an indication of Scotland becoming a mature, self confident nation if it could bring itself to vote for the 'auld enemy'. Scotland will certainly not thrive if it retains its traditional inferiority complex with regards to the English.It is a grown up nation in many ways, it just needs to act like one. Come to think of it, attacking football managers on sectarian grounds should stop, now that is an indication of stroppy adolescence.
One thing is for certain. the English would vote for the Scots. So I look forward to watching Lulu (yes, she is Scottish) representing Scotland in the 2017 contest, when she will be about 70 - and voting for her.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Friday, 13 May 2011
A new monarchy
Listening to Nicola Sturgeon the other day on the subject of Scottish independence set me thinking again about the future of the monarchy. I was surprised to hear her say that, despite their aspiration for independence, the SNP would recommend that a sovereign Scotland would retain the British Crown. At first sight this seems impossible - to submit oneself to the head of state of a separate country while becoming independent oneself. But a little thought changed my mind and caused me to think about the future of the monarchy in a UK context.
The key issue concerns prerogative powers. As long as the Crown retains these arbitrary powers there can be no truly independent Scotland and there can be no British, codified, entrenched constitution. But what about (as I think Ms Sturgeon is suggesting) maintaining a monarchy without prerogative powers. We would, of course, have to replace them with a codified set of powers to be exercised by a combination of parliament and the prime minister, but at least we would free ourselves from the absurdity of the fiction that the Queen is on any political relevance. In this way we can have it all - a real, modern constitution, but without the complications of a political head of state (i.e. an elected president, who might be someone like Boris Johnson, God help us). Furthermore the 'mystery and majesty' of the monarchy would be retained, much to the advantage of the balance of payments as well as British prestige.
I am all for Scottish independnce if the Scots vote for it and if it means we can re-position the monarchy to the place where it belongs - firmly on the prow of the ship as merely a figurehead.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
The key issue concerns prerogative powers. As long as the Crown retains these arbitrary powers there can be no truly independent Scotland and there can be no British, codified, entrenched constitution. But what about (as I think Ms Sturgeon is suggesting) maintaining a monarchy without prerogative powers. We would, of course, have to replace them with a codified set of powers to be exercised by a combination of parliament and the prime minister, but at least we would free ourselves from the absurdity of the fiction that the Queen is on any political relevance. In this way we can have it all - a real, modern constitution, but without the complications of a political head of state (i.e. an elected president, who might be someone like Boris Johnson, God help us). Furthermore the 'mystery and majesty' of the monarchy would be retained, much to the advantage of the balance of payments as well as British prestige.
I am all for Scottish independnce if the Scots vote for it and if it means we can re-position the monarchy to the place where it belongs - firmly on the prow of the ship as merely a figurehead.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
super-injunctions
Nobody seems to be suggesting that a way out of this excrutiatingly difficult issue is to allow newspapers or other media to have a private hearing with a senior judge to determine whether publication is 'in the public interest'. If they fail to get such a ruling, they leave themselves open to an action by the subject of the story. If they get the ruling, they can declare it. Just an idea.....
The real problem here is, of course, that most people now 'think' they know who all these people are because of common gossip. But how can we distinguish between truth and fiction. The Jemima Khan issue is an example, as she understandably claims that false stories are circulating about her. Other stories about well known people are, on the other hand, clearly true. We can never be sure of the difference between the flowers and the weeds in the Internet garden.
On a lighter note the premier league footballer who everybody now knows has a super injunction has been in the form of his life. A good advertisement for extra marital activity or perhaps just publicity, good or bad ?
The real problem here is, of course, that most people now 'think' they know who all these people are because of common gossip. But how can we distinguish between truth and fiction. The Jemima Khan issue is an example, as she understandably claims that false stories are circulating about her. Other stories about well known people are, on the other hand, clearly true. We can never be sure of the difference between the flowers and the weeds in the Internet garden.
On a lighter note the premier league footballer who everybody now knows has a super injunction has been in the form of his life. A good advertisement for extra marital activity or perhaps just publicity, good or bad ?
Monday, 9 May 2011
NHS and the Lib Dems
OK, so it looks as though Huhne won’t resign, so my prediction was wrong. The thing is, he should have done. That would have sent a much stronger message than a post election disaster wringing of hands. The Liberal Democrats’ sudden discovery of a backbone may look just a tad suspicious but I am not sure whether people will see through it.
The strange circumstance of a government consulting after a policy is announced instead of during its development., as is the case with the NHS reforms, has been shown to be mightily flawed. But why were the Liberal Democrats at the back of the queue when it came to voicing opposition ? They were beaten to it by the BMA, the nursing unions and now stand just behind the Royal College of General Practitioners. I suppose the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are part of the government or the opposition, albeit an internal opposition.
But all the politics is really secondary to the fears we must now have for the NHS. The now dead reforms were partly designed to reduce NHS spending without threatening front line services. Deprived of this vehicle for expenditure cuts, the NHS is now vulnerable to more traditional ways of reducing spending - the reduction in so-called ‘non-essential’ services. We have seen in the past what that can mean. The same is true in education and policing. It really never happens that a proper differentiation is made between what matters to people and what doesn’t when it comes to cuts. Liberal Democrats must, therefore, double their vigilance. Come to think of it, the idea of permanent internal opposition is a attractive one. Have the Lib Dems got the necessary gumption ? No sign of it yet.
Now Scotland is another matter....... more to come.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
The strange circumstance of a government consulting after a policy is announced instead of during its development., as is the case with the NHS reforms, has been shown to be mightily flawed. But why were the Liberal Democrats at the back of the queue when it came to voicing opposition ? They were beaten to it by the BMA, the nursing unions and now stand just behind the Royal College of General Practitioners. I suppose the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are part of the government or the opposition, albeit an internal opposition.
But all the politics is really secondary to the fears we must now have for the NHS. The now dead reforms were partly designed to reduce NHS spending without threatening front line services. Deprived of this vehicle for expenditure cuts, the NHS is now vulnerable to more traditional ways of reducing spending - the reduction in so-called ‘non-essential’ services. We have seen in the past what that can mean. The same is true in education and policing. It really never happens that a proper differentiation is made between what matters to people and what doesn’t when it comes to cuts. Liberal Democrats must, therefore, double their vigilance. Come to think of it, the idea of permanent internal opposition is a attractive one. Have the Lib Dems got the necessary gumption ? No sign of it yet.
Now Scotland is another matter....... more to come.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
Thursday, 5 May 2011
Chris Huhne
On the morning of the referendum, local and devolved elections, a prediction that a No vote plus a Lib Dem meltdown will lead to Huhne's resignation and after that....Lord knows.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
FPTP is actually the most complex system
A bit late in the debate but it occurred to me that first past the post is actually the most complicated of the various electoral systems. This may seem odd, but hear me out.
All the systems - AV, FPTP and proportional systems are easy to use as a voter. The problem is the thought that is needed. Voting under AV or PR requires little extra thought - you make your choice or choices. Under FPTP, however, most votes are unikely to count because it is a safe seat or the voter supports a party that must lose. So you have all these thoughts to contend with. Shall I bother ? If I do bother what gives me the best chance of affecting the outcome, voting for my first choice or voting tactically. That's not easy.
Despite what has been said there are virtually no tactics involved in AV. Just make your first choice, then your second and a third if it takes your fancy. What can be difficult ?
Too late though. Its a No tomorrow. Blame the coalition for that, I think, not the system.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
All the systems - AV, FPTP and proportional systems are easy to use as a voter. The problem is the thought that is needed. Voting under AV or PR requires little extra thought - you make your choice or choices. Under FPTP, however, most votes are unikely to count because it is a safe seat or the voter supports a party that must lose. So you have all these thoughts to contend with. Shall I bother ? If I do bother what gives me the best chance of affecting the outcome, voting for my first choice or voting tactically. That's not easy.
Despite what has been said there are virtually no tactics involved in AV. Just make your first choice, then your second and a third if it takes your fancy. What can be difficult ?
Too late though. Its a No tomorrow. Blame the coalition for that, I think, not the system.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
Sunday, 1 May 2011
After the wedding
As the dust settles after the royal wedding, perhaps a good time to reflect again on the Monarchy. It occurred to me that it is time to deconstruct the issue, especially after such a ‘successful’ and certainly happy occasion. Reports that Kate and William are ‘different’ seem to be true, but we should not let that cloud our judgment.
The case for the economy is clear – British Monarchy plc certainly turns in a healthy surplus. We could retain the institution for that reason alone. If we worry about their wealth and opulence, I think we can find more worthy targets for our ire in the City, the Premier League and corporate Britain generally. But the other questions are less clear :
Does the Monarchy have any political significance ? If it does, it should certainly be either removed or significantly reformed. We cannot allow an unelected, unaccountable, uncontrolled institution to influence.
Does it have constitutional significance ? The answer is very much yes because the prime minister’s prerogative powers derive from the arbitrary powers of the Monarch which stretch back through history. So the question is should we retain this uncodified, and therefore flexible set of prime ministerial powers or do we need a codified constitution. This raises a supplementary issue – is it realistic to have a codified, entrenched constitution and retain the Monarchy ?
Would an elected head of state be preferable ? This is a tough issue. The Monarchy does allow us to have a titular head of state with no political relevance. An elected ‘president’ brings politics into that role. This means we would have either meaningless figures, probably ex politicians, or would we have intensely political individuals with the concurrent dangerous consequences.
But really the key question seems to be – does the Monarchy have a positive influence on the collective psyche of the Nation. Is it a binding force ? Does it promote a multicultural society ? Does it foster a strong sense of civic pride ? This raises another question : if we need such an outdated institution to maintain national unity, what does that say about us as a Nation ?
No answers, but hopefully some clarity about the questions.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
The case for the economy is clear – British Monarchy plc certainly turns in a healthy surplus. We could retain the institution for that reason alone. If we worry about their wealth and opulence, I think we can find more worthy targets for our ire in the City, the Premier League and corporate Britain generally. But the other questions are less clear :
Does the Monarchy have any political significance ? If it does, it should certainly be either removed or significantly reformed. We cannot allow an unelected, unaccountable, uncontrolled institution to influence.
Does it have constitutional significance ? The answer is very much yes because the prime minister’s prerogative powers derive from the arbitrary powers of the Monarch which stretch back through history. So the question is should we retain this uncodified, and therefore flexible set of prime ministerial powers or do we need a codified constitution. This raises a supplementary issue – is it realistic to have a codified, entrenched constitution and retain the Monarchy ?
Would an elected head of state be preferable ? This is a tough issue. The Monarchy does allow us to have a titular head of state with no political relevance. An elected ‘president’ brings politics into that role. This means we would have either meaningless figures, probably ex politicians, or would we have intensely political individuals with the concurrent dangerous consequences.
But really the key question seems to be – does the Monarchy have a positive influence on the collective psyche of the Nation. Is it a binding force ? Does it promote a multicultural society ? Does it foster a strong sense of civic pride ? This raises another question : if we need such an outdated institution to maintain national unity, what does that say about us as a Nation ?
No answers, but hopefully some clarity about the questions.
http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)